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.

Advertisements

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.

Whiny Whitey and the Zimmerman trial

A few months back I coined the term Whiny Whitey to denote those ubiquitous white assholes who claim to be persecuted by the mere discussion of racism in America. And boy oh fucking boy has the Zimmerman trial–and its accompanying controversy over the race issue–brought out the whiniest of whiny whiteys this country has to offer. Exhibit A: C. Edmund Wright at the American “Thinker”.

July 18, 2013

Creep Me Out: Chinese is the ‘New Nigga’?

By C. Edmund Wright

Confused yet? Be warned: the whole article is about as disjointed and non-sequitur as the title, so get used to it.

I confess to being a very confused creepy ass cracka, trying desperately to go New School, as recently elucidated by Rachel Jeantel:

Confession or no, it’s true. You are one fucking confused, racist white fuckwad. He goes on to quote Jeantel’s rather idiotic statement, and compare it to something Richard Pryor said in a 35 year old movie:

Nigga….the whole world say it’s a racist word. …around 2000, 2001 – they change it around. That means a male….any kind of male.  Any kind, (even) Chinese…my Chino…but (say) nig-grrrrrrr – (and I) advise you not to be around black people, because they not gonna have it like that.  – Rachel Jeantel on CNN, July 2013.

Stoney gave bootleg haircuts for 25 cent…..he put a bowl on your head, and he cut around it…made all the niggas look Chinese…that way they could get a job on the railroad. They wouldn’t hire no niggas see. Niggas want real money.  Chinese work for that yang money see…niggas didn’t want that sh_t see”  – Richard Pryor as Mudbone in Miss Rudolph and the Monkey, circa 1978

Remember when Chris Rock did that funny bit on the difference between black people and niggers? And remember how every single fucking white moron on planet Earth immediately took this to be an excuse to start calling black people niggers? You know, those people who are too fucking stupid to understand that Rock was being ironic, and just took him on face value as a cheap excuse to justify their own bigotry? Yeah, this is gonna be one of those situations. Wright isn’t going to throw the word “nigger” around, but he treats these two quotes as a carte blanch to toss out every negative black stereotype his tiny little pea brain can conjure up in the next few paragraphs.

Frankly, I’m not sure how to reconcile these two very disparate views on African-American relationships with Chinese-Americans, just one of the many national puzzles we face in the aftermath of the Zimmerman verdict.

Let’s make something very clear here. Richard Pryor is very funny. C. Edmund Wright is not. Moving on.

And we thought the new class of “white-Hispanic” was confusing.

It’s not confusing to anyone with two neurons to rub together. Hispanic is classified as an ethnicity, not a race. So, yes, someone can be both white and Hispanic. The two are not mutually exclusive, and never have been.

However, in honor of Miss Jeantel, I’m going to do my best to leave “the old school” and join “the new school” – and figure this stuff out.  From what I can tell, my old school ways “creep her out,” so in the spirit of racial sensitivity, reparations, bipartisanship, gender neutrality, sequestration, looking for the union label, compassionate conservatism, Occupy Wall Street, doing it for the children, and no doubt Mother Earth, I really want to get this right – and figure out the new school vernacular. (I know, old school.)

In other words: “I want to heap everything I don’t like onto Jeantel because she’s black and I’m a fucking asshole.”

I’m just a free lance writa after all, and I figure you’ll soon have an honorary degree and be a college professa somewhere – where your Obama Care benefits might cover things like fingernail extensions, paid for by taxes on tanning beds no doubt. Or maybe you’ll be on The View, or the Kardashians, or Tyler Perry’s House of whatever it is.

Black women have crazy fingernails, amiright amiright amiright? And black people elide the “R” at the end of a word! And they’re uneducated and want things like health care. Silly negroes! Nota bene: The above paragraph occurs in an article that will ultimately argue that there is no race problem and liberals just need to shut up about it.

“Freelance” is one word, by the way. That is unless you lance boils for free in addition to being a writer, which I find doubtful. Perhaps you shouldn’t be mocking black people’s supposed lack of education when you yourself seem to be rather lacking in the skills required to do what you get paid to do.

We also know from Miss Jeantel’s information that cracka, as in creepy ass cracka, is not a racist term either, as cracka refers apparently to a cop, of any color — and perhaps, a gay cop at that. Or, in the new school lingo, a cop who is “that kinda way.” For some strange reason, this image reminds me of The Village People. Then again, so does Piers Morgan.

Just in case the racism isn’t enough, he throws in some homophobia against Piers Morgan to boot. And, seriously, the Village People? If you’re going to make a gay joke in your racist article, you could at least come up with one that hasn’t been done a fucking bajillion times already.

