Will Smith Loses his Hair over Chris Rock

I’m glad to see this because I hate Hollywood and I hate all of the talentless elites that pollute it. So, at the end of the Oscars that I wasn’t watching, I don’t really care if any of them get assaulted over their little trophy ceremony.

That said, I’m writing this because this occurrence showcases two interests of mine – self-defense and free speech.

Starting with the obvious, force is only moral and (usually) legal in self-defense when someone has initiated an act of physical aggression upon you. Jokes at trophy ceremonies that you hate do not justify violence. The only rational response to such an act would be to insult Rock when accepting your ribbon for Best Actor – NOT refer to yourself as a “vessel of love” after decking somebody in a crybaby act of pathological narcissism.

By the way, his technique was horrible. It’s not like the movies right, Will?

The second talking point is whether or not Rock should’ve made such a joke about Smith’s wife, Jada who has a hair loss condition known as, alopecia. Yes. Yes, he should have. The Smiths are jokes. Will Smith’s son, Jaden is a joke. His wife is one big walking slut joke as she is in a polyamorous “marriage” with Smith. And Will is a joke for putting up with all of it and even laughing at the joke beforehand.

They’re a typical low-brow Hollywood circus act who, of course, will and SHOULD be fair game for a comedian at an international event where they sat in the front row.

And so what if it’s a hair condition she can’t control? Does this mean we can’t tell bald guy jokes anymore? Political correctness doesn’t expand this far, right?

Being a comedian is now officially a hazardous profession.

Here’s some tweets and memes:

I actually agree with him.

I can’t help but notice something else taking shape. I’m seeing a lot of pro-violence support from the gender of peace. Feminists where are you?

I hate being anecdotal but these are from my Facebook alone.

There’s nothing wrong with standing up for people you love but morally and legally it’s predicated upon how and when you do it.

I’m going to assume that this woman would support Sean Connery’s opinion on when to smack women.

The one above is from a guy!

Sense has gone extinct. Men get called “incels” for pointing out the insanely irrational dating standards of young women but a man who puts up with his wife whoring around and then turns violent over a joke doesn’t get called one?

They’re creating an incentive for men to be violent. More on this later.

Yeah? And I see a lot of victim blaming coming from the #MeToo gender.

Remember this: It’s okay to assault someone as long as you didn’t break their nose or knock them out. If you shoot them, stab them or pepper spray them over a bald joke and they don’t have a broken nose or get knocked out, it’s okay.

On a more serious note, it doesn’t matter whether or not someone gets hurt. You can make unnecessary physical contact with someone that DOESN’T injure or hurt them in the slightest and still get arrested and have charges pressed.

The nerve of this mental eunuch to even give reverence to the Oscars by saying, “it’s an awards show not a roast” is room temperature medium rare stupidity. We’re expected to exhibit the same reverence we would at the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier? The joke is on you. The Oscars and Pedophilewood are dastardly jokes.

Always know that if you’ve been friends with a comedian for years, it’s okay to assault them after they make a joke. As long as you’re acting violent in defense of a woman, it’s morally justifiable regardless.

I thought toxic masculinity was bad especially the kind where you attack someone for vocalizing in your direction. I’m getting a feeling of “exploitative” support here. Violence inflicted by men is okay so long as it’s done for “protecting” women. I’m still having a hard time seeing where a woman needed protection in this situation though.

Question: What if Smith slapped Amy Schumer for making the joke? Worse yet, what if a White guy smacked Rock? Board up your shops.

See, the problem with the “punching people you disagree with” philosophy is that it goes both ways in the world of equality. The people that support that don’t realize they could end up on the receiving end of what they supported. Of course, when they receive it right on the nose, then it is unjustified. Most importantly, hoards of those keyboard jockeys have never been punched or brave enough to punch someone.

This is an alarming mating preference I’m seeing here. Is the crave for “masculine” men that dire that they now (NOT ALL) fetishize over violent men? It wouldn’t be the first time this has happened. During WWI, The White Feather Girls (a large portion who were feminists) gave white feathers to British men who were afraid to fight or dodged the draft. I heard recently that women were exhibiting this same behavior in Ukraine yet I cannot find any evidence. If you can, comment below.

