Physical violence

There is nothing so smarmily condescending as the ~30+ UMC American white woman who thinks she knows everything and can sit in judgement over the entire universe and demand that everyone else change their behavior to meet her standards. It doesn’t matter what other people’s circumstances are: SHE KNOWS BEST. The standards of her class are the standards by which she will judge absolutely everything. And because UMC American white women are quite possibly the world’s most pampered, safe individuals, anything that smacks of physical altercation is OMG EVIL and must be stamped out.

Never mind that physically fighting is a big part of other types of people’s cultures – I mean, just look at shonen anime to see how it ideally works with boys: they get into a fight, beat the crap outta each other, and then become friends. Never mind that standing up against actual evil – such as bullies – will often require the use of physical force. Never mind that the UMC American white woman has no problem with outsourcing her use of violence to government agencies like the police and the Department of Education SWAT teams.

The whole “spanking vs. actual abuse” debate is just another example of these insular, provincial women imposing their cultural values upon everyone else. Is spanking right for every child? Of course not. Every child is an individual. Is spanking always the most effective form of discipline for a child? Also, of course not. Once a child can actually be reasoned with, and has developed longer-term time preferences, the removal of certain privileges can be far more effective punishment than a spanking.

Whenever this kind of debate springs up, you tend to get two kinds of adult responses from the “had been spanked” cohort: “my parents spanked me and I needed it,” or “my parents spanked me and I’m scarred for life.” I suspect you will find that the two groups are distinguishable by more than spanking – that the first category had what we might consider “good” parents, and the second cohort contains all the families affected by DV and personality disorders. People with mental illness/personality disorders/etc. should never use corporal punishment, because they “do it wrong.” People raised by parents with personality disorders are to be supported in refusing to use corporal punishment in the same way that an alcoholic’s family is to be commended for going teetotaler. If you think you can’t do it correctly, then yes, you shouldn’t use physical discipline on your children.

I can actually speak from experience on this one, because I come from a family where my mother had some low-grade issues (Chocolate made her crazy. As in, literal domestic violence crazy. Dad forbade her from eating it, and we grew up with carob instead.) and my father was The Disciplinarian whose return home was an omen of impending doom every time I misbehaved. So yes, I personally know the difference between receiving a disciplinary spanking and receiving a beating from an angry parent, because as a child I experienced both – though thankfully my father quickly put a stop to it and took over all corporal punishment duties while my mother used “go to your room” time outs paired with “I’m going to tell your father!” to keep me in line. (And I was not one of your sweet little girl children, let me tell you!) And those spankings were always paired with the devastating Talk beforehand; it wasn’t long before the spanking was useless compared to The You Have Disappointed Me Talk.

Which can have just as devastating results when used incorrectly.

Now, there’s another type of argument that gets brought up: the parents of the physical discipline school vs. the non-physical discipline school. Each of these camps can point to their own children and say, “Look, my method works!” However, I think we need to take these claims with a grain of salt. How many stories do teachers tell of problem children who are Special Snowflakes who can do no wrong to their parents? Yeah, self-reporting one’s kids’ status in this debate is not something we can take at face value. The caricature:

Mother: “I never tell little Johnny ‘no’, I always reason with him!”

Everyone Else: “Yeah, we can tell. He’s a spoiled brat. Please stop inflicting your rotten spawn upon the unsuspecting public.”

So I think there needs to be a bit more corroboration on these self-reported successes of various disciplinary methods. But of course, it’s quite difficult to figure out how to conduct a proper study! First off, any family with abusers would have to be cut out from the sample (because abuse is not discipline) – but how is this going to be done when one side considers a slap to the wrist or a spanking “abuse” by definition? You can’t design a valid study with that kind of assumption baked in at the beginning. And then you’d of course have to control for socio-economic status, but then you get into the long time preference vs. short time preference dichotomy – children with longer time preferences are going to respond better to nonphysical privilege-revoking discipline because they quickly figure out that a brief spanking is a tiny price to pay for doing whatever it is that they wanted to do anyway. (Heh heh.) And when physical discipline is the norm for lower socio-economic classes, how are you going to find enough “nonspanking” families to make a sizable enough sample for comparison? So yes, beware the statistics. Lies, damn lies, and junk “science” abound on cultural/political hotbutton issues like this one.

As for this NFL guy? I don’t care. Let the courts examine the evidence and mete out appropriate punishment; I despise the witch-hunt crowd going after his employment. How is rendering Dad unemployed going to help his son? It’s not, but it sure does make the Social Justice Whiners and the sanctimonious white women feel good about themselves.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Two kinds of feminists

There are two kinds of feminists: the crazy ones, and the ignorant ones.

