Intelligent Imbecility

There are lots of ways to promote bigotry and ignorance. The easiest and most obvious is to just run around shouting “Fuck faggots!”, which accounts for 90% of internet traffic. Another is to declare that you heard from an invisible, silent being that exists…somewhere…that faggots are bad and don’t deserve equal rights. Another is to assert that it’s just your belief that faggots are evil, and how dare you insult my beliefs (which are insulting to other people) (oh, and I want my beliefs enshrined in the law)?

The problem with these approaches is that the public is catching on to them. Stupid can’t hide for long, and more and more people are saying “Fuck your beliefs” and giving gays equal rights anyways. “Damn it!” says the bigot. “I have to deny people their rights, but I can’t do it by being an obvious dumbfuck any more! Whatever shall I do?” The answer is provided, luckily for the bigot, in today’s Washington Post. You gotta be a sneaky dumbshit bigot. You gotta take what you think the opposition believes (which is, of course, nothing like what the opposition actually believes–you are a dumbfuck bigot after all!) and turn it around on them! You gotta be, not really clever, but what you imagine to be clever in your tiny little pea brain. You gotta be an intelligent imbecile.

Behold.

Is gay marriage really progressive?

  • By Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman
  • February 20 at 6:38 am

Ha! Take that, liberals! We put a question mark in our title! That should fill you with doubt about your own beliefs. ‘Cause that’s how intelligent imbecility works. We’re tricky and shit.

Same-sex marriage advocates, and their lawyers, cite Jefferson’s “life, liberty and pursuit of happiness” to underscore everyone’s right to marry without state interference. Last week, they successfully challenged Virginia’s constitutional ban on same-sex marriages. Given current legal trends, there seems little doubt that the Supreme Court will ultimately agree with U.S. District Judge Arenda L. Wright Allen’s ruling. Gay rights advocates believe this ruling is a major progressive advance.

I’m a gay rights advocate, and when I heard about that ruling the first thing I thought was, “Major Progressive Advance.” Except for the part where I never thought any such thing. Actually, my first thought was, “The bigots are gonna shit themselves,” and boy oh boy was I right.

We ask: Why is this progressive?

No you don’t. You never asked that. This is just a bullshit rhetorical device for you to try to make yourselves look smart while spouting idiocy. The only people you’re fooling with this shit are people who were already dumb enough to agree with you before you even wrote a word.

Or put another way: Why is giving the government more power over your personal life, as opposed to less, considered progressive?

Why are loaded, deliberately misleading questions the things you beat your wife with?

Oh, I’m sorry, was that out of line? I should have known you would never beat your wife. You just take out your frustrations by raping and murdering a hooker. My bad.

See? I can make up passive aggressive dogshit about other people and spout it without blinking! Publish me, Washington Post!

The government gives legal benefits to people in marriages that the government recognizes. All gay people are asking is that they receive the same benefits. It’s not that fucking hard to understand. This doesn’t involve government controlling their personal lives. But singling out gay people specifically to ban them from certain benefits? That DOES involve government interfering with people’s personal lives. No fucking duh.

Ironically, it may turn out that gay marriage advocates are trying to further cement a dangerous philosophical trend that they would normally see as conservative, retrogressive or even reactionary.

Ironically, there’s no irony here, since you’re just pulling this out of your tightly puckered asshole.

Gay marriage advocates believe the progressive position is to require every marriage to get the same governmental blessing. But this is actually not a progressive or liberating posture at all.

The right approach for those who believe in “life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness” freed from government control is self-evident: no government control over marriage.

This is becoming the new right wing way to promote straight privilege. They ignore all the legal benefits of marriage (hospital visitation, shared tax forms, tax benefits, etc.) and act like marriage is nothing but a word. But I guarantee you–if either of these guys’ wife is in the hospital, they’ll damn sure take advantage of the “government control” that lets them visit her. And when these two fucking nitwits file their taxes, they’ll damn sure let “government control” give them some marriage-based tax credits.

Which is to say, they’ll glad spew empty words about “government control over marriage” in a rag like the WaPo. That’s just words. But the moment it affects their real lives, everything they’re saying goes right down the shitter.

The same-sex marriage position requires first accepting the government’s right to sanction marriage.

It obviously doesn’t. It requires recognizing that straight couples get benefits that gays don’t. It requires recognizing how fucking unfair that is. It also requires knowing a right wing bullshit artist when you see one–and I see two that the WaPo decided deserved to have their verbal fecal matter spread to the entire country.

Moreover, advocates don’t merely agree to give government this power, they accept a state’s right to discriminate. The federal court decision overturning Virginia’s gay marriage ban is premised on the state failing to provide a sufficient reason for discriminating between couples wanting to get hitched. This presupposes the right of the government to sanction marriage. Ironically, this is the position of the supposedly conservative traditional marriage defenders.

Go back and read that paragraph again. The first sentence is supposed to tell us what the latter sentences will demonstrate. Read it. The first sentence has absolutely nothing to do with anything that follows. Read it again. I challenge you to explain how the first sentence is even tangentially related to anything that follows.

Keep in mind: The WaPo published this illogical garbage. And the WaPo is purportedly a respectable newspaper. Yeah, fucking right.

But the really important point to keep in mind here is PRIVILEGE. These two fuckheads have probably taken advantage of marriage rights numerous times.  They just take it for granted. Pick up your kids from school? Sure, Mommy and Daddy are married, and legally that’s all that’s required to retrieve your kids from school (even if they aren’t your biological children). They don’t even think about it. The only reason they can flippantly tell gays “Just don’t get legal recognition” is that they’re so used to legal recognition that they can’t even realize they have it any more.

Trust me, no married couple would ever voluntarily give up the legal benefits they enjoy. Norman Leahy and Paul Goldman are no different.

While the Supreme Court has made other important rulings on marriage in the past, no jurist ever suggested disagreement with state laws banning same-sex marriage — until recently.

It’s never been done before, so why do it now?

(Nota bene: This exact same argument could have been made against inter-racial marriage 60 years ago.)

Gay rights lawyers say such decisions were wrong, surely by today’s standards. We ask: What is progressive about conditioning the state’s right to sanction marriage on changeable judicial attitudes?

You don’t ask that. You’re not asking anything. Stop pretending that you’re capable of thought.

Anyone who reads this can see exactly what you’re doing. The bigots have lost the gay marriage debate on one front after another, so now you just wanna take your ball and go home. Just end legal marriage entirely! That oughta go over well! I’m sure the step-fathers out there who no longer have legal guardianship over their step-children won’t mind at all! Right wingers are smart!

The more principled approach, which is consistent across the philosophical spectrum, is leaving marriage to the religious and family institutions from whence it came.

What philosophical spectrum? Is there even such a thing as a philosophical spectrum? I’ve been studying philosophy since 2000, and I’ve never encountered any such thing.

Privilege is again at play here. What Leahy and Goldman are really asking is, “Can’t we just let the church (which already excludes gays) give us all the benefits and tell everyone who’s not like us to fuck off?” No, shithead, you can’t. It doesn’t work that way. Marriage is a civil contract. It has been for a very long time. And I know, you really want all the benefits to yourself, even if sharing them with others won’t cost you a thing. That’s because you’re suffering from a common disorder known in psychiatry as Being An Asshole.

Marriage existed long before there were government bureaucrats looking to raise revenue by collecting license fees.

Yeah, that’s why the government recognizes marriages. The tiny fees they get from licenses.

https://i1.wp.com/affordablehousinginstitute.org/blogs/us/wp-content/uploads/brilliant_cigar1.jpg

If a person meets whatever common sense, minimal legal requirements are established for people to wed — such as those related to age, health, mental capacity or banning incest — why should government approval be required?

That’s what the gays are asking. You seem to have missed this part.

You see, STRAIGHT marriages don’t require government approval. Wanna get married? Sure, why not. It’s not like there’s an exam. As long as you’re straight, you get married. Simple as that.

All gays are asking is that they be treated the same way.

If gay rights advocates truly believe marriage is a protected, inalienable right, then they should be in court arguing against state-sanctioned marriage per se.

It’s not that gays are destroying traditional marriage, it’s that they SHOULD be destroying traditional marriage. See how subtle and nuanced these bigots are becoming?

What about the traditional marriage position – that defining these unions is up to the states and that states have a vested interest in promoting traditional families? It runs counter to the conservative belief in limited government.

The true conservative position should be to let the church control everything. Christian hegemony for the win!

Same-sex couples are generally no better or worse at parenting than those with different sexual orientations. Limiting marriage on procreation grounds, even if legal, is a slippery slope that would trample the Constitution and personal liberties in a way worthy of China, not America.

That’s the only point in this op-ed where these two say anything even vaguely rational. But then they fuck it up by going, “China! Amiright?”

Most important, a marriage license is derivative, not the basic right at issue. If the right to marry is inalienable, then the government needs to stop seeing it as another revenue raiser or privilege creator.

We should just leave it to religious institutions! They secure privilege much more hatefully than the government ever could!

In practical effect, all same-sex marriage proponents are claiming is their inalienable right to be required to pay a marriage fee like everyone else.

How the fuck did this sentence make it past an editor?