Bill Maher recently did a great segment on toxic masculinity with regards to a similar form of behavior.

As for Smith, the final boss of insult humor (is there any other kind?) would be Don Rickles – who was bald himself. Here is he picking on Clint Eastwood.

Anyways, #BlackLivesMatter.

Pro-Riot Arguments

It’s a blazer outside and especially so if you unfortunately live near any of the areas where rioting is taking place. Businesses burned, lives destroyed, cities destroyed and  violence initiated on the innocent all for no reason.

Since there’s a lot of people who have fallen victim to every philosophical sin you could possibly imagine and its correlating actions you’re bound to see a variation of some of the arguments to be addressed below. It’s amazing to me how fast all of these arguments emerged and how quickly people parroted them to a T.

In no particular order:

They’re protesters.

Nope. Protesters engage in the First Amendment. Rioters destroy the welfare of society therefore violating the rights of all. Protesting is a not a rights violation.

It’s like the Boston Tea Party.

The implied “logic” behind this circus freak claim tries to expose supposed hypocrisy behind people that patriotically support the actions that led up to the founding of our country yet condemn the rioters. It’s put forth sounding something like, “You support the Boston Tea Party, which involved property damage, in order to achieve a political goal yet you don’t support the protests? It’s obvious you’re a racist because the Boston Tea Partiers were white and these protesters are fighting for black rights.”

No. First, the Boston Tea Party had a reason to take place. The British Empire routinely violated the inalienable rights of those who lived under it. Here, we have an ex-con who was murdered by a whack job cop. As horrible as it was, this does not constitute nor justify the random and sadistic targeting of society as a whole.

The tea partiers targeted property that was directly linked to The British Empire and not random stores and people. In the process, the only thing they damaged was the tea itself and the boat’s lock which was quickly replaced by them. The tea partiers also held on to stringent rules. They were to take nothing for themselves and anyone to deviate faced punishment.

It’s self-defense.

Self-defense is the act of protecting yourself from an immediate threat. For instance, George Floyd would have been morally excusable if he was able to overpower the cop and save his life. In that case, it would’ve only been morally and legally permissible if Floyd were to directly fend off the cop using the proper amount of force.

Rioting and revenge ARE NOT self-defense. Rioting involves the non-objective and unfettered act of directing force at anything one chooses. You’re not fighting off anything that’s attacking you. AutoZone, Target and sports bars along with their owners are not attacking you. They had nothing to do with what happened. Causing collateral damage for the sake of causing collateral damage is not defense but barbarism.

Attack the police.

What about the police station burning then? Libertarians who are, from what I’ve seen, against the property destruction tend to exempt the police department burning down. The logic at work seems to be along the lines of, “Well, a police officer killed the man therefore it’s acceptable to destroy anything involving the police.”

Wrong again. The concept of self-defense dictates that the amount of force you retaliate with should be proportionate to the amount of force waged against you. Destroying an entire building and putting the surrounding area in risk of numerous types of destruction far outweighs a sadistic cop killing one ex-con.

By targeting cops as collectively responsible, it also roundhouse slaps all cops as being guilty by virtue of occupation and not by action. It can easily also endanger their loved ones and fails on every level to consider that there’s cops that find Floyd’s death an unforgivable act of injustice. Plus, consider the lives of firefighters and paramedics who may be required to be in the midst of the rioting trying to save lives and property.

You must value material goods over human life.

Interestingly enough, this was something the pro-government mandated quarantine thumpers espoused many months ago. Here, they’ve resurrected this lame tearjerker and are trying to apply it to the nationwide debauchery.

This is conditional. There are certain people who I value my possessions over. That’s a perfectly moral stance. A woman who owns a priceless pearl necklace has every moral justification in the book to value that over the life of a thug trying to break into her house. A man with an Aston Martin has every moral justification in the book to value it over the life of the man who tried to rape his daughter. A person whose livelihood is supported by their business has every moral justification in the book to value it over the looters who wish to destroy it.

