With liberals, the first casualty is always the truth

Media Matters for America describes itself:

Media Matters for America is a Web-based, not-for-profit, 501(c)(3) progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.

Launched in May 2004, Media Matters for America put in place, for the first time, the means to systematically monitor a cross section of print, broadcast, cable, radio, and Internet media outlets for conservative misinformation – news or commentary that is not accurate, reliable, or credible and that forwards the conservative agenda – every day, in real time.

Using the website mediamatters.org as the principal vehicle for disseminating research and information, Media Matters posts rapid-response items as well as longer research and analytic reports documenting conservative misinformation throughout the media. Additionally, Media Matters works daily to notify activists, journalists, pundits, and the general public about instances of misinformation, providing them with the resources to rebut false claims and to take direct action against offending media institutions.

Now, from that self-description, one would think that Media Matters was primarily interested in the truth, in accuracy in journalism, and in getting things right. Well, if one thought that, he would be wrong:

CNN Has No Excuse For Continuing To Call Chelsea Manning A Man

Blog ››› ››› CARLOS MAZA

Major news organizations have honored Chelsea Manning’s – formerly known as Bradley Manning – explicit request to be identified as a woman, but CNN continues to make excuses for misgendering Manning in its news coverage.

On August 22, Manning – who will soon begin serving a prison sentence for leaking classified documents to WikiLeaks – announced in a statement to NBC that she wishes to be identified as a woman and go by the name Chelsea, stating:

As I transition into this next phase of my life, I want everyone to know the real me. I am Chelsea Manning. I am a female. Given the way that I feel, and have felt since childhood, I want to begin hormone therapy as soon as possible. I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).

Following Manning’s announcement, many news organizations struggled with deciding how to identify Manning in their reporting. Some outlets, like Slate and Mother Jones, quickly honored Manning’s request and began referring to her as a female. Others, like The New York Times and the Associated Press, were reluctant at first but did agree to stop misgendering her, stating that they had been “persuaded” by arguments in favor of correctly identifying Manning.

CNN, however, has continued to refer to Manning by the name Bradley and use male pronouns.

During the August 22 edition of The Lead with Jake Tapper, Tapper explained that CNN will continue to refer to Manning as a male because “he has not yet legally changed his name.” Moments later, he spoke with Lauren McNamara – who he identified as “a transgender” – about Manning’s request for hormone therapy while in prison:

More at the link.

Perhaps CNN is referring to Bradley Manning as Bradley Manning because that is his real name. Perhaps CNN is referring to Mr Manning as male — we would agree here that he isn’t actually a man — because he is male. If you do a physical examination on Mr Manning, as the Army did when he enlisted, you will find that he has male sexual organs. If you do a genetic test on Mr Manning, you would find that he has the XY chromosomes which make animals male, and not the XX chromosome pair which makes animals, including humans, female. If you look at all of Mr Manning’s life experiences, how other people interacted with him, it was with him being a male. Mr Manning might self-identify as a female, he might imagine how life would be for him if he really was a female, and might really, really wish that he was female, but he simply is not. Even if he undergoes hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery, he will still not be female; he would be a castrate male with an artificial vagina and fake breasts.

The author, Carlos Maza, himself a homosexual male, continued:

CNN’s “policy” on identifying transgender people contradicts the guidelines set forth by the Gay and Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) and the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association (NLGJA), which both state that transgender people should be referred to by their preferred name and gender identity, regardless of the presence of a legal name change or gender reassignment surgery.

In other words, Mr Maza believes that CNN should ignore actual facts to follow a policy advocated by two biased interest groups.

Mr Maza went further to say that CNN’s policy is unfairly applied “because CNN doesn’t require proof of a legal name change before referring to celebrities like Lady Gaga and Vanilla Ice.” The fallacy of that argument is obvious: Lady Gaga and thousands of other performers achieved their fame while using a stage name; Mr Manning’s notoriety was achieved under the name Bradley Manning, and to misidentify him as a woman name Chelsea would be to not only misinform but also confuse viewers.

The American left did a good job in co-opting for themselves the self-appointed moniker of “the reality-based community.” Well, reality is that Mr Manning is a male, period. Apparently “reality” doesn’t mean the same thing to the left as it does to sensible people. With the left, truth is always the first casualty.

67 Comments

  1. “Facts and logic that contradict their arguments are dismissed as somehow tainted because they don’t come from reliable (i.e., leftist) sources, whereas any specimen of counter-factual lunacy is acceptable to them, so long as it supports their anti-social worldview. There is therefore no point in trying to reason with such fools.”
    Robert Stacey Stacy McCain, May 4

  2. Mr Manning might self-identify as a female, he might imagine how life would be for him if he really was a female, and might really, really wish that he was female, but he simply is not. Even if he undergoes hormone therapy and sexual reassignment surgery, he will still not be female; he would be a castrate male with an artificial vagina and fake breasts.