All they’re claiming is a fee? So hospital visitation isn’t part of legal marriage? And neither is guardianship of children? What about inheritance rights? Adoption? Tax credits? Spouse benefits for insurance plans?

No, none of that exists. Well, it all does exist, but Tweedle-Dee and Tweedle-Dumb are so caught up in their own privilege that they stupidly don’t even realize how much legal benefit they get from marriage. They think they can just erase the entire legal structure of the marriage cake and still get all the frosting. Well, sorry, fucknuts. It doesn’t work that way. If you actually got your way, you’d have no legal basis on which to claim you can visit your wife if she’s dying in the hospital. Think about that–if you ever even think at all.

Look, I’m not saying all conservatives are stupid. I’ve met a few smart ones. But too many of them are complete idiots. And the worst type of conservative idiot is the one who masters the English language just enough to make an argument that might be mistaken for rational human thought if viewed from a thousand miles away through layers of skin-melting fog. In other words, the one who’s able to gussy up his imbecility with just enough false erudition to be published in an overrated rag like the WaPo.

Stay classy, Newsmax readers

Newsmax is the conservative website you go to when you aren’t quite dumb and crazy enough to go to WingNutDaily. As such, their comments sections usually aren’t quite the bottomless pits of inanity, paranoia and ignorance that we see at WND, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t a few doozies over there, like this one for an article on gay marriage in Utah. It only managed four comments, but together they provide an interesting microcosm of conservative archetypes, with one weird little thing missing…

GeoDude
Whatever happened to State’s Rights? Where in the US Constitution is the Federal government given the authority to regulate marriage? Finally, who appointed the Federal Judiciary as the tertiary branch of legislation?

I’m really glad I wasn’t drinking a beer when I read that last question. Never mind his fucking absurd attempt to look smart by saying “tertiary” rather than “third”.  What does this idiot think the actual third branch of government is, if not the judiciary? NASCAR? Poland? Jesus? Duck Dynasty? A horseshoe crab? I mean, given his state of mind, the possibilities really are endless.

Anyways, let me explain really quickly how this whole three branches of government (or “legislation”, or whatever) works. Congress makes legislation. The President implements and executes legislation. And the courts interpret legislation. It’s all explained in this thing called The God Damn Constitution. (Sorry, turned into Frank Miller there for a moment.)

But this guy perfectly exemplifies one thing that will almost always pop up whenever a conservative debates gay marriage. Let’s call this archetype The Chanting Chicken. They’ll say the word “constitution” like a mantra and hide behind the word so as not to have to provide an actual argument, but they have never read it and don’t have the foggiest idea what it says. GeoDude here probably thinks it’s a dinosaur pop-up book about Adam and DEFINITELY NOT STEVE.

The Chanting Chicken got a reply to his comment from another archetype, but as you might expect it failed to correct his obvious misconception about separation of powers.

California Conservative

States have no rights anymore if you ask a liberal. I argued with a liberal about states rights for a while recently and he/she couldn’t understand my “hang up” on states rights. I was shocked.

Sweet picklefuck do I feel sorry for whatever poor liberal he was arguing with. States rights don’t trump individual rights, and they don’t include the right to do something unconstitutional. Pretty fucking simple.

Let’s call this archetype The Projecting Prat. He sees all of his own worst traits in others, all with a blissful lack of self awareness. California Conservative is shocked to see someone who isn’t capable of comprehending the other side’s argument or seeing things from another point of view. It’s the personality equivalent of a dog barking at his own reflection.

Bhr
Obama has no legal right to recognize the married couples in Utah but when did the law ever get in Obamas way.

Ah, yes, the Conspiracy Cunt, or CC for those of you with delicate sensibilities (if you have delicate sensibilities, why the fuck are you reading my blog, anyways?).  The CC has a favorite scapegoat. Someone who’s responsible for everything from the economy to the weather to Irritable Bowel Syndrome. Obama’s the favorite scapegoat, of course, and the way some conservatives talk about him you’d think he had magical powers or something. I can assure you Obama did not make this decision, Bhr. Aside from nominating judges to the bench, the President has no power over the judiciary. Now go explain that to GeoDude.

Kyle
Take the D’s out of you A and maybe you guys won’t be so miserable and complain about every little thing you don’t get.

Our final archetype is the Loathsome Locutioner. And, yes, I know “Locutioner” is not a real word. But that’s kinda the point. Guys like Kyle here, well, they ain’t gonna be writing any sonnets any time soon. They use their barely-there grasp of the English language instead to hurl thoughtless hatred into any crevice of the intertoobs that contains anything they don’t like (or recognize).

Yeah, Kyle, them gays sure do have lots of butt sex, amiright? Being gay means you’re just ceaselessly assfucking all through the day. Maybe suck a little cock while you order your Big Gay Mac, get a rim job at the barber shop, then find a gay midget and mount him on your huge gay penis for the walk home. Yup. Sounds about right to me. (And of course, as we all know, straight people never put dicks in asses! Never!)

Thankfully, it seems that (slowly) slut-shaming gays into silence is more and more becoming unacceptable even within conservative circles. Hopefully shitstains like Kyle here will eventually become a thing of the past. But then, some new assholes will just take their place.

I mentioned earlier that there was one archetype curiously missing, and I’m sure you can guess what it is. The Religious Rube! Where’s the sanctimonious cockwag quoting Bible verses and lecturing everybody on what invisible beings want you to do in bed? I’m genuinely surprised none showed up to an article about the Big Evil Buttfucking Bonanza that Utah is sure to become once gay marriages resume (and they will, someday. We’ve already seen what happens when a state marriage ban goes before the Supreme Court).

Hey, Newsmax! Get your shit together! How will you ever catch up with WND in the “Who Can Spiral Down the Cognitive Toilet Fastest?” contest if you don’t have at least one of these guys in every single thread? I expect better of you.

Thinning the Herd

Remember a couple days ago when I celebrated the bigots whose boycotts effectively remove them from the conversation? Well, there may be no god, but somewhere out there is an ultra-powerful Super Atheist who saw that post and deigned to have a piece of pure god-humper gold fall right into my comedy lap. Ladies and gentlemen, I give you Trestin Meacham.

I’ve been in contact with Trestin Meacham, at some level or another, since probably 2009.   Trestin was a blogger, and has also run for political office, after his service in the US Military.  He is devout in his faith, and loyal to his country.

Yeah, sure, whatever. Get to the good part.

He contacted me yesterday to let me know that he was beginning a fast in support of traditional marriage.

AAAHH HAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

A fast! A fucking fast! He hates gays so much, he’s boycotting food! Now we have indisputable proof that “devout in faith” really means “self-destructively imbecilic.”

Here is his commentary…After explaining the situation to my family, I have decided to pursue the following course of action. After my dinner tonight, I will begin a fast which will not end until all counties in Utah stop issuing marriage licenses and performing marriages for same sex couples.

Buh bye!

God, would I have loved to be a fly on the wall when he explained this idiocy to his family. “Hey, wife and kids, daddy’s gonna slowly waste away and die, leaving you traumatized and fatherless, in order to preserve traditional marriage. Fuck faggots!”

Due to the rogue judge refusing to issue a stay, this will likely take several days.

Or, it might just never happen. In which case, hey, one less bigot on planet Earth. Seems like a win-win to me.

I cannot stand by and do nothing while this evil takes root in my home.

Couple of things:

1.) A hunger strike is doing nothing by definition.

2.) How exactly does this affect your home in any way, shape or form?

Some things in life are worth sacrificing one’s heath and even life if necessary.

Here’s the thing, Trestin. Hunger strikes only really work when anybody gives a shit about whether you live or die. Not just anybody can go on a hunger strike, and you certainly don’t fit the bill. Go ahead and kill yourself, bigot. The only people who will care are those misguided enough to be your friends or unfortunate enough to be your family. The rest of the world’s just gonna keep right on going as if you never fucking existed.

I am but a man, and do not have the money and power to make any noticeable influence in our corrupt system. Never the less, I can do something that people in power cannot ignore.

Pretty sure they’re perfectly capable of ignoring you. But keep striking that martyr pose and painting yourself as the big fucking hero. That’s what this is all about in the end, isn’t it? Just a way for you to stroke your pathetic ego-cock.

I do not expect anyone to join me in a fast which has no end in sight, but if you wish to join me in a limited fast it would be a big help.

This is also known as the Litmus Test for Stupidity. But, please, bigots, join him! I certainly ain’t gonna stop you.

Trestin is making a stand.  At the very least, we can help him by raising awareness into the issue.   He is standing up to the PC lobby, and those that would silence and references to God’s truth about traditional marriage and morality.

God-humpers tend to be grammatically challenged, don’t they?

 

Sadly, I’m quite certain that Trestin has no intention of actually following through with this and starving himself to death. It’s just a big, ostentatious, self-congratulatory ego trip, and nothing more. He’ll wallow in the temporary infamy he gains from this, then quietly start eating again once everyone forgets about him and no one is watching. Fucking pathetic. And fucking typical.

We Don’t Need You

Isn’t it great when the bigots just simply remove themselves from the conversation?

Woman calls for Rose Parade boycott over gay wedding float

Buh-bye! I seriously doubt the Rose Parade or the city of Pasadena will miss you one bit.