This is nothing more than lame brained rhetoric to try and take your breath away and make you look like you’re a materialistic monster.

Like every intellectual abomination to support the riots, there’s flawed premises at work here.

Material goods are the result of human life and establish the livelihood of the creator(s) and the society he or she trades them with. As a result of producing goods, people have established property rights. Property rights entail freedom and protect you from the aggression of others. Property is the moral barrier that prevents humans from dealing with each other by violence. Property rights are an extension of individual rights (i.e., it sustains life). Once you’ve taken away property you’ve violated rights. There’s a reason why slaves can’t own property.

Without property rights you get what we have now.

Someone on Facebook commented to me, “I’d gladly lose my material possessions to be an ally in this fight.”

At first glance, it sounds like he’s admitting that they are rioting burglars. I agree. Once you think about it though it openly advocates suicide. Translated it says, “I’m willing to kill myself for the sake of others who are destroying society.” The anti-materialists though are ironically supporting the materialists. I’ve yet to figure out what stealing spark plugs from AutoZone has to do with Floyd’s life.

By the way, remember that pets are legally considered property. Why do I have a feeling the “anti-materialists” will start to pick and choose which possessions they’d like to keep?

Who’s life is this by the way? Floyd’s life or the life of the looters? One person’s life or death should never overtake the livelihood of others whether it’s Floyd’s or anybody else’s. The reverse is the same. We shouldn’t have to sacrifice ourselves on a societal level to someone that died. We’re not collectively guilty.

Get ready for this one. I’m paraphrasing a tweet.

“We” built this country therefore we get to burn it down.

As you might guess by the use of the word “we”, it was written by someone who is black.

If this is the case, does that mean the assembly line workers that built your car get to destroy it? Does that mean the construction workers that built your house get to cut its gas line? Does that mean that the farmers who laboriously harvested the vegetables in your salad get to eat them? Moreover, does building something mean you automatically own it?

In this case it wouldn’t even be the current laborers that own them let alone produced them. Instead, it’d be people that shared the same melanin as them from centuries ago. In fact, if you pay close attention it’s not even about the type of labor but more or less the melanin of the laborers.

Legally, I’m pretty sure you can’t just destroy your property either. If it’s a windup toy I’m sure you can but if you built your house and burn it down or set your car on fire I’m confident that you’ll face harsh legal penalties rightfully so.

This is also effectively saying whites are slaves to blacks. If blacks are the builders and owners and can take away property from whites they’re the slave masters and whites are the slaves.

There you go. Autozone is the result of the legacy of slavery. Mystery solved.

How dare you tell blacks how to protest.

Not just blacks but anybody. Yes, there is a code of conduct for protests in that it ceases being a protest once rights are violated. Saying whites cannot perform a certain action (i.e., judgment) and blacks can getaway with whatever actions they see fit is a textbook example of racism.

Relativistic thinking is brazenly anti-thinking and therefore immoral. If you refuse moral judgement you can easily end up being the victim of what you refused to judge.

I could’ve stopped it at the initial argument though. There aren’t any protests to begin with so there. Most importantly, when everyone is held to different standards they are immediately placed into an “alternate reality”. And when other people are placed into an alternate reality of judgement we have division. And when we have division, we have a civil war. In the end, we’re all held accountable to different standards and I thought this was about equality.

You didn’t like their other forms of protest Pt. 1.

This refers to any peaceful protests that may have occurred such as the famous Colin Kaepernick NFL “take a knee protest”. Yes. People did have problems with that but it wasn’t the kneeling itself. It was a combination of what he said and where he said it. Hoards of people disagreed with the idea of the United States being an inherently racist country along with those who didn’t want soapboxing in sports.

If they think whites hated their prior forms of peaceful protest what makes them think rioting will change their opinions for the better? This easily plays into the hands of white supremacists who characterize blacks as rioting and looting savages. It seems as though they’re inadvertently proving the white supremacists right even though they’d still be wrong in their racist judgement.

People criticizing a protest doesn’t mean they’re not okay with freedom of expression.