The crazy ones include women who are literally insane (“Intercourse is always rape!” aka “I fail mammalian biology forever!”) and women who are rabid Marxists. I’m not entirely sure that the latter category isn’t 100% overlapping with the former, but I’m willing to postulate the existence of feminists who are merely evil power-mongers, not actually insane. The kind of high-functioning sociopaths who use mentally ill and/or emotionally damaged women for their own nefarious purposes, that kind of thing.

Then there are the ignorant ones. These include the useful idiots (“Feminism is a fight for equal rights!!!”), the brainwashed (“I’m a feminist because the herd is feminist, and not declaring myself a feminist would cause me to be shunned as an unperson for doubleplus ungood badthink. I parrot everything my feminist teachers taught me with absolute certainty that it’s the Gospel truth.”), and the morons who think that anything after first-wave “feminism,” i.e. the suffragettes, can actually be made into a humanist crusade for equal rights (“I’m a conservative feminist.”).

If you’d like to learn more about crazy Marxist feminists, go read Stacy McCain’s excellent research, linked above, and buy the book when it comes out – I’m certainly planning to. What follows, rather than being the result of scholarly journalistic investigation (in the original sense of both adjectives), is merely the result of my own observations.

The “useful idiot” class of ignorant feminists might actually be able to learn the truth about feminism and come to discover that what they mean by “feminist” does not actually represent what the leaders of feminism actually mean by “feminist.” These people, once educated, would stop describing themselves as feminists and choose a more accurate label, like “libertarian.”

The brainwashed ignorant feminists are more-or-less a lost cause unless they migrate to a social circle not infested by feminism. Challenging them as to facts is useless; they believe what they believe, gosh darn it, and no pesky facts are ever going to shake their faith in woman’s natural goodness or the inherent evil of The White Male Patriarchy. And it always is the white male patriarchy with this class, because they simultaneously ignore all the actually oppressive patriarchies that are committing horrific crimes against women every day in places filled with “minorities.” But they’ll be willing to crucify Ray Rice, because as a rich black man in America he should know better than to transgress white bourgeois culture. Their ability to hold mutually contradictory ideas like these at the same time is characteristic of this class. Logic is not their strong suit; it’s more like garlic to a vampire. Basically, they think whatever is fashionable to think at the time, no matter what it is. Put them in a different circumstance, and like a chameleon, they’ll change to match.

There is a certain class of moron, however, that can face part of the truth of feminism – that they’re mere tools of Democrat politicians, or that the deck is stacked in favor of vicious women and against fathers – and bury her head in the sand and refuse to look evil in the face and call it out for what it is. These are the people who see what happens in the bailey, but cling desperately to the motte’s sheltering walls rather than face the truth. Given that “what happens in the bailey” resembles the worship ceremonies of the ancient Aztecs minus the publicity, I’m not real impressed with this kind of person. WTF, ladies? It’s okay to not be a self-identified feminist! You can even post selfies (or text) explaining why you don’t need feminism on the internet and your life will not end!

This distinction between the two types of feminists makes life difficult, as well, because someone who self-identifies as a feminist might be merely a deluded person of honestly good intentions, instead of literally Voldemort. Therefore I propose a way to identify these people of good will whose personal belief systems do not actually line up with official feminism: “lapsed feminists.” Kind of like how people will self-identify as “Christian” or “Catholic” etc. and yet not actually observe the rituals of the belief system, lapsed feminists still identify as feminists but, upon closer examination of their beliefs, do not actually qualify as female supremacists demanding that women simultaneously be granted all possible privileges in life while suffering none of the consequences of their chosen behavior. In this manner, those of us who are not feminists can identify people who are not literally Voldemort and therefore might be amenable to sweet reason.

But don’t link them to my blog, because my reason definitely doesn’t come in “sweet” and I’m really, really bad at getting along with airheaded females. I’m more likely to want to say something like, “Oh, you’re a feminist? Which kind, evil or stupid? Although I guess you could always be both!” (I’m working on it, I’m working on it… NOT proud to be a bitch. Could mainstream culture stop promoting Cluster B behaviors in women, kthxbye?)