PASADENA>> A San Diego woman Thursday called for a boycott of the Rose Parade because two Los Angeles men will be married atop a float themed “Love is the Best Protection.” The cake-shaped float is sponsored by the AIDS Healthcare Foundation and is the group’s third entry in the New Year’s parade.

It takes some serious fucking cajones to protest an organization promoting monogamy in order to prevent STDs.

God-humpers are all about marriage and love and sexual restraint and monogamy–until gays do it, at which point everything they support suddenly becomes everything they despise. That’s how god-humper morality works: If we do it, then it’s a universal good sanctioned by the Ruler of the Universe. If you do it, it’s evil and disgusting and you’re going to hell, faggot.

Karen Grube, of San Diego, said the Tournament of Roses should remove the AHF float from the parade. She has also called on corporate sponsors to remove their support of the parade if the wedding goes on as planned. And, she has set up a Facebook page seeking support for her cause.

Yeah, good luck with that. If you check out that Facebook page, you find gems like this:

I just spoke with the PR Department at the Rose Parade. (626) 449 – 4100. The young woman who answered said they are concerned about the response to this and are forwarding all comments to their executives. That’s not a bad start. I pointed her to this page so she could forward it on to them as well. Please feel free to comment here as well as calling them. But PLEASE CALL!

IF YOU DON’T SPEAK OUT, THEY’LL THINK THEY CAN GET AWAY WITH THIS.

I think I have a pretty good idea of how that conversation went.

BIGOT: OMG SOMEONE GAYED ON THE PARADE!!!!

PR Rep: Uh huh…

BIGOT: I WANT THESE MOTHAFUCKIN’ GAYS OFF THIS MOTHAFUCKIN’ PARADE!!!!

PR Rep: Riiiiight…

BIGOT: THE GAYS ARE WATCHING ME!!! THEY SEE ME WHEN I MASTURBATE!!! THANKS OBAMA!!!!

PR Rep: I’ll be sure to forward your concerns to the people you made up in your head. Buh-bye!

BIGOT: LICK ME ON FACEBOOK!!!!!

“Gay marriage is illegal in over 30 states, why would they promote something that is blatantly illegal?” Grube said. “That’s just stupid.”

LOL. Really compelling shit there. States that are not California don’t allow gay marriage. So California should avoid violating other states’ laws.

Except, of course, that no fucking laws are being violated. There’s nothing “blatantly illegal” happening at all. Even in the bigot states that refuse to recognize gay marriage, it’s not illegal to perform a gay marriage. The state just won’t recognize it.

So, you’re just stupid.

Grube also said she didn’t think the Tournament should be involved in a group’s “political agenda.”

“It used to be a family thing, to get up on New Year’s Day morning and watch the parade,” she said. “It no longer is.”

No, it still is. They just recognize that there are different kinds of families. Families which are different from yours (i.e. they’re not composed entirely of frantic nitwits who freak the fuck out whenever someone else’s family isn’t composed of frantic nitwits).

Danny Leclair said the negative reaction over the planned wedding to his long-time partner Aubrey Loots has not diminished his enthusiasm for his special day.

“It’s something that they don’t understand and so I expected it,” he said. “We’re not dissuaded or upset or concerned. We’re simply acknowledging it.”

That’s the right move, Mr. Leclair. Give this crazy, hateful bitch about as much acknowledgement as you’d give a steaming pile of dog shit on the sidewalk–which is to say, step around it and keep right on truckin’, slightly annoyed that some asshole shit where you were trying to walk.

Ralph E. Shaffer, a professor emeritus of history at Cal Poly Pomona, had a different opinion.

He said the wedding is an “in your face” act that might only harden people’s views towards gays.

Fuck your face.

I’ve been to quite a few sporting events in my day. Weddings and proposals and kiss-cams and other such things are a common event. Of course, it’s always heterosexuals who propose at a basketball game or get their ugly, privileged faces plastered across the scoreboard when they kiss.

Is that “in your face”? Are they “flaunting” their heterosexuality? Should this “harden” my views towards heterosexuals (of which I am one)?

Only on Planet Dumbfuck.

“The problem is going to be the wedding kiss,” Shaffer said, adding that the couple will likely kiss several times during the parade as would be expected for a couple on their wedding day. “I don’t know what the response is going to be,” he said.

Kissing in public. Something that straight people do ALL THE FUCKING TIME.

Let’s stop acting like gay people kissing in public is the problem. Bigots objecting to it are the problem. Period. I’m sick of how people molly-coddle bigots and try to tiptoe around the fact that they’re hateful, ignorant pieces of shit. Let’s just be honest from now on. If you take issues with gay people sharing a kiss, then you fucking suck.

Grube said her call for a parade boycott has nothing to with religious convictions.

She said she does not agree with having any marriage — gay or straight — celebrated during the parade.

Grube also said that the sky is green and zebras live on the Moon, because she thinks the rest of us are as dumb and gullible as she is and won’t see through these patently obvious lies.

In recent days several area residents have expressed similar sentiments. Michael E. Thornton, a retired disabled veteran, said he will not be watching due to religious beliefs.

“Celebrating this ungodly activity is repugnant to me spiritually and I will not support this practice financially by viewing the parade,” he wrote in an email to this newspaper.

The amazing thing is that he was able to hit SEND without choking on his drool rag.

There are quite a few comments on the article, most of them from sensible people, but quite a few from the type of morons you would expect this woman to attract. One comment in particular, however, caught my eye, as they posted a screen cap from Facebook that tells you everything you need to know about Karen Grube. I’ll leave you with this:

Really, do you need to know anything more about either of these people?

Really, do you need to know anything more about either of these people?

Don’t let the facts get in your way

As soon as I saw the headline, I knew exactly how the religious right would react.

Utah polygamy ruling criticized

And I bet now that you’ve seen it, you do too. First, let’s look at just what this ruling is…

(CNN) – Some social conservatives are blasting Utah’s ruling striking down part of that state’s law banning polygamy.

The suit was brought by the stars of the television reality series “Sister Wives,” and a federal judge’s ruling Friday throws out the law’s section prohibiting “cohabitation,” saying it violates constitutional guarantees of due process and religious freedom.

Got that? “Cohabitation”. As in living together. The law told consenting adults whom they can and can’t live with. Obviously unconstitutional. It remains illegal in Utah to obtain more than one valid marriage certificate, but the law can’t tell you whom you can live with, regardless of marital status.

Cue the froth.

Former Republican presidential candidate Rick Santorum – who a decade ago came under fire for comments indicating polygamy would become legal if courts banned anti-sodomy laws – responded to the ruling over the weekend.

“Sometimes I hate it when what I predict comes true,” the former U.S. senator tweeted Sunday.

Sometimes I hate it when Santorum opens his big fucking mouth. Actually, I hate that all of the time. The man is constitutionally incapable of uttering a single sentence that isn’t demonstrably false and/or idiotic and/or bigoted and/or ignorant and/or frothing.

The ruling didn’t legalize polygamy, idiot. It legalized cohabitation, which is something the government has no business meddling with in the first place. How would you like it if the government told you you couldn’t live with the one you loved?

The Family Research Council, led by prominent social conservative Tony
Perkins, also weighed the Utah statute, warning of “serious consequences
of redefining marriage.”

Tony Perkins is just not a human being. He’s a loosely organized collection of god-humper buzzwords with an automatic hair trigger. Did someone mention marriage in any capacity or context? REDEFINING MARRIAGE!

“Throughout history, marriage has been future-oriented, focused on the
next generation and the best interests of children. The reality is that
society needs children, and children need a mom and a dad,” Perkins said
Monday.

And these kids get a mom and a dad…and a mom and a mom and a mom. Just like in those good old Biblical days you claim to believe in so literally.

“However, redefining marriage to fulfill the desires of same-sex couples
or polygamists only moves society away from this vital public interest
and creates social chaos.”

Five hicks in Utah get to live in the same house. They’re still not legally married. The only thing that’s been redefined here is the meaning of “redefined” whenever Tony Perkins blubbers it out.

In striking down the section of the law Friday, Judge Clark Waddoups used a 2003 Supreme Court landmark gay rights case Lawrence v. Texas, which ruled that anti sodomy laws were unconstitutional.

During that Supreme Court ruling a decade ago, Santorum told the Associated Press that bans on sodomy would open the doors to a “right to polygamy” and other sexual acts.

“If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual (gay) sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery. You have the right to anything,” Santorum said in 2003.

If there were no right to adultery, then half the Republican Party would be in fucking prison.

But Waddoups’ ruling keeps in place the ban on bigamy “in the literal
sense – the fraudulent or otherwise impermissible possession of two
purportedly valid marriage licenses for the purpose of entering into
more than one purportedly legal marriage.”

Fuck off, facts! We’ve got a narrative to shill!

Some religious groups also criticized the ruling.

What the fuck is the point of this sentence? Is anyone OTHER than religious nuts criticizing it?

“This is what happens when marriage becomes about the emotional and
sexual wants of adults, divorced from the needs of children for a mother
and a father committed to each other for life,” said Russell Moore, of
the Southern Baptist Convention.

See how he weaseled that word “divorce” into his lie? This is the verbal equivalent of putting the Republican base in a jar and shaking it to make them fight. It’s all about stimulation, not information. Anyone with half a monkey brain knows that having children was never a requirement for people getting married. Childless marriages have never been illegal in this country. And even if that were the issue, it’s fucking irrelevant because the current case hasn’t altered the marriage laws in any way.