But in reality, none of it is really that funny.

No shit.

What this all boils down to is that the trial, and what the jury focused on, was not race. This of course is an inconvenient problem for the booming racial grievance industry, which includes among others Barack Obama, Eric Holder, the NBC family of networks, the Democratic Party, numerous black churches — and of course, Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson. For this community, the Zimmerman trial was about the race, the whole race, and nothing but the race, so help us almighty media.

And now we’re in full on Whiny Whitey mode.

Racists like Wright have been in retreat since the 50s. Since being openly racist is no longer socially acceptable, the strategy today is for racists to pretend that they’ve already lost. Racism is gone, so stop talking about it. If they were to succeed in this, then they might be able to preserve the vestiges of racism that still remain in today’s society.

Of course, lucky for us, racists tend to be fucking imbeciles. They have this bad habit of doing things like stringing together several paragraphs of racist stereotyping, and then following it up with dogshit like this:

Yet NBC’s naked attempt to use this trial to ignite nothing short of a race war is as pre-ordained as it is despicable. It is inevitable because contrary to popular belief and conventional beltway wisdom, the election of Obama was guaranteed to tear our nation apart at some point. The notion that he was some kind of fanciful post racial healer — almost from another galaxy — was absurd from the get go.  No liberal politician, especially a black one, can possibly heal anything racial. That’s right — it’s simply not possible.

Consider that liberal leaders of color mostly seem to come from the grievance wing of racial politics. Thus, as professional agitators and race baiters by definition, their ascension to power will necessarily take on an adversarial tone. There is no way around it.  They have gotten where they are by being adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans and most Caucasians — and they are not about to change once they grab the reigns of power. Quite the contrary.

According to Wright the problem with racism is blacks in politics, apparently. There’s really no other conclusion that can be reached from the two paragraphs above. If we were to take Wright at his word, then we must conclude that he wants blacks removed from politics.

But, of course, since he’s Mighty Whiny Whitey, he has to portray himself as the victim in all this. When black politicians do something horrible like talk about being black, that’s just being adversarial towards “most Caucasians”. Once again, Whiny Whitey wishes us to believe that blacks talking about being black is actually an attack on whites. Wright takes it even further in declaring that it’s impossible for a black liberal to address any racial problem. He’s declaring that people who talk about racism are whiners while simultaneous spewing some of the most racist whining I’ve heard in a while. And I haven’t even gotten to the part where he declares all black Democrats to be incapable of talking about race in one breath and then in the very next breath accuses them of being “adversarial towards all conservatives, Republicans, and most Caucasians.”

Think of racial tensions as a wound on the nation, and the race agitation industry, the institution that gave us Obama, Sharpton, Jackson and Holder, is in the business of specifically pouring salt into the wound, and generally making sure it festers and never heals. Their efforts are then multiplied by butt-insky white liberals, who project their internal guilt by constantly picking at the scab as well. This scar heals just fine when ignored over time and people just go about their lives, but that dynamic is sort of inconvenient when your cash flow model or your political turn out model is dependent on a continuing flow of blood.

Even his fucking metaphor doesn’t fucking work. Wounds don’t heal by being ignored. That’s a great way to fucking bleed to death, you brain dead dickbucket. Although part of me really is hoping that Wright will get in a car accident and bleed to death because he stupidly thinks he can just wish his sucking chest wound away by pretending it’s not there. (And there’s a big difference between a scab and a scar. If we’re going to call racism a scar, then that metaphorically implies that it will never fully go away. But that’s a bit too close to the truth, now, isn’t it?)

This one paragraph from Wright pretty perfectly encapsulates what Whiny Whitey is all about. Whiny Whitey is the victim because talking about racial issues hurts Whiny Whitey. So we just shouldn’t talk about them, and pretend they’re not there. White people who disagree with Whiny Whitey are actually just full of “white guilt” because, as we all know, white people are always the victim, rather than the perpetrator, of racism. The only way Whiny Whitey will feel good is for all those evil blacks to stop talking about what it’s like to be black. Then we can maintain the wonderful status quo, where *wink wink nudge nudge* white people have it a lot easier than black people–just don’t say that part out loud.

This is known by those who benefit, and there is not a single politician or professional race hustler who’s life will be improved by acknowledging progress in this area. Without the grievance industry, figures like Sheila Jackson Lee, Emanuel Cleaver and John Lewis would be largely irrelevant government employees, representing safe liberal districts in Congress, and heard of by almost no one but their constituents.  Human nature is a powerful force, and people tend to gravitate towards positions that enrich them. Beyond any doubt, it enriches and empowers certain elements to pretend that we are all Mississippi in 1950 now, so those elements exist in a bizarre media/political/community organizing sphere where is it still Mississippi in 1950.