I await with eagerness the day in which “feminist” is properly understood to be synonymous with “Marxist lesbian.” That’s what they teach in college Womyn’s Studies classes, after all.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment

The Modern Witch-hunt

After getting into an “interesting” debate on Facebook with someone from college – “interesting” in that it was yet another example of the Internet Arguing Checklist from a rabid liberal. I expected nothing less, actually, but I wished to engage merely for the encouragement of the silent and to give myself practice in dealing with these types of people. Because of privacy concerns I’m not going to quote from that specific incident, but rather I wish to use it as a stepping-stone to a broader topic: I’m sick of the witch hunts and the social media mobs, and I want to examine them a bit and explain why they’re so toxic.

Parallels to past behavior

I’ve called it “the modern witch-hunt” because witch-hunting calls to mind a hysterical village mob burning women at the stake. Obviously the murderous intent has not boiled over into actually murdering the witch-hunt victim (yet) but the modern version certainly has its own share of people who make death threats or threaten violence against the target. The term “witch hunt” may also bring to mind miscarriage of justice, as in the Salem witch trials, but although the Zimmerman episode is an example of a modern witch-hunt, the mob successfully managing to pervert the justice system to their will is not a necessary feature of a witch hunt.

Features of the witch hunt

A witch hunt is a form of mob mentality that propagates over the internet’s social media platforms. Sometimes there is an element of anonymity, but people also join in under their real names or handles associated with their real identities, secure in the knowledge that they are “one with the crowd” of likeminded people reinforcing each other’s opinions. What characterizes a member of the mob rather than a mere commentator is that a member of the mob is primarily emotional and angry about something rather than controlling their emotional response with reason.

Because witch hunts take place over the internet, and don’t involve large groups of people physically occupying the same space, riots don’t automatically break out whenever there is a witch-hunt. This is a blessing in that riots involve a lot of violence and property damage, but a media-inflamed witch hunt can act as the inspiration for riots. In the case of the Ferguson riots, it seems that the social-media-driven frenzy resulted in people from outside Ferguson congregating there, and using the cover of nonviolent protests in order to whip up a violent mob. The witch-hunters in this case weren’t personally involved in the rioting, but would outsiders have traveled to Ferguson in order to start rioting if there weren’t a firestorm of media outrage? Evidence points to “no” – there are many, many shootings that kill young black males and don’t result in media-fueled rioting. However, the specter of violence hangs over each instance of witch-hunting and forms one of the witch-hunt’s most effective weapons: give us what we want, or violence comes next!

A witch hunt is not the same as universal condemnation. Criticism of someone who’s made a mistake (criminal or non-criminal) can help create favorable conditions for a witch hunt to take place, but such criticism is necessary for society. What happens in a witch hunt is that the specific details of what happened are disregarded in favor of an archtypical narrative: the racist white man kills the peaceful black teenager (Zimmerman, Ferguson). The angry man lashes out at his helpless girlfriend (Ray Rice). The sexist pig and the homophobe oppress women and homosexuals (Larry Summers, Brendan Eich). In each case, what the “witch” actually did and the details of what actually happened were secondary to the narrative – a narrative which is at best a gross oversimplification of the situation and at worst, utterly false.

The reason I responded to my FB acquaintance’s post on the Ray Rice domestic violence situation was because she exemplified this very bait-and-switch: rather than evaluating the situation as it actually happened, she substituted her own narrative – the narrative of the psychopath’s abused girlfriend, in which a controlling man has gotten his victim so psychologically wrapped around his little finger that the woman suffers from Stockholm syndrome. The point I wanted to make to her was that her own interpretation of the situation, as an outsider who sees only what is reported by social media, should be secondary to both the actual facts (do such psychologically abused women offer physical violence to their abusers, or is that more likely to be a sign of the much more common “relationship between two aggressive people with poor anger management skills”?) and the testimony of the woman in question. However, the narrative of the abused woman is so strong in the minds of the witch-hunters that no evidence is sufficient to sway their opinion, and anyone who dares to disagree about this one incident (even while agreeing that any domestic violence is bad, and Stockholming one’s partner is the mark of an evil psychopath) is grounds for vicious verbal abuse. Disagree with the mob and the mob will turn on you.

They key here is that all opposing information is resolutely ignored. The witch-hunter will absolutely refuse to address any element of the situation that contradicts the narrative, as if it does not exist. In the face of someone bringing up these counter-narrative facts, the witch hunter will consistently dismiss, disqualify, and then turn to personal attack against the one disagreeing with the narrative. (The irony of a white woman literally dismissing the words of a black woman – replacing the black woman’s own testimony with her own projected imagination of the black woman’s inner life – never occurs to the witch hunter.) There is absolutely no way to get through to someone committed to this hear-only-evil, see-only-evil, speak-vicious-abuse mindset: they have an answer ready to dismiss any evidence at all. “That’s just what an abused woman would say.” There’s no reasoning with this: that’s also what a non-abused woman would say. A reasonable person would turn to the evidence and evaluate what the evidence can and cannot support – but the witch hunter clings exclusively to the narrative, disregarding any weak or opposing evidence.