“Polygamy was outlawed in this country because it was demonstrated,
again and again, to hurt women and children. Sadly, when marriage is
elastic enough to mean anything, in due time it comes to mean nothing.”

Sometimes it hurts women and children. If girls are forced into plural marriages against their will, that’s obviously harmful.

But that’s not an issue of polygamy. ONE forced marriage is bad. Multiple forced marriages are just more of the same bad.

Once again, the real issue here is the one thing that god-humpers refuse to acknowledge: CONSENT. The idea of a woman consenting of her own free will to pretty much anything is antithetical to the misogynistic beliefs that god-humpers desperately cling to. Women and girls can’t self determine. They can’t act and choose under their own power. They have to be sheltered and controlled. So protecting them from sexual predators becomes a matter of controlling other people’s private behavior, rather than punishing those who do things to them without their consent (which is the way it SHOULD be done).

Todays lesson: Every god-humper is a liar. And not everyone who claims to protect women and girls is a feminist.

The First Church of Commerce

I hate the word “libertarian”. Not because I have anything against libertarians. Many libertarians are smart people with a lot of good ideas (and other ideas that I strongly disagree with). I like the fact that libertarians defy the two-party system and strive to transcend the tired, oversimplified, black-and-white politics of liberal vs. conservative. It’s not libertarians as a whole that piss me off.

What pisses me off is that any jackass can call him or herself a libertarian. This means that just as “socialism” has become an utterly meaningless term because of how people (including too many libertarians) apply it to others, so has “libertarian” as a label one applies to oneself. You might as well call yourself “smegmatarian” for all the word “libertarian” tells me about you. (Let’s just hope “smegmatarian” doesn’t work like “vegetarian”. Ew.)

Many so-called libertarians are virtually indistinguishable from your standard run-of-the-mill god-humper religious rightists. They stand for all the same things as the religious right, but because they worship the free market and think millionaires should be allowed to wipe their asses with starving children (we all know they’d do that if they got the chance), they call themselves libertarian.

Such is the case with Bob Livingston of personalliberty.com. And he really, really wants you to know just what a libertarian he is.

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom! Buy my book!

#1 Libertarian site! Free! Liberty! Shop the liberty store! Put on your freedom panties! Did I mention I love free liberty libertarian freedom? Buy my book! It’s Free! (In that, you’re free to give me 30 bucks for it.)

For someone who loves personal liberty so much, you’d think maybe this guy would support the idea of people being free to practice harmless personal relationship choices without facing discrimination.  But this brings us to a problem I do have with libertarians in general: They usually understand personal liberty entirely in economic/commercial terms, and always purely from the supply-side. Any other form of personal freedom or rights just doesn’t register with them.

This is very much the case with Mr. Livingston, who just can’t comprehend why anyone might support gay marriage.

Gay Marriage Trumps 1st Amendment

December 10, 2013 by

No, it doesn’t. But that ain’t gonna stop you from pulling the dumbest fucking arguments in the galaxy from your liberty-hole, is it?

When government creates special rights for one group, it inevitably does so at the expense of the natural rights of the majority.

You sure you included enough dog-whistle terms in there? Maybe you should’ve found a way to cram in “job creators”, “gay agenda” and “urban thug”, just to be sure you’ve sufficiently whipped your Pavlovian conservative readership into an irrational frenzy.

Such is the case with abortion, where the courts created out of whole cloth a “right” for the mother at the expense of the unborn child’s right to life.

Fetuses are the majority now? When the fuck did that happen? Perhaps more importantly, HOW the fuck did that happen? Someone out there must have a serious case of clown-car vagina to make that work.

Or do you just not know what the phrase “such is the case” means? Well, you see how in your previous sentence you brought up the rights of the majority? Yes, I know how hard it is for god-humpers to remember the words they blurted out just seconds before, but really try this time. You see, when you end one sentence with “rights of the majority”, and then begin the next with “such is the case”, then what follows SHOULD BE A FUCKING CASE OF IT, YOU FUCKING ILLITERATE FUCK.

But none of this matters, because this claim about abortion is just god damn stupid. A fetus in the first two trimesters doesn’t have higher brain functions (I’ll avoid the obvious joke). It’s not thinking or feeling or experiencing or doing any of the things a person does. It doesn’t have any thoughts, so it doesn’t have rights any more than a rock or a tree or a Juggalo does. The woman carrying the fetus, however, does have thoughts and feelings and experiences, so she has rights. Once the fetus has a functioning brain and can survive on its own, this relationship changes. But before that happens, she could play fucking tennis with the fetus for all I care.

And such is the case with gay marriage and a recent judge’s ruling in Colorado that will require the owner of a bakery to serve homosexual couples over his religious objections.

Good galluping god gravy, man. Just stop using the phrase “such is the case”. A majority of Americans support gay marriage. You’re in the minority, Bob.

Masterpiece Cakeshop owner Jack Phillips declined to bake a cake for Charlie Craig and David Mullins when he learned it was to celebrate their “gay” marriage. Colorado doesn’t recognize gay marriages, but the men had “married” in Massachusetts.

If you’re gonna use the smug conservative scare quotes, at least use them consistently. To punish you, I’m going to skip ahead to something you say just a few sentences later in your op-ed:

Note that there was no evidence in any of the cases that the businesses refused to serve the customers on the basis of their sexual preferences.

Remember that thing I said about conservatives being verbal goldfish, immediately forgetting what they said just a few seconds after they say it? Well, Livingston’s brain is hard at work flushing his own statements down his cerebral toilet with every word he types. One second, it’s “they refused to cater when they heard it was a gay marriage,” the next it’s, “Discrimination? What discrimination? I never said anything about discrimination.” *Flush!*

Masterpiece Cakeshop’s attorney Nicolle Martin said the judge’s order puts Phillips in the impossible position of going against his Christian faith.

“He can’t violate his conscience in order to collect a paycheck,” she said. “If Jack can’t make wedding cakes, he can’t continue to support his family. And in order to make wedding cakes, Jack must violate his belief system. That is a reprehensible choice. It is antithetical to everything America stands for.”

For example, he refuses to make cakes for divorced people getting remarried, because the Bible forbids that (in its many cake-related verses). What’s that? He doesn’t? He only applies this supposedly deeply-held belief to the gays?

What an asshole.

In a similar case, the New Mexico Supreme court ruled in August that a Christian couple could not refuse to photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony. Gay marriages are not legal in New Mexico.

Let’s do that goldfish thing again. A few sentences after the above, we get this…

A common refrain from supporters of gay marriage legalization is that laws allowing gays to marry won’t affect anyone outside the couple. Clearly, this not the case.

*Flush!* As your New Mexico quote clearly indicates, this has NOTHING to do with legalizing gay marriage. Discrimination laws are a completely different thing. Your ball-fuckingly stupid argument contains its own refutation. The stuff you’re describing will happen whether gay marriage is legal or illegal, as you yourself clearly said.

So your argument against gay marriage isn’t even an argument against gay marriage. But your argument against discrimination laws is just as stupid. Freedom of religion does not include the ability to discriminate against others. You can’t just say, “God hates Jews” and then refuse to let Jews in your restaurant. That’s not how it works. The first amendment does not allow you to break the law.

But none of that matters to the freedom-loving libertarian, because he just simply can’t comprehend any kind of freedom other than businesses and corporations being free to do whatever they want, whenever they want, to whomever they want. Discriminate against already oppressed minorities? Sure. Rape the environment? Yeah, why not. Destroy the economy by giving sub-prime mortgages to people who never had a chance of paying them off? That’s poor people’s fault for not understanding the complexities of finance. Why couldn’t they just go to Yale like me?

There’s more to freedom that just buying and selling. Hell, there’s more to LIFE than just buying and selling. And something that makes buying and selling marginally more inconvenient isn’t the end of the world. So ease off, libertarians. Shallow, paranoid, and tunnel-visioned is no way to go through life.

God hates facts

While most of the rest of the country gradually moves towards equality on the gay marriage issue, Indiana is resolutely planting its feet in the past. There’s a constitutional amendment banning gay marriage headed for a vote some time in November 2014. Why, you ask? How could Indiana be this backwards when their neighbor Illinois just decided to join the 21st century and legalize gay marriage? The answer is simple. It’s because of assholes like this guy:

Gay marriage would violate God’s laws

You say that like it fucking matters. Yet God doesn’t seem to give a fuck about people violating his oh-so-sacred laws. Adultery is supposedly against his laws, yet it’s legal in all 50 states, and he hasn’t done jack shit about it. Did it ever occur to you that maybe he just doesn’t care about you or any other glorified primate on this planet?

In Sunday’s Indy Star, business columnist John Ketzenberger’s statement that Indiana’s passing of HJR 6 would make the state less economically competitive and that Indiana would become a “beacon for limiting rights” is as far from the truth as most of the other arguments that favor voting down the proposed amendment.

Apparently god hates punctuation. God’s law says you get just one comma in your paragraph. After that, you just have to string words together without any kind of structure or coherence until you reach that weary period at the end. If “comma” meant sex partner, “words” meant “every aspect of your life”, and “period” meant “miserable death”, then that’s also a pretty apt description of god’s views on sex and marriage.