    Mr. Manning might self-identify as an alien, an intellectual, a “liberal”, a fair-minded person, an open minded person or even (God forbid) a person of good character. But as a sexually screwed-up leftist he would be wrong on all accounts.

    His latest raving of being a woman named “Chelsea” is just more proof of how mentally fucked up leftists are. There’s really something wrong with these people, their enablers, and those who think like them. Leftism is truly a mental and now even a sexual disease. Or perhaps it’s the quintessential social disease.

  3. “Apparently “reality” doesn’t mean the same thing to the left as it does to sensible people. “

    It, reality to a modern liberal, means whatever urges well up within the floating locus of appetite they think of as themselves.

    You will recall Perry’s gyrations, and obfuscations during that lengthy debate we had over the nature of reality and the claims of science to the status of objective fact.

    You will also recall how in an attempt to buttress his subjectivism he falsified a quote (non authoritative at that) on scientific objectivity, which he then refused to cite or attribute, lest, obviously, the original text be discovered, and himself exposed as a deceiver.

    I guess he forgot that entire phrases could be copied and entered into a search window by anyone willing to take the very slight trouble.

    He never did admit where he got the text he manipulated, even though it was obvious for all to see.

    That was deliberate deceit, compounded. You are as well rid of his particular participation as society would be of the participation of progressive liars in general.

    Reality for a postmodernist, is a grunt and a belch.

  4. It’s fun watching you people – you have to hide the racism pretty far (ropelight and “usurper” for example), you try to sweep up the sexism a little, but since you think it’s still open season on trannies, you wallow in transphobia like a dog rolling around in shit.

    And just like a dog rolling in shit, you think it makes you more attractive when all it does is repulse onlookers.

  5. Why, no, Don – why would I want to stone you people, when pointing and laughing at your crapitude might better get the point across?

    I mean, you whine and moan enough about being “martyrs” already – I see no point in giving you any validation for your persecution fantasies.

  6. There is a simple solution to this naming “Controversy”, and that is this: Bradley Manning becomes “Chelsea” Manning the minute the dick comes off and not a second before.

  7. but since you think it’s still open season on trannies, you wallow in transphobia like a dog rolling around in shit.

    And we should care about your left wing claptrap, why, exactly?

  8. Why, no, Don – why would I want to stone you people, when pointing and laughing at your crapitude might better get the point across?

    No, actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous, such as whether the press should call this thing by its “Boy” name or its “Girl” name.

    Or, as Monty Python put it in the Lumberjack Song:

    I’m a lumberjack and I’m okay,
    I work all night and I sleep all day,
    I wear high heels, lipstick, suspenders and a bra,
    I wish I’d been a girlie just like my dear Mama!
    *

    * PS It’s been a few years since I saw that show, so I’m sure I got some of the words out of order, but you get the general idea …

  9. No, actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous, such as whether the press should call this thing by its “Boy” name or its “Girl” name.

    How very dehumanising of you. Manning isn’t a person to you; she’s a thing.

    We’ve seen that before, with a German accent. You keep trying to look sane and reasonable, but you can’t help giving your true selves away, Eric.

    [Edited to fix formatting error; no changes made to content. -- Editor]

  10. The Phoenician wrote:

    since you think it’s still open season on trannies, you wallow in transphobia like a dog rolling around in shit.

    Perhaps you can tell us just what part of what I wrote was false or inaccurate.

    As it happens, I am a Vulcan, and I have known that I am Vulcan since childhood. The fact that I have red blood and rounded ears are simply accidents which mask my true identity, and I demand that the government pay for the plastic surgery to put points on my ears and some sort of dye to change my blood to its natural, green color. You should address me as Sokar, son of Stonn.

    Now, you might think that’s stupid, but it’s logically indistinguishable from Bradley Manning’s claims. And if I were to get that plastic surgery and green blood dye, would I really be a Vulcan, or would I be a human who had undergone plastic surgery and some sort of chemical change?

  11. Eric gets it wrong:

    No, actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous, such as whether the press should call this thing by its “Boy” name or its “Girl” name.

    It isn’t the left’s “hypersensitivity,” but their cold calculation of changing the language to drive deviancy down, to define disorder as somehow normal. They know very well what they are doing.

  12. It’s actually humorous that these manipulative moonbats get the weak minded among them to refer to Manning as “she” fully knowing he’s a he. They lie to themselves and believe themselves noble for doing so. Manning was born a male and no matter what he removes or adds, no matter how many hormones he takes and no matter how much make-up he wears he’ll remain a male. To deny this simple fact, this simple truth is to be either weak of mind or a liar. Manning may succeed in becoming a “it” but he will NEVER become a she.