Your welfare for fingernail extensions joke from earlier would be quite at home in a conversation between whites in 1950s Mississippi. Or, hell, your implication in this very paragraph that black politicians are “irrelevant” apart from the racial “grievance industry” for that matter. The evidence that we haven’t come as far as we think from the 1950s is right here in your own fucking article.

The New York Times, the NBC family of networks, many black churches, Hollywood and Big Education, all are ironically part of the progressive universe and yet are stuck in this racial time warp. And this was unavoidable once Obama was elected. Obama in power was always destined to appoint grievance pimps like Van Jones and Eric Holder to positions of authority. That’s who he is, and they are merely extensions of him. The grievance pimps live for only one thing: to finally get even with all the creepy ass crackas. And no, with due respect to Miss Jeantel and Rush Limbaugh, I’m not talking about gay cops, and neither are Obama and Holder.  This is about reparations and getting even. So obsessed are they with this mission that an Hispanic Democrat who tutors black kids and votes for Obama will do for a cracka in a pinch. It goes way beyond that now, though.

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.

“Big Education”. The fact that he would use such a term tells us so much about his disposition.

Maybe Mr. Wright should squeeze the word “pimp” into those paragraphs a couple more times, just in case the association between black people and prostitution isn’t obvious enough. I mean, we can’t have people thinking that black people should be associated with any positive things, now, can we?  Nope. When Whiny Whitey talks about blacks, he never fails to find something negative to associate with them. Blacks are vengeance-seeking pimps who hate fine, upstanding, totally-not-racist white people like C. Edmund Wright. It’s a good thing we’ve got brave whiners like the folks at the American (non-)Thinker to stand up to these evil black people who live disproportionately in abject poverty and have historically been on the receiving end of just about every form of racism and discrimination that one can think of! To think that they have the gall to organize their community! Oh, the humanity!

Sorry, Mr. Wright, but I have no interest in creepy ass cracka solidarity. Black people talking about racism does not victimize me or anyone else. You, and every other Whiny Whitey out there, are a fucking embarrassment. Not just to white people, not just to Americans. To humanity. If anyone needs to shut the fuck up, it’s creepy ass crackas like you.

And yes. You are creepy. You are an ass. And by being a Whiny Whitey, you are definitely a cracka. Go fuck yourself.

How to be a Christian asshole, Part 2

Look at this face.

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

Ray Comfort: Heartless Assdouche

See him, all smiley and pretend-friendly looking? This is how he presents himself apart from his words. This is the face of the politician who kisses babies when he’s not slashing the Welfare budget that would feed them. This is the face of the used car salesman who isn’t capable of thinking anything other than, “How can I rip this guy off?”

I’ve spoken before about what a loathsome, hideous human being Ray Comfort is. But I want to make sure something is crystal clear. Ray Comfort hates you. He hates your mom. He hates your dog. He absolutely despises humanity and anything that’s good in this world. There is not a fiber of his being that doesn’t want to see you and everyone else burn and die. And until the day comes when we are all immolated and all of human history is dust, his only concern is to find a way to squeeze money out of his gullible Christian followers. He is not capable of thinking or doing anything else. He is composed of cynicism and hatred. He can’t be any other thing. He is the worst thing humanity has to offer. And he probably eats puppies.

He shows it whenever he transitions from plastic smile to using actual words in the English language. Take, for example, his regular column at WingNutDaily, which is called “Atheists Ask”, and which purports to be his answers to questions from “atheists” (which in his vernacular means anyone who doesn’t believe exactly what he believes). His most recent entry, from 2 days ago, shows beyond the shadow of any doubt that he hates each and every one of us.

ATHEISTS ASK

How could a man stone his own son?

Exclusive: Ray Comfort answers biblical questions posed by skeptics

I’ve said this before, but it bears repeating: Any time WingNutDaily claims some story is “exclusive”, that means that it’s so bad that no other news website would ever publish it. This is no exception.

“Deuteronomy 21:18-21: ‘If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.’ – What’s the context of this, Ray?” – Bridgette Patterson

Bridgette is being way, way too nice. Do you really need context to a passage that states that parents should murder their own son? And that the whole town should join in on giving him a painful, tortuous death? There is no context in which that’s okay. None whatsoever. If the Bible commands people to do that (and it does), then the Bible is evil. Full fucking stop.

These kinds of questions are usually answered with mealy-mouthed equivocation and vague excuses by Christians. But not Comfort. Oh, no. He wants you all to know that stoning disobedient children is A-OK with him.