The author of this dribble, Jim Riecker, makes no actual arguments against the claim that banning gay marriage would harm the economy. He just simply asserts it as fact. It’s what liberals believe–so it must be false! Logic!

But there is very good reason to think it’s true. Businesses of all sorts want to cater to the under-40 crowd. They spend lots of money, which is why most things are marketed towards them. And they overwhelmingly support gay rights, including the rights of gays to marry. They’re not gonna want to come to your state if your state presents itself as a backwards redneck shithole, which is exactly what Indiana is doing right now.

The fact is that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights, but is another example of misdirection by a group and their supporters to engage in spiritual warfare through public opinion and deception against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

I bet you thought I was kidding about that whole “One comma then no more punctuation” rule, didn’t you? The lord works in mysterious ways, I guess. Either that or Indiana is currently experiencing a massive shortage in punctuation marks. If only punctuation were made from limestone! We could make a fuck ton of commas, periods, dashes, and parentheses here in Bloomington (one of the few sane places in Indiana).

This asshole could clearly use some. Here, dingleberry, let me try to make that sentence a little clearer for you:

The fact is, that the push to move this state to the secular left has nothing to do with economics or individual rights. but It is another example of misdirection by a group (and their supporters) to engage in spiritual warfare (through public opinion and deception) against the laws of God that this nation was founded upon.

There. It’s still a clunky, ugly paragraph. But at least it’s readable now.

And now that it’s readable, I see that I’m wasting my fucking time. “They want gay marriage because they hate baby Jeebus.” Real fuckin’ original. Yeah, the other side couldn’t possibly be concerned with helping gay people. They just hate your pathetic deity. A deity, I might add, who seems utterly impotent to actually address this issue himself. It wouldn’t be that difficult for Jeebus to just come down and say, “Hey, bros! Gay marriage? Cut that shit out.” But apparently he can’t get off the fucking god-couch. Lazy-ass motherfucker…

It seems like God’s law is always being conveyed by his sad little followers. It’s been, according to your ignorant followers, 6,000 years now, God. When are you gonna get your head outta your Holy Hole and actually do something?

The only opportunity that Indiana has in this argument is whether to remain a beacon for the laws of God.

True story. The other day I was in a bar here in Bloomington. This dumb hick sitting a couple seats down from me starts spouting out a bunch of racist jokes. And I mean, really bottom of the barrel dumbshit racist jokes, like “Why shouldn’t you play Uno with a Mexican? ‘Cause they get all the green cards! Hurr hurr hurr!” Keep in mind, in this bar, there was me, this racist asshole, and two black guys, and that’s it. He thought this was appropriate.

Eventually he turned to me and blurted out, “And you know what else?” I was sick of his shit, so I responded, “This better not be another fucking bad joke.” He looked nonplussed for a second, then proceeded to explain to me that Americans can apply for refugee status in Canada from the War on Drugs. I said that’s bullshit. Which, by the way, it is.

The motherfucker was so offended by this–a mild insult, by my standards–that he immediately demanded his tab and left the bar without speaking another word. He just simply couldn’t handle the idea that someone might point out that simple facts contradict basically every stupid, childish, racist, xenophobic thought in his barely functioning brain.

Indiana has too many of these fucking people. Mr. Riecker here just wants to shout “God’s law! God’s law! God’s law!” and simply can’t abide by someone saying something like, “A gay person whose loved one is dying isn’t allowed to visit them in the hospital because they aren’t allowed to get married. This is injustice.” If you say that, they demand their tab and storm off like spoiled children.

Maybe Illinois will spank them and set them straight.

Discrimination: It’s good for business!

There are different types of conservatives out there. There’s just the run of the mill conservative, a person whose beliefs differ from my own liberal beliefs, but who isn’t an asshole or a bigot. Just different. Then there are the assholes and bigots, the ones who pick up on conservatism because it gives them an excuse to attack some racial or sexual minority. There are the True Believers (aka god-humpers), the ones so caught up in a religious ideology that they believe it without question and see implications of it in everything. There are also the plutocrats, heartless elites interested only in augmenting their own wealth and power, and constantly pushing for lower taxes even if it means the environment is raped and poor people die of preventable diseases. (Seriously, fuck those guys.)

But then there are the libertarian types. They’re generally easy to get along with in comparison to the assholes and god-humpers. They tend to be mostly rational and willing to see other people’s viewpoints. The points they have to make are not always irrational, authoritarian or just downright ignorant. They are often intelligent, informed and politically engaged. Honestly, if the libertarian types ran the Republican Party I wouldn’t find it loathsome like I do now. (Unfortunately, the plutocrats hold the real power in the party and the base is overrun with assholes and god-humpers. Hence the loathsomeness.)

But the libertarians do have one really, really, REALLY fucking annoying tendency. They have difficulty seeing the political, social, or legal value of anything apart from its economic value. If they get it into their heads that a law hurts the economy, then they’re against it, and their money-hardened brains don’t really even process the concept that it could be a good law apart from whatever (real or imagine) economic damage it does. Case in point, Joshua Steimle at Forbes.com, who recently spat out this bit of Libertarian Wankery:

Entrepreneurship Threatened By Ruling In New Mexico Gay Marriage Case

It should be noted that this case wasn’t about gay marriage per se. Gay marriage is in fact advancing in New Mexico and is already being carried out in some counties. But the case in question took place at a time when gay marriage was not allowed and the case is not about legalizing gay marriage. Rather, it’s a discrimination case about a photographer who refused to work at a gay wedding ceremony several years ago.

Steimle (I don’t have the foggiest idea how that letter-salad of a name is supposed to be pronounced) begins reasonably enough:

Whenever the law interferes with entrepreneurial activity it creates a barrier to entry and makes the practice of doing business less efficient. Some would say certain inefficiencies in an economy are good and desirable, as when bad people are prevented from doing bad things by laws and regulations that catch them before they do any harm. This realm of “positive law” includes laws against drunk driving and insider trading. These laws create criminals where there is no victim but merely the perhaps likely threat of harm, and reasonable people can debate the merits of such laws.

This is why I like the libertarians (Steimle doesn’t claim to be one, but comes across to me as one, so I presume he is). Even when I  disagree with them, I don’t entirely disagree with them. Part of what they say usually makes good, rational sense.

The recent ruling wherein the high court of New Mexico ruled against Elaine Huguenin, a professional photographer who refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony due to her religious beliefs, goes far beyond merely attempting to prevent harm. Rather, it aims to criminalize behavior that has no potential to cause physical harm, but at worst can only be considered offensive. If allowed to stand, the consequences will be negative for all entrepreneurs whether straight, gay, black, white, male, or female.

And then he turns around and says something stupid. The worst harm discrimination can do is to be “considered offensive”? Do you know ANYTHING about the history of this country?

Elaine Huguenin is the co-owner of Elane Photography along with her husband. Their small business is based in New Mexico. In 2006 she refused to photograph a gay marriage ceremony for Vanessa Willock and her partner, citing religious beliefs. Elaine and her business came to national attention after the couple sued her, claiming discrimination. According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

On August 22nd, 2013, New Mexico’s highest court ruled against Elaine, stating “When Elane Photography refused to photograph a same-sex commitment ceremony, it violated the NMHRA in the same way as if it had refused to photograph a wedding between people of different races.”

It cannot be disputed that Elaine broke the law.

And now he’s being sensible again. Yes, she clearly violated the law. Whenever a god-humper talks about issues like this, that part is often lost on them. If Steimle were a god-humper, he would probably “dispute” it by regurgitating Bible verses and whining that he’s being persecuted just like the Jews under Hitler.

What we can dispute is whether the long term consequences of having such a law in place are beneficial for society.

After the ruling, Louise Melling of the American Civil Liberties Union issued a statement saying “When you open a business, you are opening your doors to all people in your community, not just the select few who share your personal beliefs.”

Were this reasoning to be applied equally to all cases, as blind justice demands, then a business owned by a gay individual must provide services to the Westboro Baptist Church, if asked to. A Jewish entrepreneur must provide services to a neo-Nazi.

And now he’s being stupid again.

Dear Mr. Steimle, would you please LOOK AT WHAT YOU YOURSELF WROTE JUST A FEW PARAGRAPHS AGO.

According to the New Mexico Human Rights Act, it is illegal for a business to refuse its services to an individual because of that person’s sexual orientation. The same law also prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry and gender.

Do you see “political affiliation” or “organization membership” on there? No. And that’s the law. What Melling says is not the law. She’s just someone from the ACLU who said something that doesn’t accurately represent the law.

The reasoning behind anti-discrimination laws is to protect groups that have historically been given second class citizenship on a basis of something that is either not under their control (race, sexual orientation, place of birth) or that is specifically protected in the constitution (religion). There is no history of persecution of the KKK–in fact, they’ve historically been the ones doing and promoting discrimination.

That’s why we need these laws. What Melling said is irrelevant, and you know this, because you said so just a little while. Please pay attention.

According to a recent Rasmussen poll, 85% of Americans believe Elaine had the right to refuse service to the gay couple. I suspect the percentage would be even higher if respondents had been asked not if a Christian woman could refuse to photograph a gay marriage ceremony, but if a business owned by an African-American woman must provide services to the KKK.