    BTW, Don Quixote’s stone is not a stone. I declare it to be a potato and demand it be referred to as such! I hope So’kar agrees.

  13. Media Matters:

    Following Manning’s announcement, many news organizations struggled with deciding how to identify Manning in their reporting. Some outlets, like Slate and Mother Jones, quickly honored Manning’s request and began referring to her as a female. Others, like The New York Times and the Associated Press, were reluctant at first but did agree to stop misgendering her, stating that they had been “persuaded” by arguments in favor of correctly identifying Manning.

    So Media Matters, Slate and Mother Jones are liars and deceivers. And since AP and NYT were “persuaded” to lie about the sex of Manning they too become liars. I don’t know how a supposed news organization can be persuaded to refer to a man as anything else but a man. These people are so shallow, so easily manipulated and so stupid it’s beyond words. Manning is a man! If they refer to him as a “she” they are lying to their readers and lose all credibility.

    I’ve decided I’m an African-American. Anyone who disagrees with me from this point on is a racist. I’ve always believed myself to be an A-A and deep inside an A-A wants to “come out”.

  14. Well, Hoagie, I guess you can be an African-American. There’s probably no law against it unless you apply for some special privilege reserved exclusively for persons of color. If it turns out you’re exploiting your AA identity for personal gain, that is you’re attempting to unfairly circumvent government procedures for limiting the successful participation of white males in the social, political, and economic life of our nation, then you’ll have to revert back to your original racial classification.

    However, for the time being, you’re allowed to wear loose shoes and eat up more than your share of chicken.

  15. It isn’t the left’s “hypersensitivity,” but their cold calculation of changing the language to drive deviancy down, to define disorder as somehow normal. They know very well what they are doing.

    Well, there’s that, plus the fact that Manning’s little stunt is distracting us from the far more relevant fact that it has just been convicted of a very serious crime. So, instead of addressing that, every left wing media outlet on the planet is wringing their hands over what to call the thing.

  16. I’ve decided I’m an African-American. Anyone who disagrees with me from this point on is a racist. I’ve always believed myself to be an A-A and deep inside an A-A wants to “come out”.

    Hey, Fauxahontas pulled a similar stunt at Harvard and actually got away with it!

  17. Ropelight wrote:

    If it turns out you’re exploiting your AA identity for personal gain,

    And for what other reason but “for personal gain” would one even mention his identity? Now, a leftist would mention the identity of another to either demean, ridicule, devalue or exploit them. But that would only be in the case of say, a white person (read “racist”), a straight (or homophobic) person, a Christian (see previous and add TeaPartier) etc., etc.. See, leftists exploit blacks, Hispanics and gays for votes but they also exploit whites for tax money. So they are equal opportunity exploiters.

    And Manning is still a male ( thanks for fix’n that Mr. Editor.) And a royally screwed up one at that. And anyone who refers to him as “she” is a liar. He’s not a she.

  18. Btw ropelight, the mere mention that I may use my chosen race to my own gain is, in itself, RACIST! If Manning can choose his gender, I can choose my race! And the Editor can be a Vulcan! And if you don’t like it, you’re an anti-Vulkite!

  19. And Manning is still a male ( thanks for fix’n that Mr. Editor.) And a royally screwed up one at that. And anyone who refers to him as “she” is a liar. He’s not a she.

    And I still say the traitorous little rat is pulling this stunt as a distraction. Instead of the press investigating his actions or why the Army let a low level malcontent near so much classified information, they are now sympathizing with “his plight”, the poor dear, trapped in the wrong body, and so on. It’s the classic bait and switch, the magician making you watch one hand while he does his trick with the other.

  20. Eric says:
    Thursday, 29 August 2013 at 11:06

    How very dehumanising of you. Manning isn’t a person to you; she’s a thing.

    Oh, spare us your phony indignation, Pho.”

    It’s always a crack-up to hear these clowns trembling in righteous indignation over some supposedly dehumanizing slight one of their kind has received; when, they have themselves ideologically reduced humankind to the status of bags of appetite, and happily done so.

    They cackle to each other over the rubes’ supposedly ignorant imagining that humans are imbued with a kind of special spirit goo, bray at the concept of intrinsic meaning or purposes, reduce consciousness to an epiphenomenon, reason to an instrumental faculty, humans to elements of a social production machine, life to loci of appetitition, and then start huffing when the label soulless bag of appetite is picked up where they have left it, and laughingly applied to their own heads.

    These meat machines really are hyper-sensitive, given their own conception of what they themselves are.

  21. Oh Eric for sure he’s a traitorous little rat and this is a stunt. But the stunt is to get him a book deal, special accommodations and special privileges and has nothing to do with the Army. It’s ALL about him. Next he’ll declare himself a moslem and demand halal meals and a burka…at our expense.