The witch hunter always jumps to a conclusion based primarily upon their own narrative rather than on the actual evidence.

Vengeance, not justice

Mobs are notorious for disproportionate response, and for disregarding the law. A witch hunt will often arise because the mob thinks that the law “let off” or will “let off” their victim, rather than appropriately punishing wrongdoing. However, rather than focusing their ire on a corrupt justice system, the mob will attempt to dispense “justice” by destroying the livelihood of the victim. In a day and age of large corporations desperate for good PR, the witch hunt has settled on bringing pressure to bear upon employers as their favored tactic for destroying their target. Making death threats or assaulting the target will result in law enforcement getting involved; the days of men in white sheets burning crosses on front lawns are (thankfully) over, but vigilante “justice” is still alive and kicking.

This tactic is perfect for the witch hunt, because witch hunting regularly occurs over cultural rather than legal conflict, and corporations are often willing to fire people who dare to make controversial stands in an attempt to appease the mob. Even corporations that don’t blacklist and fire the witch hunt’s target will change their behavior in order to try to avoid such controversy and negative reporting. Interestingly enough, this happens even in the case of a witch hunt backfiring – Chick-Fil-A made a lot of money after being the target of a witch-hunt and didn’t fire anyone, but they certainly did drop all the controversial sponsorships and promise to stay out of “political” issues.

Damage to society

Witch hunts are damaging to more than their targets; who’d want to live in a place known for vicious mobs even under a guarantee that you’d never yourself be the target of one? Witch hunts release restraints upon violence and promote the demonization of their targets. Stripped of their humanity, the object of a witch hunt is fair game for vile insults, threats of violence and death, and every kind of discrimination that would otherwise be considered blatantly immoral. Anyone who stands in the way of a witch hunt – even if that person is the victim in the witch hunt narrative, on whose behalf the hunt ostensibly is agitating – is themselves stripped of their humanity and reduced to a caricature, a mere character in the witch hunt’s morality play. Step outside that assigned role, and the mob will ignore you – and ignore any collateral damage that they’re imposing on others.

Such a witch hunt is especially pernicious in that it attempts to replace the rule of law with rule by mob – in the case of actual criminal wrongdoing, rather than focusing energy on fixing the mechanisms of the justice system, the witch hunt does an end run around them and imposes its own trial, condemnation, and punishment. What is particularly chilling about the modern witch-hunt is its tribal nature – harking back to the days of the blood feud. Witch hunts are bad enough in nearly homogeneous communities like Salem, where upstanding citizens were condemned and murdered under color of law just for expressing skepticism of the witch-hunters’ claims, and calls for careful weighing of evidence were ignored. In a multicultural society already under strain, witch hunts can only exacerbate racial and cultural tensions and provide excuses for racially-motivated violence. Witch hunts substitute an “us vs them” mindset that excludes the careful judgement necessary for a nation of laws to function.


Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Mind Your Own Business

A lot has been made in the news lately about some football player named Ray Rice and a video recording of he and his then-fiancee getting into a fight, the end of which was a “punch” that knocked her out (and then he proceeded to NOT fawn all over her unconscious body, but then, I kind of expect jocks to be jerks).

Actual people who know how to fight and have been KO’ed this way before themselves have pointed out that that “punch” was a defensive move, not an aggressive one. However, the Feminist Privilege folks are all up in arms over how this is Violence Against Women instead of what it really was: a typical two-way domestic that got out of hand months ago. Since Janay married Ray anyhow, instead of going immediately on the talk show circuit talking about how this huge football player ABUSED HER!!!! we can assume that the two of them resolved whatever argument they were having to their own private satisfactions.

Of course, now it’s not private anymore, because somebody thought that it would be a good idea to smear a couple of people having a (pretty bad) moment all over the internet, and the feminists, in their Marxist obsession over treating people as faceless members of oppressed classes instead of real human beings with agency and feelings of their own, have run with it. Despite the fact that this merely “re-victimizes” Janay all over again. But in my cynical heart of hearts, I think causing Janay pain is the point of all this publicity – it’s not like famous people have a real good track record when it comes to nasty behavior after all – and it’s not primarily to punish Ray, although that’s the means through which they pursue their ends.