It’s also an argument for the ends justifying the means. Why is this wrong though? It’s wrong because the end doesn’t exist since only means do. We’re always in the present and have to think long range. We have to always be aware of what we’re immediately doing and how it will effect where we’re going. The end justifies the means method has no moral regard for the present so what makes them think it’ll have moral regard for the end. If you want to achieve a desired goal it needs to match up with what came before it. Pertaining to the context of the riots, you don’t achieve peace by violence.

What’s the goal here? Where does property destruction take you other than back to your burned down home?

Interestingly enough, the supposedly systemically racist conspiracy at work has fought back against Floyd’s aggressor. The cop is fired and charged with murder. Police unions have spoken out against his actions and Trump has ordered an FBI investigation.

You didn’t like their other forms of protest Pt. 2: Peaceful protests fell on deaf ears.

No. Peaceful protests like Kaeperknick’s did not fall on deaf ears as evidenced by the public response to them. People strongly disagreed and agreed. If being ignored means getting a 14 trillion dollar endorsement from Nike I wish more people would ignore me.

How does this justify destruction though? If you say it’s a matter of getting others to listen to you you couldn’t be more wrong. You get people to listen by persuasion not violence. If you initiate force the only thing people can do is use force (rightfully so) in return. All you’ll do is further convince them that your side is destructive and built upon threats. Violence isn’t a conversation.

What kind of an argument is this? Being ignored means you’re justified in initiating violence? Is it always permissible for cops to initiate violence on someone who ignores them? Is it permissible to punch somebody in the face for ignoring you? What if a child’s parents don’t listen to him and he kills his sister for their attention? Is that justifiable?

It sounds like they’re saying they’re little demented kids begging for attention. I agree. That shows you what their movement is worth.

Sympathy

Some are saying they’re against the rioting yet are sympathetic or understanding as to why it’s happening. If you manage to complete the rest of the sentence past “sympathetic” you should realize that you cannot ever condemn something and then be “understanding” and “sympathetic” about it. Those are feelings and capacities that must be directed by reason and only deservedly applied rationally to things that you should not condemn.

The supposed arbiters of these sentiments are by default apologists for the rioters. They openly admit they understand the motivations behind destroying cities.

The sympathy argument is one big supposed understanding of a violent non-sequitur. If your mom were killed what would you do? Go outside and randomly target innocent civilians and their homes? How would that be worthy of sympathetic understanding?

If you are to allot sympathy to anybody allot it to the innocent business owners and civilians who were victimized by these savages. Save your tears for the victims not the victimizers.

Why didn’t you criticize the anti-lockdown protests? They had guns and “stormed” state capitals.

1. They protested.
2. They didn’t kill or injure anyone or destroy property.
3. Most of these protesters utilized their First and Second Amendment rights which is perfectly legal. A lot of cops are smart enough to know that it’s not legal to randomly tackle somebody just for holding a gun for those of you who say it was only because they were (predominantly?) white. 
4. Their protest made sense. They were petitioning the government to hand back their livelihoods and not force them into their homes.

Now, you can raise the question of whether or not it was sound to bring guns. I don’t think it was. Then again, cops were arresting people for pretty much being outside so maybe they had a point in “scaring” off cops. Either way, I don’t think the guns were smart.

I’m also not saying they didn’t do anything moronic or uncalled for but I’m okay with an angry belligerent moron if the city is still intact afterwards.

This point also treats white cops as a collective and therefore accuses all of them of having double standards when it comes to white or black protestors. It looks at an incident like the Floyd case and assumes that’s how white cops act when confronted with blacks. So, if a white cop has a “peaceful” encounter with a white civilian it’s immediately assumed it wouldn’t be that way with a black civilian. All of these examples are cherry-picked. They’ll take a photo of an angry white protestor from the quarantine protests and then juxtapose it against the Floyd case and then claim it proves their point.

They take two completely different situations with completely different officers and then try and make ties between them based around skin color.

The bottom line here is if they truly let white quarantine protestors get away with whatever it is they did why’d they even bother sending out cops to patrol these events in the first place? Why are they currently letting white rioters destroy cities right now?

Bankers who looted money during the financial collapse didn’t go to jail but there are “protestors” that did.