What do you think the percentage would be if it were a klansman refusing service to a black woman? People don’t exactly think very clearly on issues like this.

And a black woman refusing to serve the KKK is not comparable to a photographer refusing to serve someone just for being gay. The KKK actively hate and attack black people. Gays do not have anything against photographers.

It is important to reiterate that no harm was done to the gay couple other than to offend their sensibilities.

Utter bullshit. It cost them time and resources to find another photographer. If this practice were allowed to proliferate to other businesses, it could seriously impact the lives and well-being of gays by making it more difficult for them to obtain services than straights. Real harm, even ECONOMIC harm (since that’s how Steimle thinks) has been done here.

How do I know this? Because that’s exactly what happened to blacks back when it was allowed to discriminate against them. Ask anyone who played on an integrated football team in the 1950s who had to scramble to find a hotel for 80+ players and coaches when they learn that the one they booked didn’t allow blacks. Or any hungry black many who had to search around town to find a restaurant that would serve him. It hurts people.

If you are a Christian woman who a week ago was thinking of starting a wedding photography business in New Mexico, might you be thinking twice today?

I’d be impressed if you could think once.

If the Court’s ruling is allowed to stand, this sends a chilling message to entrepreneurs—if someone, anyone, doesn’t like you, your business, or what you stand for, then all they need to do is claim discrimination, and they can sue you.

Utter paranoia. Hypothetically, someone might attempt to abuse the law in this fashion, but whether they could actually succeed would require them to prove you actually discriminate.

It does not matter whether the entrepreneur is black or white, gay or straight, liberal or conservative, male or female. Anyone can be targeted. It’s only a matter of time before alleged inferior service, rather than outright refusal of service, is all that is necessary to claim discrimination and bring suit. To those who claim this is unrealistic and will never happen, I would point out this is exactly what I was told about the type of lawsuit Elaine Huguenin just lost.

“I was told this by my imaginary friend Steve the Wonder Chicken. He’s never done me wrong before!”

Entrepreneurs already face enough hurdles. They must deal with the IRS, The Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act (otherwise known as Obamacare), and other city, county, state, and federal regulations.

Yeah, I’m sure wedding photographers are really struggling with Obamacare.

Add to this the threat of an expensive lawsuit based on your beliefs, even if you pick no one’s pocket nor break anyone’s leg, and for some it will be the difference between starting a business that brings us an innovative product or service that improves our lives, and getting a safe job working for someone else.

Anti-discrimination laws are bad, because people who want to discriminate won’t do business in your state. Think of the economy!

So should we allow discrimination against blacks or Hispanics or Muslims or Jews so that people that want to discriminate against them will do more business in our state? According to Heimle’s stupid argument, that’s exactly what we should do.

But the argument is utter nonsense. For one thing, there is more at stake here than merely who’s doing business in one’s state. There’s also the interest of protecting the rights of a class of people who have been historically subject to widespread discrimination. Even if that means a few bigots won’t do business in your state, it’s still worth it. But libertarians simply can’t process this. They see something that might hurt business and immediately conclude it’s bad without further consideration.

But even if we limit ourselves to economic arguments, it’s still stupid. Yeah, anti-discrimination laws might drive the bigots away, but so fucking what? Smart, educated people are more likely to favor gay rights and equality, and they also make for great entrepreneurs, and they would find a state that protects gay rights to be more attractive for business. And it’s not just entrepreneurs. Many big businesses today, including big ones like Google and Boeing, are actively pushing for protections for gays and lesbians and would find a state more attractive if it had laws to that effect. One could easily argue that protecting gay rights could improve the economy.

And as for a bigot who’s so petty and hateful that he/she wouldn’t open a business in NM simply because they won’t allow him/her to discriminate? Fuck ’em. Who needs ’em? Let ’em move to fucking Saudi Arabia and live in the repressive theocratic nightmare that they apparently think society should be. Let ’em move to fucking Russia, where discrimination against gays is now enshrined in federal law. I don’t see why we should need or want their business.

They’re probably shitty photographers anyways.

Whiny Whitey just won’t give up

The American (non)Thinker just won’t stop pimping this idea that white people are the real victims of a case in which an unarmed black teenager was stalked and shot to death. Here’s one of the more recent anal spewings they’ve produced:

July 20, 2013

Birth of a Racist

By Sally Zelikovsky

I assume that the title is a deliberate reference to Birth of a Nation, which is still used by the KKK as a promotional tool to this day, 98 years after it came out. At least D. W. Griffith’s horrendously racist piece of hateful propaganda was well-made. In fact, it is, sadly, a legitimate contender for the title of Most Influential Movie Ever. Zelikovsky’s piece, however, is just more of the the poorly written fucking dogshit we’ve come to expect from American (non)Thinker.

When I awoke this morning and looked at myself in the mirror, I realized that I had undergone a fundamental transformation — a  Kafkaesque metamorphosis.  I was no longer myself.  I had become…a racist.

In my junior year as an undergrad I participated in a preceptorial on the works of Kafka. During our discussions of The Trial, one of the other students suggested the idea that some aspects of Kafka’s work represented the gas chambers in the Holocaust. I pointed out that Kafka died in 1924, long before Hitler took power and began the Holocaust. But she insisted on her interpretation, even going so far as to claim that Kafka somehow psychically predicted Zyklon B showers. This was the point when I realized that “Kafkaesque” means whatever the fuck the person using the word wants it to mean.

But there is, ironically, a sort of Kafkaesque quality to Zelikovsky’s little Whiny Whitey tirade. The joke of “The Metamorphosis” is that Gregor Samsa didn’t really change. He always was the spineless vermin that he supposedly transformed into–there actually wasn’t any real metamorphosis in terms of personality. The same is true of Zelikovsky. Being a racist is a Kafkaesque metamorphosis for her. Which is to say, nothing about her really changed. She was already a racist to begin with.

I didn’t do it to myself.  I’ve always been sensitive to race.  I don’t support racism or racists.  I’ve never considered myself racist and don’t think others would consider me a racist.  How could I be one now?

I’m pretty sure others would consider you racist, given what you say later in this article. This appears to be primarily an issue of your self-delusion and narcissism.

I never enslaved anyone, prevented them from working or voting or living in my neighborhood or joining my clubs.

That’s all it takes to be non-racist, right? As long as I don’t own slaves or kick blacks out of my neighborhood, I’m not racist. That’s all it takes. Right? RIGHT??? TELL ME I’M RIGHT SO I CAN FEEL GOOD ABOUT MYSELF!

I don’t think there was any proof that George Zimmerman did either.

There’s also no proof that he had any reason to suspect Trayvon Martin of anything at all. But you’ll be conveniently ignoring that fact, won’t you?

But now I know if I ever cross or injure a black person — no matter how justified my actions might be — there is a presumption that I am a racist.

Only if “justified” means “The unarmed child I shot was black.”

I don’t like it at all.  It isn’t true.  But here I am, non-racist me trapped inside this new racist body I’ve been assigned.  My actions and beliefs are irrelevant.  Society has decreed this is who I am.

Oh, poor you. Society declared you racist, and it makes you feel poopy. Meanwhile, society also declared it okay to kill Trayvon Martin because he…what? What did he do? Walk around at night while black? You’re declaring your feelings to be more important than his life. Fuck you.

Like alien pods taking control over our slumbering bodies, unstoppable forces have gradually been redirecting our programming as a society so that any time a minority is harmed or disliked by a white person, the precipitating cause of the harm or dislike is ipso facto racism.

Euphemism is always the friend of the prude and the whiner. Please note that in the case under consideration, “harmed or disliked” means “stalked without any justification and then shot dead.”

After the Zimmerman verdict, many white people woke up just like me, realizing that we will be deemed haters whenever we interact with non-whites and something goes wrong — no matter what our motivation or innermost thoughts are.

To understand the meaning of “something goes wrong”, see above. And, again, Zelikovsky is claiming that her precious, delicate little “innermost thoughts” are more important than a 17-year-old boy’s life. Fucking horrible, hateful, selfish, racist bitch.

Most of us didn’t grow up this way.

No shit.

Quite the opposite.  I was taught never to hate and only to judge people by their actions and not by their color, race, gender, sexual orientation, religion, etc

If so, your teachers failed.

Didn’t Martin Luther King say we should judge a man by “the content of his character, not by his color of his skin”?

Didn’t Martin Luther King devote his entire life to opposing people like you?

Use of racism to implement an agenda or get one’s way, has been building over years.

This guy called Martin Luther King may have done it, too.

Anytime you fire someone who is a minority, you must have documentation backing up your non-racist justifications.

I’ve had several jobs and seen people of all races fired. Being able to justify a firing is something a business has to do no matter what.

Even though we are supposed to be a color-blind, post-racial society, groups and individuals force us to think about race all the time.

Classic Whiny Whitey. “By talking about racism, they’re FORCING me to experience the horrible, unutterable suffering of having to THINK!”

We have become a hyper-racial society.  Furthermore, since very few of us want to be labeled with anything as odious as “racist,” we will do anything — including keeping incompetents in our employ — to avoid the moniker.