No, the end goal of this persecution of the Rice couple is intimidation. To intimidate other men so that they know for sure that defending themselves in a violent argument with their significant others is absolutely unacceptable; do you think they’d be any less outraged if he’d grabbed her and pinned her while she screeched and struggled? Nope, we’d be seeing and hearing the same DOMESTIC ABUSE!!!! narrative under any circumstance but the hypothetical in which a large, aggressive athlete does anything but stand there (or cower in the elevator’s corner) and let her slap, hit, punch, and scratch him. And you know who else is being intimidated? Women who have alpha boyfriends/husbands. This is the subtle message: if you stand by your man when The Feminist Sisterhood has decided to condemn him, we’re going to fake-sympathize with your “plight” while we drag you through emotional hell and ruin him. So all you other girlfriends of successful men out there, get the message: unless you want to catch hell from us, you’d better toe the line and be the one to squeal first.

Of course, Hilary is still a feminist darling, but that’s because feminists are total whores for men with political power. Hell, you can get drunk, crash your car, and leave your girlfriend to die (instead of merely unconscious in a hallway) and still be defended by feminists as long as you have political power.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , | 2 Comments

Silent Skies

Today isn’t much different than any other day of the year; I wonder how long it will be, if ever, before September 11th is properly memorialized. There are many good ruminations on this solemn anniversary; I won’t be adding much to them.

This war has been going on, in one way or another, since before the United States ever existed. “Secular” tyrannies in the Middle East come and go – but Islam as the motivating force and justification of evil remains. The “religion of peace” desires not the prosperous peace of the civilized; but rather the peace of the slave, broken to humiliation, and the peace of the graves of the martyrs who refused to convert to the worship of Allah. No, not even that: don’t the Muslims themselves go to war against their brothers, Shia against Sunni? So much for “peace.”

Remember 9/11, the towers and the Pentagon. Remember the heroes of Flight 93; remember Benghazi and the bloody fingerprints on the wall. And remember how they celebrated in their streets as our people died.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Real vs Valid

I wandered about the links from this Insty post discussing the emotions of men who go through the culturally-approved motions and develop the culturally-approved attitudes and yet don’t end up with the promised reward (a girlfriend who appreciates him for Who He Is). This is the male mirror of this kind of woman, who also did everything her culture told her was The Right Thing To Do and yet didn’t end up with the promised reward (an attractive boyfriend). Of course, in the case of the woman, all she had to do was easily discard The Rules she grew up with, and because women have social power, she got what she wanted.

Our culture is more than a little screwed up about sex right now.

But there’s a lot of people talking about that and you can go read those links, so what I’m going to proceed to talk about is this post of the Star Slate Codex (never heard of it before, but I think I shall spend some time exploring) which points out the intrinsic hypocrisy of the social justice warriorwhiner crowd, which uses highfalutin’ ideals as cover for naked power-grabbing. This is why I have developed a severe allergy to social justice warriorswhiners, to the extent that I would like to deport them all to a place like Venezuela or Cambodia, where they can live short, brutal, ugly lives with others of their kind – unrealistic utopians.

This also reminds me of a link seen on Facebook – Y U No Believe In My Victimhood?! As you can see with my creative reinterpretation of the article title, whatever valid point this woman has to make is buried under her own solipsism (a cop pulled you over While Driving A Red Car and you were scared by the mean cops? And you think that’s an example of racism?!) and failure to actually bring up any real-world examples of a black person Doing Everything Right and yet still being Held Down By The Racist White Man. Or even any statistics that show how people with “traditional” black names get hired less by white-owned companies, or something. (Has anyone ever done the equivalent test with black-owned companies? Asian-owned companies? Hispanic-owned companies? Because I would be willing to bet that human tribalism exists in all cases.) The constant whining has poisoned the well. I feel bad for black people who have to suffer unearned prejudice on an individual level, but on a group level? Zero sympathy for abstract group whining.

So: real vs valid? I freely acknowledge that the feelbad – fear, anxiety – of minorities really does exist. Especially in the black community, where they tell each other all the time about how racist and mean and out-to-get-us those white people are. When you’re priming yourself to feel antagonistic and fearful towards The Other, particularly an Other that outnumbers you and has a tendency of giving you shiny handouts for voting a certain way while ignoring all your actual problems, why yeeeeeeees, you’re going to feel afraid any time some big ole meanieface comes along and doesn’t use exquisite manners and deference in your presence.