Israeli law was meant to produce fear. And it certainly did because it would seem that no youths mouthed off at or beat and murdered their parents. No doubt they showed respect, because there are no incidents in the entire Bible of any youths being stoned for disobedience to their parents. Again, this was because their criminal law produced a fear of consequences.

You know what society needs? More fucking fear. That sounds great!

I love how he thinks that the Bible not mentioning the victims of this draconian law means that they don’t exist. That’s not how oppression works, Comfort, and you know it. The victims weren’t recorded because they were the dregs of society. They were tortured, murdered, and forgotten, right down the Orwellian memory hole. What are the names of all the people Stalin killed? What are the names of all the people burned as witches in the early modern period? What are the names of all the black people lynched in the United States in the early 20th century? We don’t know. And we never will. The people who killed them didn’t even consider them to be proper humans, and didn’t see fit to record their names any more than they would the names of the cattle or sheep they slaughtered.

At this point, most Christians become moral relativists and say, “Well, things were different back then. So killing your kids was okay in ancient Israel, even though it’s not okay now.” This is because of cognitive dissonance between their barbaric belief system and their upraising as decent human beings. They don’t realize it, but they want to put the Bible’s barbarism in the past and live decently in today’s world. But not Comfort.

In recent years American criminal law has become spineless. It has lost its ability to produce fear. Murder someone and you may get six years in prison and be released in four. Richard Ramirez was found guilty of murdering 13 people. One of his victims was mutilated with multiple stab wounds, and her eyes were gouged out and placed in a jewelry box. On May 30, 1985, Ramirez attacked Malvial Keller, 83, beating her to death with a hammer. For his heinous acts he got free board and food for life and was allowed to get married and have conjugal rights.

When the law isn’t feared you have a nation that has had more than 380,000 people murdered since 1990. You have a nation where mass murder is so commonplace it hardly gets time on the news. Welcome to lawless America – who is afraid to take the life of a guilty mass murderer like Ramirez, but will fight tooth and nail for the right to take the lives of babies in the womb.

I want to emphasize that I am not being hyperbolic in any way when I call Comfort a loathsome human being who is filled with hatred. He lacks the basic decency that causes most Christians to want to find excuses for why the most barbaric shit in the Bible doesn’t apply today. Comfort wants it to apply. He wants people to live in fear, and he wants us to kill more people. He also wants us to put the value of fetuses that don’t have developed brains (and therefore lack experience and personality) over the lives of actual humans who really do have life experience.

Ray Comfort longs for the day when parents could viciously murder their sons. That says all that you ever need to know about him, really. But we can go further in analyzing this.

Note how, when asked for context, his only response is, “People should live in fear.” That’s all the context he needs, and he apparently believes that this is an adequate answer. He honestly thinks that he’s given a sufficient answer to this “atheist’s” question. He is fully in the authoritarian mindset. He read Machiavelli without realizing that Machiavelli wrote The Prince under the premise “Authoritarianism is awful, but if you must be an authoritarian, this is how to do it.”

Anyways, on to the next atheist’s question:

“Ray, you are an idiot. Your opinions on creation have no basis in reality. In order to understand what we are and where we come from we must study every detail of our planet and beyond, not close our minds and [say answers that] were spoon-fed to us by sheep herders that loved slavery and murder.” – Big Mike

I like you, Big Mike.

Studying every detail of nature shows design and order – from the atom to the universe, and that speaks of an initial cause that is unspeakably intelligent. I believe that was God. An evolutionist or an atheist doesn’t know what it was and usually closes his mind to even the possibility of it being God.

I loathe you, Ray Comfort.

No, there is not any sign of design in the atom or the universe. And there is no order in the universe. There is regularity, but that is not the same as order. Just go into any natural setting and look at the way plants grow to see what I mean. Plants will grow in any place that they can. Out of crevices, between randomly strewn boulders, off of other plants. Hell, there’s a pipe 7 feet off the ground against a cinder block wall in my apartment complex, but some dirt got wedged between it and the wall, and a plant grew in the dirt. Of course, it died after a few days. But life can’t predict something like that, because it has no purpose and no order.

Life spreads out wherever it can. It’s like a fluid splashed across the surface of the Earth. It is anything but ordered. It’s beautifully controlled chaos, with the only control being the principles of chemistry that determine its molecular make-up and the imposition of natural selection. No one designed it. Only an idiot would make life the way it is, and that’s part of what makes life so fascinating.

Creationism goes hand in hand with authoritarianism because it wishes to impose false order on something which is much more properly chaotic and free. It is no coincidence that the guy who thinks we should all live in fear is also the guy who thinks that an invisible being micro-manages the universe. He’s just taking his view of how laws should be imposed on humans and applying it to the natural world.