Or maybe we’ll just construct such excuses in order to make ourselves look like victims.

If you don’t like your black neighbor because you have a personality clash, you are a racist.

Nope. Lot’s of people don’t like Chris Brown. No one has ever been called racist for it. He’s an asshole.

If you complain about a black clerk in a store because she wasn’t helpful, you are a racist.

Nope. I’ve complained about bad service from people who happened to be black. No one ever called me a racist for it.

If you oppose affirmative action, you are a racist.

True.

If you disagree with a black President’s ideology and disapprove of his policies, you most definitely are a racist.

Nope. But it helps your credibility with the right if you are a racist.

If you are a juror in the Trayvon Martin case and find George Zimmerman not guilty, you must be a racist. Heck, the entire system that acquitted Zimmerman is racist. Those shots were fired not out of self-defense but because of racism. And we know that, because Trayvon was black and Zimmerman white.

There is no sane universe in which stalking an unarmed boy–even after a 911 operator told you not to–and then starting a confrontation with him and shooting him should be considered “self defense”. Florida, obviously, is not sane. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the confrontation. Trayvon Martin was the one defending himself. If you think differently, I don’t even care if you’re racist or not. You’re just an asshole, plain and simple.

Whether or not he did or did not provoke the confrontation with Trayvon, it’s hard to believe the wimpy George Zimmerman’s last thoughts were “I’m going to kill a black man because I don’t like blacks” as opposed to “This guy is bashing my head in and I better do something before I lose consciousness.”

No. Bullshit. The fact that Zimmerman started the whole thing is very much an issue.

In trials like this — where you have one-on-one action with little else to go on — and you want to prove racism, you are either forced to (1) look at surrounding evidence, statements and circumstances and try to re-construct what you think the state of mind or intent of the accused was, or (2) intuit what the accused was thinking, in other words, jump into his mind and make the leap from assumption to assumption.

While there was a credible eye witness who saw Trayvon beating up Zimmerman,  if hate is to be the crime on trial, then we are compelled to examine the thoughts of the perpetrator and the victim, even though we have no way of ever knowing what they really were.  Until we can read someone’s thoughts as if they were files on a computer, we are treading into dangerous territory.

Fuck you. You’re the one pretending to “intuit” what Zimmerman was thinking. Here are some facts, which neither side of the debate disputes: 1.) Zimmerman was carrying a gun even though no one ever asked him to do this; 2) Trayvon Martin wasn’t hurting anybody; 3) Zimmerman chose to follow him; 4) The 911 operator specifically told him not to do that; 5) Zimmerman ignored this and continued following Martin; 6) Zimmerman was the one who initiated a confrontation between the two; 7) a fight broke out; 8) Zimmerman shot and killed Martin, 9) Martin was UNARMED.

I don’t need to read anyone’s thoughts. Zimmerman was wrong. Period. No one should be allowed to do what he did, even without the race issue.

These are the kind of cases that try men’s souls.

Fuck off.

…the public is unsettled because any one of us, at any time, of any color, could be either Trayvon Martin or George Zimmerman.

Complete and utter bullshit. I can’t be Trayvon Martin, because I am a 32 year old white man. You are a white woman, and therefore also cannot be Trayvon Martin. Society frequently treats young black men as if they’re automatically dangerous–something that doesn’t happen to white men or to women of any race.

On top of all this, some in the public — MSNBC, loonies on the left, Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and the minions they have summoned to protest — want us to further restrict the self-defense laws that protect all of us in these situations.

Bullshit. Zimmerman was not defending himself. He started the fight. He was the aggressor.

This means it would be even harder for you to shoot an intruder or rapist or pedophile when protecting yourself or your family.  This means people will hesitate before coming to the aid of a neighbor or being a Good Samaritan.  This means when someone robs your store at gunpoint, you have to succumb to injury or death.  This means when your daughter or son is raped, they must yield and never fight back because self-defense will no longer be available to them.

Whiny Whitey sure does love some good old fashioned scaremongering. And, no, recognizing the injustice of the Martin case does not mean you have to let your daughters get raped. It just means you can’t stalk and kill unarmed teenage boys. If you consider not being able to stalk and shoot 17 year old black boys to be an infringement on your rights, please fucking fuck yourself with the first sharp object you find.

This would be a return to the lawlessness of the Wild West where anything goes and your only justice is revenge.  Call it feudal, barbaric, mob rule or lawlessness: either way, it is the unraveling of the criminal justice system in America and a giant step back for mankind.

That’s precisely the opposite of what you said the the previous paragraph, you stupid hateful bitch. First you say this will make everyone cowed and submissive–next it’s the Wild Wild West. You don’t have any activity in your anterior cingulate cortex at all, do you?

Do we really want to throw the self-defense baby out with the racism bathwater?

No, but only an idiot would think that those are our only two options.

Most of these cases are admittedly hard to prove — that’s why our system errs on the side of innocence.  It’s better to let a guilty man go free than incarcerate an innocent one.  If you were the accused, believe me, this would be your mantra.

I agree that it’s better to let guilty men go than imprison innocent men. So, let’s talk about all the black men who get railroaded into our prisons by a justice system that–HEY! Where are you going???

I wonder if the race industry has any idea what they are clamoring for by restricting the claim of self-defense.  Black-on-black crime is the overwhelming source of crime against blacks in America.  If the Zimmerman protesters have their way and a black intruder breaks into the home of a black family and is shot dead by the homeowner, the homeowner will more likely be the criminal on trial than the perp, as we have seen in the Ron Dixon case in Brooklyn, where a Jamaican family man killed an intruder (whose race isn’t clear in the reports) and was shockingly sentenced to jail for illegally possessing a gun.

Do I even need to explain how this situation has nothing to do with Zimmerman? (Nota Bene: If you need me to explain, then you’re an imbecile, much like Sally Zelikovsky.)

My heart breaks that slavery, Jim Crow, segregation, the KKK, lynching, and discrimination ever existed.  Every reasonable human being feels this way.

Sure it does. But you know whose hearts don’t break for those things? The commenters on the website where you published this.

This is not exclusive to race.  Gay activists have hijacked the black plight for their own purposes.  Gay students are given special consideration in the college application process to right the wrongs visited upon previous generations of homosexuals.  If you dislike a person who happens to be gay, you are homophobic.  If you disapprove of redefining marriage, you are homophobic.  If the thought of same-sex sexual conduct makes you feel uncomfortable, you are homophobic.  If you think AIDS is a gay disease brought on by lifestyle, you are homophobic.  If you fire anyone who is gay, you are homophobic.

“I can’t understand why every time I restrict the rights of gays I get called homophobic!”

And, as we have seen in the media’s reaction to the Zimmerman case, for many, there is no room for self-defense if the puncher-turned-victim is black and the accused is white.

The media is evil for turning the “puncher” into a victim. Rather, we should treat the SHOOTER as a victim.

You right wing assholes are so very clever–in the Spinal Tap interpretation of clever which actually means stupid. But make no mistake. If you ever punch someone, and then they shoot you in response, all this indignity will vanish in an instant, and you’ll suddenly realize what “proportionate response” means. Especially if the guy you who picked a fight with you is black.

Whiny Whitey, Zimmerman and the company you keep

The brain trust over at The American (non)Thinker really is in a tizzy over the Zimmerman trial. They just keep reaching deeper and deeper into their racist assholes and pulling out every single racist piece of shit they find to smear all over the internet and make the world suck a little more for those of us who don’t need to call ourselves “thinkers” in order to trick people into thinking that we’re non-dumb.

In the wake of the George Zimmerman verdict several black ministers across the country put up signs on their outdoor church billboards criticizing it.

The blog post proceeds to discuss all of TWO churches who did this. The messages on the church signs are admittedly clumsy and poorly worded, but that’s true of a lot of church signs. But that doesn’t make them inaccurate. One church rightly notes that it’s a lot easier to get away with killing a black man than with raping a white woman. The other says it’s now safe to kill black men in “Amerikkka”. Hyperbolic? Yes. An understandable reaction to Zimmerman walking free after killing an unarmed teenager that he stalked and confronted even after being specifically told not to do that? Yes. Perfectly understandable. I would have stated it with less exaggeration, but in principle I see where they’re coming from. If I were a black man, this verdict would give me legitimate concerns about my safety, so I totally get why there are black churches that are freaking out about this.

Of course, churches freaking out and issuing hyperbolic statements of doom is nothing new. Panic and mass hysteria are the bread and butter of fundamentalism. White churches do it when an openly gay person is allowed to teach in a high school. Black churches do it when A TEENAGER IS MURDERED AND HIS KILLER IS SET FREE. One of these is not like the other. One of them is understandable. The other can go fuck itself. If I have to explain to you which is which, just go fucking kill yourself and save the world from the indignity of having to share a planet with you.

Cue Whiny Whitey! Whiny Whitey knows that making white people feel all poopy inside by talking about racism is just as bad as murdering black people. Whiny Whitey knows what all the black people should actually be talking about. Whiny Whitey is generously, charitably offering her advice to black people so that they’ll start talking about what matters (how much the black community sucks) instead of talking about things like their sons getting murdered, which is very hurtful to white people (emphasis added below):

The church responded by saying: “The message on the sign is not a message of hate. It is a message of awakening and call to action. It is a message not intended to divide, but to cause honest reflection in order to make this country a better place for ALL.”