That doesn’t mean that your emotions are valid responses to reality, though. That’s the thing about emotional states – they are very real, but not always valid. For instance, arachnophobia is real, but being deathly afraid of a tiny jumping spider is not a valid response to seeing one. (You have my permission to scream and kill it anyway, if it makes you feel better, though. Spiders aren’t people, and they’re not allowed where I can see them in my house, either.)

So here’s the thing: if you want to effectively fight the feelbad, making blanket statements using SJW intra-tribal signaling keywords is not the way to do it. Shut up about privilege and labeling “feeling uncomfortable” as evidence of racism, and only bring up racism when you see actual evidence of someone who (a) knows that you personally are not a threat and (b) treats you like scum anyway. NAME NAMES. BE SPECIFIC. Otherwise you’re a whiner. A pair of cops come up to you with their hands on their guns during a routine traffic stop, and you feel scared? That’s a perfectly valid emotional response to that situation, but not because of racism! Making it about racism just waters down “racism” to “anything negative that happens to a black person” – but here’s the thing, life is full of frustrations and not everyone is always going to like you! (And a lot of cops are bullies.) In addition, there’s a high likelihood that you’re going to be treated suspiciously by The Other if your tribe has a reputation for flipping out and assaulting people, and that’s just on top of the usual surly everyone-hates-everyone-else attitude that’s fairly common in densely populated areas. Feel free to complain about this all you like, but don’t take those complaints out in public and start telling white people to change how they act when you’ve got members of your tribe assaulting and gang-shooting, etc. each other and the occasional random unlucky Others on a daily basis. 

A part of this, the honest useful-idiot part, is a plea to please acknowledge my difficulties. That’s still whining, because other people have difficulties too, but it’s not deportation-to-Cambodia-here’s-your-glasses level of stupid. What is hypocritical and anger-inspiring is the “privileged” attitude that says a black person’s feelings are more important than a white person’s feelings, simply because black people are a minority in this part of the world. Those cops with hands on their guns? Maybe they went out on a DV call last night and nearly got assaulted by some chick who looks a lot like you – like the spider, they’re afraid of you just as you’re afraid of them. Their emotional response to you is just as real as your emotional response to them. 

But of course, it’s oh so much safer to criticize white people for “having privilege” and being insensitive to the feeeeelings of minorities than black thugs for being criminals and giving the black community a much worse rap than, say, the Asian community, despite all the fear mongering tales about how evil white people are. White people rarely aggressively attack black people for criticizing them; nobody can say the same for the bad actors in the black community. Far more comfortable to criticize the civilized, who will listen to you, than to clean up the barbarians in your midst – especially when the barbarians have lots of friends with knives and guns and Really Big Fists and social cover for being “authentic,” and you don’t have any of those things. Just don’t expect me to give you any respect whatsoever if you think you have a right to criticize somebody else’s tribe when you turn a blind eye to the much bigger problems in your own – problems that have only gotten worse even as actual institutional racism has been made illegal to the point where even the appearance of institutional racism (“disparate impact”) is a good way to get slammed with huge legal judgments.

If you have specific things to complain about, like how government crony regulation hurts your community’s opportunity to build your own businesses in the ‘hood and how some particular person is an Evil Racist, by all means, bring that up and let’s work to fix it. But don’t go on about systemic-this and subtle-that and “institutional racism” (in the day and age of affirmative action and minority-only set-asides!) as if some kind of nebulous white disapproval of dark-colored skin is responsible for every setback black people have ever faced in life.

P.S. Feel free to take this entire diatribe and apply it equally to the man-blaming feminists, as well. Although in their case I would like to deport them to someplace like Iran. Because I am Not A Nice Person.

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment


An interesting Insty link about how ridiculous it is for feminists to whine about how cooking family meals is Oppression!

Everyone does it and has been doing it since man first tamed fire. It’s not a hardship any more than any other aspect of life. You might as well write an essay on how difficult it is to get out of bed in the morning, or do the laundry, or mow the lawn, or keep track of the bills, or do a thousand other things that people do every day. Cleaning toilets is a real bummer, you know, so maybe that’s tyranny, too.

Yeah, cooking is an effort, and cooking actual healthy meals is even more of an effort – just like all the other parts of life.

I really need to level up my skills on the whole meal-planning thing. Side dishes are my current bane. I’ve got the mowing the lawn and the laundry part down pat, though!

Just don’t ask me about the vacuuming…

Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged | Leave a comment