“If I were God, I wouldn’t sentence you to eternal torture just for not worshipping [sic] me. What an evil, egomaniacal god you worship.” – Tristan Miller

Ah, the doctrine of Hell, another Christian precept that many Christians find embarrassing. The reason they find it embarrassing is the same as before. No decent person would ever want to torture someone forever for any reason. Torturing someone forever just because of what they believe is even worse. On some level most Christians realize this, so they try to rationalize Hell away.

But, again, not Ray Comfort.

You are minimizing your crimes against God by just speaking of “not worshipping” Him. The truth is that if you die in your sins you will be damned for lust, lying, fornication, stealing, blasphemy, ingratitude, covetousness, idolatry, etc. You don’t realize it but you have a multitude of sins (as we all have).

Did you know that every single time you have lusted after a woman you have committed adultery as far as God is concerned? Did you know that each time you have done that you are “storing up His wrath”? Think of your secret sins that you thought no one knew about. God has seen them. Every one of them. Think of how many times you have done things you knew were morally wrong – because of the voice of your God-given conscience. He has seen each one, and the Bible says that His just wrath “abides” on you (see John 3:36). That’s why you need a Savior. Please, take the time to do the test on

This is the entirety of Comfort’s answer. Yes, even that broken sentence at the end (at least at the time I’m reading it; maybe they’ll fix it later). WingNutDaily needs a better editor. I have no idea what test Comfort might have been referring to, and honestly don’t give a fuck. Whatever he meant to say before the column got cut off, it was almost certainly just more horribleness.

Comfort is basically just affirming Tristan Miller’s charge. God is an evil egomaniac. Why else would he insist that his wrath abides in us, and condemn us to eternal torment just for masturbating while thinking of Angelina Jolie? Like Ray Comfort, he hates everyone. He’s a judgmental, selfish, arrogant prick, and no one in their right mind would ever worship the Christian God that Ray Comfort describes. God is a wannabe dictator, ruling through fear and intimidation, who wants to control every aspect of your personal life and make you feel constantly guilty and afraid over every single move you make and every thought you think. In other words, he’s just a projection of Comfort’s authoritarian fantasies, a simulacrum of a truly horrible man.

A failure of irony

Bill Hicks famously said that fundamentalism breeds a lack of irony. Fundamentalists often have extreme difficulty recognizing telling contrasts between what is said and what is implied by the context in which it is said. Often times, this failure can come in multiple layers. Take, for instance, the publication which calls itself American Thinker, which frequently publishes utterly thoughtless dribble that only repeats right wing talking points, such as the piece we’ll be looking at today, in which author Paul Schlichta actually quotes an author without realizing that the author was being ironic.

What’s wrong with Same-Sex Marriage?

By Paul Shlichta

There’s nothing wrong with it. The fact that bigots and fundamentalists keep trying and always failing to make the case that there’s something wrong with it is evidence of this.

This year, June’s wedding bells had a discordant tone, as they ushered in a raft of same-sex marriages.

It’s funny how bigots always feel the need to speak of gay marriage in the most ominous tones, hoping to convince the reader that it’s the fucking scariest thing in the universe. In actuality, it’s utterly innocuous, and will have no effect at all on the vast majority of people. But maybe if we talk about it in Vincent Price voice, and have a Theremin playing in the background, and use a metaphor that invokes Edgar Allan Poe, we can make it scary. OoOOOooooOOooooOOOOooo!

By the way, since when are rafts ushered in by anyone to anything? Did I just miss some recent event where bells usher in rafts?

I hereby invoke a panel of experts — Fr. Thomas Vandenberg, G. K. Chesterton, and Kurt Vonnegut — to explain why such marriages are a dangerous debasement of the concept of marriage.

Bells, ushers, rafts, and now juries? Unmix your metaphors, Mr. Shlichta. You clearly don’t understand how writing works.

And really, Kurt Vonnegut? The agnostic socialist renowned for his transgressive writing that was frequently banned by conservative prudes and moral busybodies? You’re invoking him? This ain’t gonna go well for you.

Fr. Vandenberg’s new book, Rediscovering a Pearl of Great Price , is an inspired exposition of the full meaning of Christian marriage, It should be required reading for couples planning to marry, although some of the passages may come as a surprise:

The greatest gift a husband can give his children is to love their mother, and the greatest gift a mother can give her children is to love their father. That is what will keep the proper balance in the family and make their home environment secure. That is what will free the children from their primary fear, which is to be abandoned by one of their parents. Why do they fear that? Because that is what has happened to so many of their friends at school.

This is clearly bullshit. The greatest gift parents can give their kids is to love their kids. Even parents who hate each other and get divorced can still raise a good child by letting their love for the child overcome whatever disdain they have for each other. I’ve seen it happen, so I know it’s true.