However there was no “honest reflection in order to make this country a better place for ALL.”  Honest reflection demands reflecting on these headlines.

7 shot in attacks on South, West, Southwest sides

Teen Charged In Murder Of 15-Year-Old Boy

The incidents generating these headlines–and similar ones across the country–had nothing to do with the Zimmerman verdict.  Occurring around the time the signs were posted,
all the victims–and all the perpetrators–looked like the sons of Obama.  Many of the murders will be unsolved.

So, sadly, yes, “it is safe to kill black people in Amerikkka.”

Yes, tragically, “You can kill an African American and you will walk down in Florida.”  And across the country.

But, also sadly, I don’t think the pastors of these churches, or Rev Jesse Jackson Senior or Rev Al Sharpton or Attorney General Eric Holder will honestly reflect on why this is so.

They will not reflect or issue “a call to action” on teen age pregnancy, single parent, fatherless homes, crime ridden communities, unemployable adults, uncontrollable schools.

At best there will be more demands for more government aid, make work jobs while blaming racism for all the problems.

And black people will continue to be killed in Amerikkka. (sic) And their black murderers will continue to freely walk.

If Edith C. Fenig were being just a tad more honest, that last sentence would read: “And the black murderers in these UNSOLVED crimes continue to freely walk. It’s a good thing I’m writing for a right wing website so I don’t have to worry about my target audience thinking about this for all of two seconds and realizing what a horrible racist bitch I am.”

The two articles she links to don’t even discuss the race of the perpetrators or the victims in the crimes they describe. Fenig is simply assuming that if it’s a shooting, it must be a black perpetrator. But remember, there’s no racism in America, so we should just stop talking about it! Instead, we should talk about everything that’s wrong with the black community!

What’s especially infuriating to me is that a lot of black activists have brought attention to the problems, like fatherless homes and crime, that plague black neighborhoods. It’s not like black people don’t talk about these things or do anything about them. But these are very difficult problems to solve. Oh, and remember that quote from the last Whiny Whitey article I talked about from American (non)Thinker?

We are all creepy ass crackas now, which was the point of electing a community organizer as President in the first place. It could end up no other way.

So according to American (non)Thinker, black people should only talk about the flaws in their own communities, and black community organizers are evil. Or, in other words, black people should only talk about things that make themselves look bad, and anyone who works to actually improve black people’s lives is bad, so things are just gonna have to stay the way they are, except without white people ever having to acknowledge that racism is real.

“Honest reflection” my bony white ass.

But the racism of American (non)Thinker isn’t my main point. You can learn a lot about a website by its audience. Whiny Whitey’s MO is maintaining that there’s no racism in America, so we should stop talking about it. Of course, this requires at least maintaining the thin veneer of not being racist oneself. But they allow comments on their articles, and this gives us some insight into the type of people they cater to (Hint: They’re racist, racist, racist, racist, racist).

eChien

After 5 years of “My People” Holder, “If I had a Son..” Obama, the knock-out game in St Louis, Beat Whitey Night in Iowa, the skyrocketing, extremely under-reported black -on-white violence , black panther voter intimidation etc….I can truthfully state I NO LONGER CARE what black folks do!!!

The sooner they commit self-genocide, the better.

90% of the blacks have emitted their true colors and it’s all anti-white.

Flame away, but I’m done with the issue!!

You’re worried about being flamed while espousing views that are pretty much typical of the burning cross crowd. Anyone remember that Bill Hicks quote about irony?

Pragmatist • 

Minority groups primarily Blacks are majority in prison for the simple
reason that it is THEY who commit the MAJORITY of the crimes. Black male
‘Youths’ between the ages of 15 and 25 (just like USURPERS ‘son’
Trayvon) who comprise LESS than 2% of the USA’s population nevertheless
commit OVER 55% of all the MURDERS and OVER 65% of all the VIOLENT crime
in the USA.
The most likely cause of death for a
Black Youth is to be killed by another Black Youth and OVER 95% of all
Blacks murdered are murdered by other BLACKS.

CAPS LOCK makes my MADE UP BULLSHIT into TRUTH.

ChesterCurmudgeon

Beat up a white man (or “white” hispanic) and he’s expected not to defend himself and take a beating like a good cracker.

He’s expected not to stalk innocent people and start a confrontation with them.

Ls Santa Hermandad LeChien

The White race is finally awakening from its induced stupor. When we ALL come together our shout will be deafening and heard across the world.

Why is it that I envision this guy as a cross between Rob Liefeld and Timothy McVeigh?

andrew+johnson

A poll was taken recently showing blacks are regarded as the most racist group by the public. I wonder why?

Because it was a made up poll of your Whiny Whitey ass?

TommyGunn

It is safe to kill black kids in Amerikkka. Detroit solves next to none of their black on black murders. Screw the racist black so called leaders. Blackness is their main identity. How pitiful it must be to be them!

The cops (mostly white) aren’t solving murders of blacks! I blame the blacks!

45colt

Some black ministers will jump at the chance to become the new Jeremiah Wright. They may not understand however, the cost of such a move. Their actions may put at risk the lives and safety of many black, white, Hispanic, boys, girls, men and women. Do they want this potential blood on their hands?

White racists might kill blacks! I blame the blacks!

faithgracelove

Let’s not forget the nearly 2000 black babies killed by their own mothers in abortion clinics EVERY DAY in America (please note the correct spelling of this word). It’s hard to take black Christians seriously when they pretend to care about the sanctity of life while so many of their own children are daily sacrificed on the altar of abortion. They have sold their souls to the Democrat party in exchange for government handouts. They have no moral authority to preach to the rest of us.

Black Christians have no voice because they value living, breathing teenage sons over undeveloped fetuses that don’t have brain function yet! I blame blacks and women! (Fuck, at this point, why not throw in some sexism with your overt racism. You’re already a lost cause anyways.)

willmay RedStater

“…….. and certainly not biblical. . . .”

You’re right; it isn’t biblical, but it is certainly koranical.

The muslims see the blacks as “in play” for “reversion”; islam appeals to base emotions of hatred, revenge, unending vendetta, and offers a false sense of superiority to those unwilling to work to become superior.

I think we are witnessing the campaigns of islam and “civil rights” merging.

Of all the things that are wrong with this comment, “work to become superior” stands out the most. He thinks white people are superior, but they worked to become that way, so it’s not racist. That, and the fact that “koranical” is not a word in any language.

Lizzie ChesterCurmudgeon

Asians have been treated just as shabbily as Negroes in American, and much more recently. But not as bad as they were treated in their homeland, so they still come. And we are the better for it. The Asians – Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Hindus, Koreans – have done very well in America. Negroes would do very well if they emulated them. Until those of Negro heritage realize their fate is largely in their own hands, they will never be free. Too many, even today, have merely exchanged one overseer for another.

Seriously? “Negroes”? What did your great, great, great grandkids get you for your 114th birthday? (Please tell me it wasn’t a “negro”.)

turnipweeda day ago

I’ve had it with being called a racist by racist blacks. A much greater percentage of blacks are highly prejudiced than whites. I’ve been tolerant, understanding, and forgiving, but no more. Whereas I gave blacks the benefit of the doubt, now I won’t. They have always held their own race above justice, peace, right, and wrong, and I have ignored that in the interest of harmony. No more! They have shown their true face, and it is not pretty. God bless the black grownups. I pray they won’t have to suffer for what is in the hearts of their brothers

Gotta wonder why people call this guy racist…

Lizzie flamewarrior7

I think the worst crime against young Negro people is the schools. A good education has pulled many a poor soul out of the ghetto of the mind. Books inspired as well as taught.

Okay. Enough with this “negro” shit. It’s not a racist or offensive term, but it’s definitely archaic. Are you going to call them Hottentots next? Maybe if you actually got an education yourself you’d get with the times.

Kaz All_American_Americana day ago

A little history: the reason the Klan attacked black churches during the Civil Rights era was that “churches” were the gathering place for strategy, tactics and logistical planning for marches, choreographed civil unrest, etc.(Rosa Parks’ disobedience was carefully planned for months before she eventually sat in the front row of the bus. It was never spontaneous as history as tried to claim)

Now, I’m NOT in any way shape, form or fashion, condoning the violence against black churches……just stating some historical facts. Blacks in the ’50s and ’60s felt they could use the sanctity of the church to safely plan marches, etc. Same tactic the Muslims are using today in mosques across the country.

Today, black churches get away with a level of political activity that would get a tax-exempt status yanked from a mostly white or Evangelical church quicker than you could say Lois Lerner.

Unfortunately, what goes on in too many black churches is less preaching of the gospel and more grievance peddling and Democrat Party promotion.

How dare those blacks think they can safely plot to sit in the front of a bus?

This comment seals the deal for me. I can’t go through any more. Suffice it to say, The American (non)Thinker‘s readership is loaded to the gills with drooling racist morons. The type who think whites are the victims because 50 years ago blacks had to hide in their segregated churches to plot out actions like getting on a bus without being discriminated against by whites. Yes, Rosa Parks’ civil disobedience was planned and organized. The fact that such a thing needed to be planned and organized, and what that implies about our society, is lost on these pigfucking inbreds.