  22. As a fellow AA, I have just emailed my “solidarity” with Sen. Scot Walker for I too was not invited to the speeches yesterday. I also insist on being called a “colored person” in the spirit of the civil rights Giant, the NAACP. When they change the name to the NAAAAP, then you may refer to me as AA.

  23. How very dehumanising of you. Manning isn’t a person to you; she’s a thing.

    Only in the mind of a demented leftist could calling a man male a male be “dehumanizing”. I assume then that referring to Manning as “she” and supporting his demented psychosis, perversion and false self perception is somehow “humanizing” him? How is it humanizing to encourage an obviously sick and troubled person to self mutilate with castration, emasculation and slapping a pair of plastic boobs on himself?

  24. Hoagie, you keep referring to Bradley Manning (great name for a US soldier) as if he was still a member of the masculine gender, and you know full well that since he’s decided to self-identify as something he’s obviously not, he can’t be a real man, if he ever was one, nor is he a woman.

    He’s not even in transition, which means he’s not even an it, he can’t afford the price of an operation, and he’ll be locked away in the clink for quite a while. So, Manning’s not a man or a woman, nor is he on the road from one gender to another. He’s a traitor to his country, a convicted criminal, an inmate, a target for exploitation, a fool, and an attention seeking pissy little pervert who’s got plenty of time on his hands to think about what a great job he’s done screwing himself.

  25. who’s got plenty of time on his hands to think about what a great job he’s done screwing himself.

    Well ropleight, if he gets his wish and keeps the parts he’ll be able to do just that.

  26. Eric wrote:

    And I still say the traitorous little rat is pulling this stunt as a distraction. Instead of the press investigating his actions or why the Army let a low level malcontent near so much classified information, they are now sympathizing with “his plight”, the poor dear, trapped in the wrong body, and so on. It’s the classic bait and switch, the magician making you watch one hand while he does his trick with the other.

    Saying that you want to be castrated and that you want to be called Chelsea just as you are entering the penitentiary strikes me as more than a stunt or a distraction; it strikes me as volunteering to lead a very rough life for the next 35 years!

    Mr Manning had been diagnosed previously with gender identification disorder, with the emphasis being that it is a disorder. There really are people like that, but the fact that such people exist does not make “transexualism” somehow normal.

    There are real, serious questions as to why Mr Manning was allowed to remain in the Army and retain his security clearance and access to classified materials once medical personnel became aware of his psychological problems; the same questions could be asked about former Major Nidal Hasan. (The questions surrounding the clearance of Edward Snowden are also serious, but different.) It’s as though once in the Army, political correctness and an unwillingness to offend the poor dears has taken precedence over security and just plain common sense.

    In the case of Mr Hasan, if you have a Muslim who is about to deploy to the Middle East and he’s in contact with people like Anwar al-Awlaki, something should have been done, immediately, but the DoD was way too concerned with stigmatizing Muslims. Utter madness!

  27. Correction. That was supposed to be Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.) not Scot Walker (post of 12:11). Where that came from I’ll never know but it was probably a latent racist thought from when I was Caucasian.

  28. Hoagie wrote:

    I also insist on being called a “colored person” in the spirit of the civil rights Giant, the NAACP.

    Raaaaacist! It’s “person of color,” not “colored person.”

  29. There really are people like that, but the fact that such people exist does not make “transexualism” somehow normal.

    It’s not even possible, Mr. Editor. At least not at this point. Someday science may find a way to suck out that nasty Y chromosome but as of now, sorry he’s still a male.

  30. Raaaaacist! It’s “person of color,” not “colored person.”

    Sorry, it’s whatever I declare it to be!!! You get no say in what sex I am, what race I am or what planet I’m from. All that counts is me,me,me. Don’t you get it I also switched to leftist. It’s all about ME!

  31. Now, now, don’t get uppity. Have yourself a nice baloney sandwich on white bread along with a cold malt liquor torpedo and a couple of Twinkies. Sing Old Man River or We Shall Overcome and you’ll be right back to exploiting the disillusioned and the downtrodden before you can say Jackie Robinson.

  32. You gotta love these leftists:

    On Wednesday’s The Lead, USA Today columnist DeWayne Wickham scoffed at the notion that Sen. Tim Scott (R-S.C.), the nation’s only black senator, should have been invited to the March on Washington. “And he should have been invited to speak for what reason?” Wickham demanded of the Republican senator. “He’s one of 50 senators. And he’s appointed, not elected.”

    Read more: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/matt-hadro/2013/08/29/snubs-plantations-and-liberal-dreams-worst-cnns-mlk-anniversary-coverage#ixzz2dNlk7xKG

    Invited to speak for “what reason”? Is Scott now a senator due to the civil rights movement? And BTW you stupid ass hole, Scott is one of 100 senators not 50 you ignorant leftist buffoon. (or perhaps 114 by Obama’s count).