Even if we go along with Vandenberg’s pseudo-philosophical ramblings, how is this a problem for gay couples? If they love each other very much, then they should be fine parents according to this. You have failed to make your point.

Marriage is supposed to have the ambitious goal of providing children with a nurturing and reassuring base from which to learn to face the world. Therefore, parents must not only be good persons, not only a man and a woman (so as to provide the dual role models psychologists say they need), but also so unshakably devoted to each other that their mutual love can withstand all the temptations and shocks that life will hurl at them, as well as the abrasion of living with each other.

You see what Shlichta’s doing here? He’s throwing in “man and woman” as if it’s relevant to Vandenberg’s quote, but his parenthetical justification actually involves something completely different from what he quoted above. Instead of being about the importance of loving each other (which gays are perfectly capable of doing), it’s actually about “dual role models”. As if some other man or other woman couldn’t fulfill that role for them.

To this end, sexual passion and the bewildering differences between the sexes jointly play a vital role.

“Bewildering”? Does a vagina really confuse you that much? I can just imagine Mr. Shlichta at home, staring in utter disbelief as his wife inserts a tampon, muttering to himself, “I…I don’t understand…What’s happening???”

As Chesterton put it:

The differences between a man and a woman are at the best so obstinate and exasperating that they practically cannot be got over unless there is an atmosphere of exaggerated tenderness and mutual interest.  To put the matter in one metaphor, the sexes are two stubborn pieces of iron; if they are to be welded together, it must be while they are red-hot…

Great. More metaphors. Besides, if men and women are so irreconcilably different, doesn’t that mean same sex marriage might be the better option?

Therefore, as Fr. Vandenberg goes on to emphasize, sexual intercourse is not merely a permitted “perk” or a reluctantly tolerated means of procreation but rather a vital and holy part of marriage…

If there’s one thing that makes my skin crawl, it’s a fundamentalist attempting to talk about sex. Seriously, if someone came up to me and said, “I slid my hard cock into her wet pussy, stuck my finger up her ass, and fucked her while she called me ‘daddy’ and cried,” it wouldn’t skeeve me out as much as the sentence quoted above. Not even if he added, “Then I made her lick expired Miracle Whip off my taint.”

…a divinely sanctioned means of demonstrating and intensifying conjugal love to make it withstand the rigors attendant upon raising children.

That’s how you see sex? It makes it easier to raise your kids? Fucking weirdo. How the fuck do you get off calling the gays “perverts” when this is what’s going through your mind when you fuck your wife?

Fortunately, as with all animals, men and women have the proper equipment for such activities.

He means cocks and cunts, which not all animals have.

The corresponding parts of the male and female body interact quite neatly for both mutual pleasure and procreation.

I feel so sorry for any woman you have ever slept with.

Not so for homosexual men and women. Whether or not there is anything wrong with their desires, they simply don’t have the proper apparatus to fulfill them.

This is entirely predicated on you knowing what they desire. You do not. Like all sanctimonious busybodies, you just assume you know what everybody’s business is and insert yourself into it. I’m not gay, but I would bet that if you said this to a gay person, their response would be to tell you to take your proper apparatus and fuck yourself with it.

They must resort to clumsy makeshifts, like cargo cult devotees trying to make airplanes out of straw.

A cargo cult is a phenomenon observed on Pacific islands after WWII. During the war, many islands, inhabited by hunter-gatherer tribes who had little contact with the outside world or modern technology, became the home of make-shift airfields. The soldiers at these airfields sometimes shared what they were flying in with the natives, who referred to it as “cargo”. After the war, the airplanes and soldiers (and cargo) disappeared, and on some islands new religions emerged in which the natives built airplanes out of bamboo and straw to try to make the cargo come back. They obviously had no idea how an airplane actually works. The physicist Richard Feynman used cargo cults as a metaphor for pseudoscience–someone who reconstructs the superficial appearance of something, but has no comprehension of its inner workings. Mr. Shlichta is invoking this idea.

Keep this in mind when he quotes Vonnegut later.

Alternatively, they submit to grotesque operations, trying to alter their bodies to suit their desires. The artificiality of these attempts to mimic normal sexuality will inevitably distort the emotions that arise from them and will tend to adversely affect any children living with them.

You know that part of the Bible where Jesus says, “Judge not, lest ye be judged”? Yeah, Christians just kinda ignore that. They fucking LOVE judging people, and this article is just dripping with judgmental attitude.

You see those transgender people? They’re grotesque! And they’re just trying to mimic MY sexuality, which is totally NORMAL. It’s normal to view sex as primarily geared towards making you raise kids better. I’m normal! They’re the grotesque weird perverted ones!