Maybe because lunatics on a rampage throughout a city are more of an immediate threat than guys who siphoned money through loopholes and lobbying.

This is assuming the unnamed people that maintain these occupations actually did that.

Conspiracies

Trump has recently tweeted that he is going to label Antifa a terrorist organization. It’s about time. There’s also evidence emerging to suggest that Antifa could’ve agitated the protest to which I wouldn’t be surprised. Antifa (mostly white kids) has continuously billed themselves as an organization that fights against things like systemic racism by rioting. However, here they’re exhibiting a morbid comedy of errors.

They claim to be allies to blacks yet are inadvertently doing the dirty work of would be white supremacists by burning down black neighborhoods.

It’s interesting to note the 180 that’s been pulled here. At first, people were saying these weren’t riots but instead protests against racism. Then the rioting escalated to the point where I think they realized they couldn’t rationalize it as protesting anymore. So, what’d they do? They admitted they were riots and then claimed they were committed by supposed far-right white supremacists and condemned them! I’m a little confused. Now pro-racists are fighting using what were once considered anti-racist tactics? Unreal.

If it’s white supremacists then why do they indiscriminately destroy businesses run by other whites?

Then they’ll claim that they initially started out peacefully. Okay, that’s fine but it didn’t stay that way for long and to blame this on only Antifa is sinful. There’s tons of others participating not limited to Black Lives Matter. Whoever did it should be convicted. We shouldn’t sit around trying to nonsensically pin it on who we want to for the sake of our agenda. If it’s white supremacists jail them. If it’s Black Lives Matter jail them. If it’s the cast of Cats jail them. I don’t care as long as the guilty are jailed.

Collectivism

Collectivism is the way Americans are currently thinking. My side is right. Your side is wrong. When you’re “wrong” you’re everything wrong with the world and deserve everything that my side has directed at you. Black Lives Matter stokes this perfectly. By saying immediately that someone’s life “matters” because of their melanin that will ultimately create rioting and needless protest anytime someone with that melanin gets harmed (justified or not).

It frees them of moral judgement. So, if a black person is killed (especially by a white and it seems like only by a white) no judgement is made as to whether or not the killing was justified. It assumes all my tribe members unconditionally “matter”. This undoubtedly breeds conformity in that they’ve been taught to uphold their tribe at all costs. People’s lives matter in that they should all be held equally under the law regardless of race or sex but still should be judged according to action(s). This we should all have in common.

It’s an absolute religion. Whichever black dies at the hands of only a white he’ll become their Jesus – an inadvertent sacrifice to show what is wrong with the world.

In this religion though black lives matter only when they’re killed by whites and not by blacks.

I hope the rioting stops but at least COVID-19 seems to have miraculously been “cured”. The frustrating thing though is that just as the country was opening up parts of it are shutting down once again except this time it seems justifiable due to severe threats of violence.

Originally, the pious quarantine thumpers and politicians espoused it wasn’t acceptable to open your barber shop but now we can assume it’s acceptable for others to destroy your barber shop.

I support protests against the bastard cop but right now I’m not seeing anything by and large that resembles a protest so I have close to nothing to support.

Northam Korea

I am so disappointed in my state. Governor Ralph Northam (D) (aka Governor Blackface) has issued an executive order that dictates the behavior of Virginia residents. The guidelines of it are straightforward…sort of. It’s cut between what Governor “Goose Coonman” considers essential and non-essential activities, non-essential versus essential businesses and regulations of social gatherings.

As reported by the Richmond Times-Dispatch:

“The order — which went into effect Monday and will remain in place until June 10 — allows people to leave their homes if they “must go out for food, supplies, medical care, or to get fresh air or exercise,” Northam said during a news conference.”

Of course, some of these prescriptions sound vague. It’s almost as if expansive bureaucratic power can be subjective and potentially applied randomly.

For instance, how is exercise under the “essential” umbrella? Should frivolous running or the quest for fresh air override the health of others? What if I cough or sneeze into the fresh air? The snot and phlegm have to land somewhere. How do you get “fresh air”? Just by standing outside?