  33. Don’t you call me “uppity” ropelight! That’s one o’dem cracka words used to keep my people down. Next you’ll be axin’ me to get an ID card to vote. You know the leftists think I’m too dumb to do that! So who are you? Forward! Trayvon! We shall overcome! All I am saying is give peace a chance! We are the world! We are the ones we’ve been waiting for! Imagine! Bush lied people died! Occupy! (did I miss any?)

  34. “Fauxahontas” … maybe we could get her in a war bonnet and put it all to music.

    When they introduced Fauxahontas at last year’s Donkey convention, I was waiting for them to play the famous Atlanta Braves Tomahawk Chop chant …

  35. Mr Manning had been diagnosed previously with gender identification disorder, with the emphasis being that it is a disorder. There really are people like that, but the fact that such people exist does not make “transexualism” somehow normal.

    Well, from what I know, a number of people have had a sex change, then gone on to lead reasonably normal and happy lives. But then, we’re talking about people who were law abiding to begin with, not treasonous rats who, the minute they’re convicted, start putting on a sideshow about how they’re really a girl, no doubt a ploy to win sympathy with the left wing press, a ploy that seems to be working splendidly.

  36. Yep, how ’bout repairations? Yous guys shouldn’t miss out on free money jus cause you ain’t earned a dime of it. Say, you’re kinda new at this ain’t you?

  37. Saying that you want to be castrated and that you want to be called Chelsea just as you are entering the penitentiary strikes me as more than a stunt or a distraction; it strikes me as volunteering to lead a very rough life for the next 35 years!

    I’d think that being a traitorous rat would get him into enough trouble on that basis alone. Still, “Chelsea” might demand a transfer to a women’s prison, and given the Political Correctness of the Obama Regime generally, that ploy might just work. And if that sounds far fetched, remember that some states are now insisting that the public schools must now allow “Gender confused” students to choose which bathrooms and perhaps even which locker rooms they want to use!

  38. Well, from what I know, a number of people have had a sex change, then gone on to lead reasonably normal and happy lives.

    I don’t think so Eric. You’d need to name any person whose actual sex has been changed, either male to female or vice versa. I’m sure their bodies have been mauled, mutilated and butchered but no matter what they’re still whatever sex they started out with. I still can’t figure out what “gender confused” means. If you look down a see a dick, you’re a guy. Confusion over. Only a real dumb-ass leftist can find confusion in such a basic thing.

    And just so you know ropelight, my plan on reparations is under consideration. I’m waiting on my obamaphone first.

  39. I don’t think so Eric. You’d need to name any person whose actual sex has been changed, either male to female or vice versa. I’m sure their bodies have been mauled, mutilated and butchered

    Well, I’m sure they wouldn’t do it if they didn’t want it. Whether it makes them happier I cannot say, since I don’t know any such people personally.

    I’m making sport of Manning because he betrayed the trust the military gave him, and now is yakking on about beoming “Chelsea” because it seems to be getting him lots of attention and sympathy. But, being a libertarian, had Manning instead been a law abiding citizen, fulfilled his sworn duties to the Army, then, later, as a civilian, decided he wanted to become a “Girl”, I would have no objections.

  40. I’m not saying they’re not happier, I’m saying they never really had their sex changed. They may think they did but the fact is they didn’t. They are still either XY or XX but if they’re happy thinking something that is foolish and a big fat lie who are we to judge? After all, leftists do it all the time and we can’t change them and they seem happy. Oh, wait. Leftists seem the most unhappy and angry people on earth. My bad.

  41. In lighter news, Hyon Song Wol, Kim Un’s ex girlfriend was machine gunned with 11 or 12 other artists. Seems Breakin’ Up Is Hard To Do under communism. But hey, just like the moslems, as long as they’re killin’ each other I just watch and grin.

    Besides, after the oppression you honkeys put my people under and the way you oppress and suppress the homos machine gunning is the least ya’ll have commin’.

  42. Hoagie, don’t you know the first man to own an African slave in North America was a black man, or are you unaware of your people’s history?

  43. Yes, I do know that ropelight. I can’t remember the guys name but I think it was Cory or something like it and he was awarded his indentured servant in a court case to be his for life…thus a slave. My people’s history is colorful, no?

  44. His Anglo name was Anthony Johnson, a black Angolan, who in 1670 served out his indenture in the British Colony of Virginia. Upon gaining his freedom Johnson become a successful tobacco farmer and property owner on Virginia’s Eastern Shore.

    Johnson was the first slave owner, that is, the first free man in Virginia to hold a black African servant as a slave in the mainland American colonies. Upon his death, Johnson’s property including his slaves passed to his next of kin. Thus was slavery established in the British Colonies of Virginia.