Homosexuals who engage in such desperate expedients shouldn’t be condemned for wanting to do so. As the psychoanalyst in Kurt Vonnegut’s God Bless You Mr. Rosewater  explained:

Let’s assume that a healthy young man is supposed to be sexually aroused by an attractive woman not his mother or sister. if he’s aroused by other things, another man, say, or an umbrella, or the ostrich boa of the Empress Josephine or a sheep or a corpse or his mother or a stolen garter belt, he is what we call a pervert. Let us hasten on to the admission that every case of perversion is essentially a case of crossed wires…

Vonnegut was being sarcastic, you fucking nitwit. All you have to do is just read a little further down the page to see that. Here’s what immediately follows the Vonnegut quote above:

Mother Nature and Society order a man to take his sex to such and such a place and do thus and so with it. Because of the crossed wires, the unhappy man enthusiastically goes straight to the wrong place, proudly, vigorously does some hideously inappropriate thing; and he can count himself lucky if he is simply crippled for life by a police force rather than killed by a mob.

You see that part about police brutality and lynch mobs at the end? That’s the part where a rational mind reflects on what he/she read before and realizes it shouldn’t be taken on face value, that Vonnegut is actually making a quite different point than what a literal reading of the words might indicate. It’s called fucking irony. But for our noble busybodies at the American Thinker, that just doesn’t register with them. They see “pervert” and their feeble minds go no further.

In fact, there is neurological evidence that at least some homosexuals are wired differently and cannot help their proclivities. Others contend that homosexuality may be one of the aftereffects of sexual abuse during childhood. In recognition of such factors, the Catechism of the Catholic Church proposes the apparent paradox of condemning homosexual acts while urging that people afflicted with homosexuality be treated with sympathy.

Every major psychiatric organization has reached a consensus that homosexuality is not dangerous and should not be treated as a disorder. So everything in this paragraph is pseudoscientific bullshit that has no bearing on modern psychological medicine.

But we cannot debase the whole concept of sex and marriage merely to oblige them. The objective of what a gay activist has called the “”war we’ve already won” is to reduce marriage to a lowest-common-denominator status that will inevitably include polygamy, which is already being touted on ABC-TV as  “normal” and being campaigned for in Canada. That’s too high a price to pay for making homosexuals feel better about themselves.

None of this follows from anything you’ve said above. Not a single bit of it can be logically inferred from anything that proceeds it in the article. It’s just yet another bigot declaring by fiat that gays are evil because imaginary Jesus says so.

And the gay marriage initiative is not about making gays feel better about themselves. It’s about treating them like humans who have the same rights as other humans. Honestly, I don’t give a fuck about how they feel. All I care about is treating people equally.

Unfortunately, the institution of marriage is currently being attacked by several forces that, deliberately or inadvertently, are destroying it and thereby undermining our society:

  • The current fad of cohabitation. Single mothers usually do not assume this role voluntarily but are forced to do so by the perfidy and selfishness of men who desert them when they become pregnant. In consequence, the children suffer from the absence of a father and seek a male role model and mentor, often by joining gangs.
  • Ultrafeminists, who regard men as “the enemy”. They encourage the idea that men are unnecessary for raising children and regard lesbian couples as the new “normal”. To this end, they cite psychological studies that fall apart when examined.
  • Our protosocialist state, which seeks to diminish the concept of family in order to make the state the primary “parent”. This may be one reason why liberals are so enthusiastic about same-sex marriage — because it weakens the status and importance of families.

Now we’ve degenerated into the all-too-typical right wing freak out about how gays and feminists will destroy the universe. I especially love how his first point (aside from confusing cohabitation with single mothers) puts all the blame on men, and then his second point puts all the blame on “ultrafeminists” who supposedly hate men. Make up your mind, assfuck.

But whatever the causes, the debasement of the concepts of marriage and family will destroy us. Lycurgus achieved it in ancient Sparta and produced a nation of racist brutes. The USSR tried it, with partial success, in the last century and begat a dysfunctional society that is now painfully groping its way back to normality. These are hardly encouraging precedents. The legalization of same-sex marriage is a decisive step down that slippery slope.

Neither the Spartans nor the Soviets legalized gay marriage. And, in fact, both society’s were actually quite conservative. And Lycurgus, as our primary source Plutarch even admits, probably never even existed. He’s a legend, cobbled together from the storied lives of several different Spartan kings.

Of course, I’m not at all surprised that your ultimate evidence is fables and legends. That’s all religion is good for.

“Disturbing”

I’ve written about MassResistance before. They’re an incredibly bigoted anti-gay organization in Massachusetts who are, for all intents and purposes, just big fat fucking sore losers who can’t handle the fact that gay marriage is legal in their state.