  45. I read or heard about it some time back but thanks for straightening it out for me ropelight. But that’s what I’m talkin’ about. If we had better, higher, much higher paid teachers in our neighborhoods we wouldn’t have to depend on you cracka’s for history. I mean, how can a poor inner city teacher from Philly makin’ a meager $86,000 a (9 month) year plus a measly $46,000 more in retirement benefits, plus healthcare for her whole f’in family be expected to teach all the Anthony Johnson shit when she don’t know where her next meal is comin’ from? Hell, everybody know the 2%er’s are riding on the back of inner city teachers. They need to pay their fair share like Obama say. Hell, 90% ain’t enough maybe 120%. I don’t know.

  46. Well, that poor inner city teacher from Philly could stop spending her paycheck on crack and meth and spend her time reading the textbooks she’s expected to teach her students who aren’t currently incarcerated about our nation’s history, when she isn’t busy protesting against voter ID laws.

  47. Hoagie: Only in the mind of a demented leftist could calling a man male a male be “dehumanizing”.

    Hoagies, just one suggestion…

    Eric: No, actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous, such as whether the press should call this thing by its “Boy” name or its “Girl” name.

    …learn to read before you make an even bigger idiot out of yourself.

  48. Eric: No, actually it is us laughing at you and your ilk’s hypersensitivity and treating with great solemnity matters that are inherently ridiculous,

    This.

    Thank you for putting it into words. There are many things which are profoundly enervating that liberals do, because they strain sanity so entirely to the point there’s none left, yet they do their utmost to claim the most irrational, absurd distortions of reality are sane, and should be treated with the greatest deferential attitude. And they truly form a religious cult-like deference to these rabidly demented ideas.

    When I criticized the normalization of homosexuality in a blog I stumbled upon recently, (which I didn’t know was run by a liberal cad), after he spewed a long list of petty insults (in the name of civility, of course!), he grandly pronounced why he was censoring my views and questionings of his agenda:

    “There is a difference between actual dissent and the marketplace of ideas determining that certain viewpoints are so obnoxious that they should likely be kept to one’s self.”

    Thus, actual dissent is dissent that doesn’t dissent with his homosexuality agenda! Notice how the “market place of ideas” in his phrase has been reduced to him, an ignorant and stupid liberal, who thinks any criticism that reveals his stupidity on any subject is “too obnoxious” and must be censored.

    The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious.

    http://censoredfirstthings.wordpress.com/2013/08/27/a-polite-society-according-to-a-liberal-cad-censored-at-ordinary-gentlemen-com-read-ordinary-cads/

  49. Pingback: Dave, the liberal cad over at Ordinary-Gentlemen.com says: The market place of ideas must be shut down, because too obnoxious | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

  50. Thank you for putting it into words. There are many things which are profoundly enervating that liberals do, because they strain sanity so entirely to the point there’s none left, yet they do their utmost to claim the most irrational, absurd distortions of reality are sane, and should be treated with the greatest deferential attitude. And they truly form a religious cult-like deference to these rabidly demented ideas.

    Excellent points, Alessandra. Left wingers notoriously reserve for themselves the right to sneer at, ridicule, and mock anything or anyone they don’t like, from Sarah Palin to the whole Christian religion (Islam is off limits, however). But, as you say, they demand utter deference to anything THEY hold holy or sacred, such as gay “Marriage” or abortion, otherwise known as “Reproductive rights”.

    Seriously, I’ve said before – if you really want to understand left wingers, read Orwell’s 1984. Over half a century ago he predicted that the political Left would try to secure their power by manipulating the language, eventually creating something known as Thoughtcrime, which is exactly what that petty tyrant blogster was trying to do to you.

  51. Following a link provided here, we see ‘Alessandra’ being challenged with the following question regarding the (her) predicate or rationale for drawing a social justice distinction between race and sexual behavior:

    “Can you identify a qualitative difference between these two personal attributes which forms the foundation for that conclusion?”

    The qualitative difference between the two classes is of course, that race is not behavior.

    If race equaled (or better, necessarily or even probabilistically entailed certain types of) behavior; i.e., if social behavior and costs were gene linked to race, then the claims of racists to the rightness of constructing racially exclusive moral communities would be supported.

    Strangely, the left not only seems to agree with the above hypothetical’s implication, but also to lately assume the existential soundness of the conditional: If X race, then Y behavior.

    They obviously then need to find a way of publicly dealing with both this development which has taken place in their own movement, and with its broader logical implications society-wide, for their collectivist premise.

    Reconfiguring their public doctrines is one option.

    Thus, as progressive political power, and concomitantly their confidence in their ability to impose their will, rather than to have to rely on arguing coherently, has increased, it has become publicly noticeable that the left’s rhetorical pleas for equal treatment on the basis of a traditional appeal to a common and universal moral class membership have also decreased.

    What we are likely seeing is modern-liberals self-consciously move away from their old “shared fundamental human nature” arguments toward arguments demanding interpersonal tolerance of, and even a self-sacrificial affirmation of, people who are admitted to behave differently in a morally relevant and significant sense.

    Modern-liberalism seems to be migrating toward the explicitly racist premise that certain human populations or sub-populations are intrinsically morally different; and, that their evolved and internally programmed ways of interacting in social settings is sometimes not only fundamentally different, but also antithetical or even subversive of another population’s good.

    Now, unlike either fascism or socialism, libertarianism can deal with the integration problem posed by such sub-populations without coercion, because libertarianism does not stipulate that a shared political space implies a shared fate, nor the existence of a social insurance system populated by subgroups possessing radically differing intrinsic moral hazard costs.

    Modern-liberalism and fascism on the other hand – any collectivist shared fate doctrine in fact – must find a way to reconcile what are under their own judgement, the potentially irreconcilable.

    In line with the observation three paragraphs above, ” … or even subversive of another population’s good”, progressives may have thought they’ve found a workable – if specious – rhetorical formulation by leveraging off of “competing legal interests” or “balanced freedoms” doctrines.

    It’s a commonplace for progressives to nonchalantly observe that every law is going to cost someone something. From their point of view it is probably a small leap to go from balancing legal advantages to handing out unequal and invidious social burdens in the name of some “greater” justice.

    In fact, one of Alessandra’s interlocutors has done just that:

    “I’d suggest that there are times when cultural and economic realities make the theoretical equal standing before the law inherently inequal in practice. We rely on the political process to hash out when that occurs, and to provide an appropriate counter-balance; this has occurred in the form of anti-discrimination legislation authorizing corrective lawsuits for situations and reasons determined important enough by the legislatures.As to whether it is possible to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation or not, that’s an observational question of the positive law rather than a normative question …”

    In other words, “tough shit”, you are ours to do with as we wish.

    “Mere” tolerance is clearly not what leftists seek. Yet their own apparently developing beliefs that there are significant behavioral differences among people as a result of lineage, presents them with an obvious need to reformulate their rhetoric in order to accommodate the notion that some human populations people may be fundamentally different in moral sensibilities, associative behavior, and spill-over costs, to others; and to recast what traditionally has been thought of as the basis for equal justice; i.e., reciprocity.

    If however, X population cannot according to the progressives own belief system reciprocate or recognize moral boundaries because of an innate feature of its evolutionary development, then how is a modern-liberal progressive to argue for the “shared fate” predicate which has become so much a part of their social belief system?

    Through misdirection, deception, and the irrelevant deployment equivocal emotive language, obviously.

    “… when cultural and economic realities make the theoretical equal standing before the law inherently inequal in practice … We rely on the political process to hash out when that occurs, and to provide an appropriate counter-balance …”

  52. Rereading you own text is always a trial … yeah I know a joke opening there … because you always see the errors you left.

    See below:

    “in order to accommodate the notion that some human populations people may be fundamentally different in moral sensibilities, associative behavior, and spill-over costs, to others; and to recast what traditionally has been thought of as the basis for equal justice; i.e., reciprocity.

  53. DNW: In other words, “tough shit”, you are ours to do with as we wish.

    And this is patently observed again and again if you look at comments from liberals referring to these legal “sexual orientation discrimination” cases*, which are about subjecting Christians (or others) to perform all kinds of services related to homosexual marriage – violating their conscience and religion.

    The complete disregard towards the people being punished by the State to violate their conscience cannot increase more. Everyone must submit, and if they don’t, they must be humiliated and subjugated.

    The refrain from many homosexual activists and agenda supporters is: we passed ours laws. Submit. It doesn’t matter that sexual psychology is the very antithesis of race (a physical difference like skin pigment, which has nothing to do with psychology). We will racialize and black-civil-rightsalize our movement to normalize homosexuality to its extremes so that anyone who disagrees will be branded a horrible racist, segregationist, anti-abolitinist, etc., with ideas “so obnoxious” that they must be chased from any public forum, aside from every institution, research center, and company. In addition to their trademark “KKK H8er bigot” combo. “Tough shit” that you have a moral conscience and an ethical religion. It’s over.

    As another commenter on TAC very pointedly noted: a social conservative and liberal world view cannot co-exist. Socons who have fallen for the lie that “gay” is OK and that it’s nice to applaud it so that liberals will view them as you “tolerant” and “evolved,” are going to be partly responsible for allowing the liberal bull-dozer that’s advancing (cultural, academically, politically, and legally) to shred socons’ rights to pieces.

    It’s a fight to the knife.

    *as I have blogged about before – one of the most fraudulent concepts ever to have been invented in America

  54. oops – correction:
    As another commenter on TAC very pointedly noted: a social conservative and liberal world view cannot co-exist. Socons who have fallen for the lie that “gay” is OK and that it’s nice to applaud it so that liberals will view them as “tolerant” and “evolved,” are going to be partly responsible for allowing the liberal bull-dozer that’s advancing (cultural, academically, politically, and legally) to shred socons’ rights to pieces.