There are tons of bigots out there. But if anything really stands out about MassResistance, it’s just how up front they are about saying that they are oppressed by gays simply because gays exist and are gay in their presence. All bigots ultimately feel this way, but most try to hide it and fabricate nonsensical reasons for why they’re bigots. But not MassResistance. They object to gays existing at all, and that’s quite apparent in their coverage of a recent gay pride parade in Boston.

CAUTION: SOME OF THE PHOTOS BELOW MAY BE DISTURBING

Here’s what they mean by “disturbing”.

A person who's different from me. I'm disturbed.

A person who’s different from me. I’m disturbed.

Yep. The most disturbing photos they can come up with are men who dress like women. But to MassResistance, a man wearing a dress is just about the most horrifying thing in the universe. In fact, they want to make sure we all know that a man wearing a dress is THE primary thing that frightens them.

Making a dysfunctional and dangerous behavior the “new normal”

If the transgender movement achieves its goals, this is what people in your businesses, government offices, classrooms, and public facilities will look like — whether you like it or not.

BELOW: These are all MEN

Men might wear dresses in your presence! Oh, the humanity!

Like I’ve said before, this is MassResistance’s fucking M.O. Merely existing while gay is an affront to them, and they routinely condemn gay people on no other basis than the fact that they aren’t hiding, ashamed, in the closet. But they go beyond that. Ed Brayton recently highlighted a MR article making excuses for Russian bigots who attacked gays for the “crime” of kissing in public.  And their bigotry goes even further than that. They recently posted a supportive article about legislation that’s on the verge of becoming law in Nigeria. Here’s what will happen if it is enacted:

Nigeria’s House of Representatives voted Thursday to ban gay marriage and outlaw any groups actively supporting gay rights, endorsing a measure that also calls for 10-year prison sentences for any “public show” of affection by a same-sex couple.

Just to be clear: Man wearing a dress? MassResistance calls this “Disturbing”. Russians physically assaulting people and Nigerians denying free speech and putting people in jail for 10 years just for kissing or hugging in public? MassResistance calls these atrocities “bold steps to fight back.”

There are fascists in America. People who think that violence is an appropriate response to a minority daring to be different in their presence. People who think that conformity should be enforced by law. People who think that disagreeing with them should be outlawed. People who think that the worst thing in the world is having to be in the presence of other people who don’t live the way they live.

I don’t use the word “fascist” lightly. In fact, I hate the fact that so many people use it loosely, and this might very well be the first time I’ve called someone fascist on this blog. But if anyone deserves to be called fascist, it’s MassResistance. They go well beyond the bigotry seen on most other fucking right wing dingleberry websites. They may not be fully fascist, but they definitely fall under the category that Umberto Eco called Ur-Fascism. Eco lists the traits of ur-fascism, and MassResistance meets them all:

  1. The Cult of Tradition (part of any movement to deny gay marriage)
  2. Rejection of modernism (a constant refrain is that the modern world has degenerated due to fags)
  3. Action without reflection (Supporting Russians who throw eggs at gays who kiss in public? Check.)
  4. Disagreement is treason (Supporting a Nigerian law that outlaws gay rights groups? Check.)
  5. Fear of difference (Duh. This is most of what they do.)
  6. Appeal to social frustration (They actually rationalize Nigeria’s law by saying Nigeria has an AIDS epidemic–never mind that most of those AIDS victims are straight)
  7. Obsession with conspiracy (The Boston parade is a conspiracy to promote transgenderism!)
  8. Enemies portrayed as both too strong and too weak (Gays are taking over! But they’re also degenerates who all die of AIDS!)
  9. Life is permanent warfare (Again, this is pretty much all anti-gay groups.)
  10. Contempt for the weak (MR actually argues that the gays who were assaulted in Russia INCITED violence against themselves merely by kissing.)
  11. Everyone is educated to become a hero (This goes hand in hand with the religious right’s persecution complex)
  12. Machismo (That man’s wearing a dress! Shame him!)
  13. Selective populism (Even the name MassResistance suggests this. They claim to speak for the masses. But they do so in order to crush a minority whom they despise, and the majority of Americans actually support gay rights. So they only speak for “the people” in their own twisted minds.)
  14. Newspeak (This is another one that’s so common on the religious right that it’s hard to find a religious right organization that doesn’t do it.)

MassResistance certainly isn’t the only group that fits this bill, but they are definitely one of the worst anti-gay groups–much worse than, say, NOM. Their complaint is that gays exist at all, and they have repeatedly endorsed violence and draconian tactics to address their complaint, and blamed such anti-gay violence on gays themselves. If they’re not already fascists, they’re uncomfortably close.