  55. And this is patently observed again and again if you look at comments from liberals referring to these legal “sexual orientation discrimination” cases*, which are about subjecting Christians (or others) to perform all kinds of services related to homosexual marriage – violating their conscience and religion.

    If anyone tried to force ME to do such a thing, I would deliver the worst possible service. If they demanded I bake a cake, I would bake one out of dog shit, and then charge them full price. That would end this coercive crap in a hurry!

  56. As much as I’d love to agree with you Eric, that would never happen. You see, in a world of deviant leftist and anti capitalism the fags involved would make sure you lost your baker’s license so you’d never bake again. Then they would hire a lawyer and sue you for any number of reasons until they and of course their lawyer owned your business assets, your house, your IRA, every dime and asset you have and most likely would attach your Social Security (which they can do up to 15%) for civil rights violations which is a federal crime.

    See as Alessandra found out above: “There is a difference between actual dissent and the marketplace of ideas determining that certain viewpoints are so obnoxious that they should likely be kept to one’s self.” You see, to a leftist it’s never good enough just to disagree. No, no. They must make sure if you don’t agree you are silenced. And punished. And made an example of for others who may stray from the party line. Just ask Kim Un’s ex girlfriend. Oh wait, we can’t he had her shot.

  57. My wife got mad at my response when she told me about Kim killing his girlfriend. I smiled and said: “So who cares? A commie kills a commie. It’s a win, win.”

    She got really deep and said: “Do you know the difference between Kim’s government and ours”? Knowing I was about to be told I asked “What”. “Kim knows his army will shoot any civilian he orders them to shoot. Our government has yet torealize that fact”.

    And the Bonus Riots came to mind and I shut up. (But it can’t happen here.)

  58. Hoagie, I recently discovered a very nice site, that I’ve just begun to read. This article here:

    http://ethikapolitika.org/2013/08/26/a-response-to-joseph-bottum/
    A Response to Joseph Bottum by Mattias A. Caro

    says something that I think is very important (among many others). In a response to Joseph Bottum’s pitiful promotion of homosexual marriage as a good thing for a Catholic to adopt, Mattias say:

    “Catholics have largely abandoned these issue (marriage, divorce, porn, etc.) in the public square and have thus left these debates for the pews, if they ever occur at all. And sadly, Catholics show little difference from their secular brethren on these issues. ”

    America has become and continues to become increasingly liberalized (regarding social mores). Therefore conflating the spheres of capitalism/foreign policy with issues of the “culture wars” (family, relationships, sex/sexuality) creates confusion. Not that they aren’t entangled on many levels and deeply influence each other. But it’s plain to see that religious people, especially Christians/Catholics/Jews in the US are becoming enormously liberal, which also includes a good deal of Republicans. The Right is becoming more and more left (as in liberal). In a way, for many, it’s just a mask that’s coming off. Many Republicans and WASPS were never socially conservative in their hearts or personal lives, they just went along with putting on a conservative performance, because social constraints required it (adultery, porn, prostitution, homosexuality, etc).

    Many countries with a past communist/socialist system continue to uphold good traditional values, while the US is destroying the remains of its socially conservative society with a fierceness that one could never have foreseen a few decades ago. I think liberalism is very capitalist (as in savage capitalism/profit above morality/ and extreme egoism/narcissism) and very destructive, because it attacks the most fundamental structures of society: the personal realm, what holds society together. I find it very ironic that, post-cold war, while the US drives itself into the ditch, Putin stands firm to defend his society from this homosexuality agenda crap.

    I have given a lot of thought to the question of why have so many people normalized homosexuality so quickly and so fiercely in the US, and recently I came across another observation that was right on target, that I hadn’t thought about. Josh Bishop/http://joshbishopwrites.com/. He wrote:

    “I think @Benjamin Marsh is dead-on when he points to how our porn-saturated culture is impacting our views on gay marriage and, more broadly, on homosexuality. I think the gay marriage debate is benefiting from the nature and availability of today’s pornography — so different, as we’re often told, from previous generations’ “Playboy in dad’s dresser drawer” experience of pornography…. I absolutely agree that porn culture has made gay sex more palatable/tolerable than it would have been a generation ago.”

  59. As much as I’d love to agree with you Eric, that would never happen. You see, in a world of deviant leftist and anti capitalism the fags involved would make sure you lost your baker’s license so you’d never bake again.

    Oh? On what grounds? They demanded a cake, no one said it had to be edible.

  60. Pingback: Why have so many people normalized homosexuality? More thoughts. | Reflections, Reflections by Alessandra

Comments are closed.