Since grocery shopping always seems to be stressed as essential, I’m assuming I can risk my life and the safety of others to go to Giant to make, what I deem, an essential purchase of Tic Tacs.

In all seriousness, I’m most worried about the “non-essential” acts. What happens if they’re committed?

What if the health police see more than 10 cars parked outside of your house? Will a SWAT team arrive to conduct a no knock raid in the name of health? Will Jimmy’s 1st birthday be interrupted by law enforcement gunning down grandma or the oh so “menacing” puppy he just got? I suppose now the liberals who bash law enforcement will gladly rush to their defense and say they’re sane enough not to do that.

What about “non-essential” outdoor excursions?

If law enforcement sees you looking like you aren’t on a destination to an essential location (whatever that looks like) is that grounds for them to demand to know where you’re going? If they don’t like your answer, what then? You’re outside. You’re not exercising. You’re not on your way to an essential destination. You can’t go to non-essential destinations as they’ve been forced to close. You’re technically ordered by the authorities to be inside but you’re not. A woman in the UK faced a similar confrontation with law enforcement but thankfully it was due to “police error“. No big deal right?

Just think that somewhere there is a cop(s) that would have no problem beating the spit out of you for not obeying Governor White Hood’s orders.

What if you’re a lover? Can’t this effectively make going on a date illegal now? I suppose you could get around it via gymnastics. It’d be elaborate. You could go grocery shopping together at Walmart and then sit down at a model backyard furniture display in the home and garden center. Then again that could be violating the social distancing enforcement. Have it at either your place or her place I guess.

Think about it in this regard, public protest is officially not allowed right now at least if your protest has 10 or more people. Our protesting will have to reside online now until June 10th (the date when the quarantine is supposedly going to be lifted). By the way, what if you have a big family? How about we speculate and say that there’s an über conservative family of 10 or more. There has to be family members that are going out into the world for essential destinations risking getting the condition. What should they do? Stay quarantined and have someone get their groceries I guess.

Governor Kirk Lazerus states that a violation doesn’t result in a civil or criminal penalty (for now) yet what if someone refuses the edicts?

Does anyone else find it suspicious that Governor Soul Man issued such authoritarian trash since Virginia has some of the lower known cases of coronavirus (go by evidence)? What was wrong with the quarantine we had before? Why does it take a beach to wake Governor Grease Paint? He didn’t see this earlier?

This executive order in many ways could show Governor Minstrel’s vanity. Is it far-fetched to assume that Governor Jolson wanted to go to the beach but saw it was too crowded for him and thus issued the order? It was, after all, done in such an odd manner. Governor Remus scolded the state on our dime like children for going to the beach.

“You see what happens when you sheep are left unchecked? Why aren’t you as smart as my supporters and I who know how to conduct ourselves?”. I’m sure those who are familiar with political scare tactics can see how Governor White exploited the spring breakers as an example. Think about it. What’s the first thing you think of when you hear spring break? Crowded anarchy. Drunk people stumbling into each other. Hallucinatory drug use. Sweat slathered all over everyone’s bacteria-ridden bodies. Maybe vomiting. It was through this he was able to give an example as to what might happen if we didn’t enforce a quarantine.

The problem is maybe one could see the policy directed at venues like a beach but why at private businesses? How is ordering a scotch in the environment of a restaurant or even a bar in line with that of an anarchic beach? I suppose there are some establishments that resemble a packed beach but the comparison here is grossly overblown.

Lauren Chen, The Pseudo Intellectual, makes a similar point.

By the way, they’re not entirely closed. You can still fish and exercise on them. No one said overreaching government power was coherent. Is fishing considered “fresh air” here? Although, I might make that gentle stroll along the shore look more motivated and “essential” otherwise you might raise suspicion.

The same logic is back. The common man is dangerous with free choice but the government is safe with the “freedom” to control. I cannot think of a more pious mentality than the one that rests within that statement especially when private citizens espouse it.

“Look at me. I am righteous. I am moral. I am saved. My brothers and sisters are not.  They cannot be trusted unlike me. Control them.” Somehow they made the microscopic cut of trustworthiness but their millions of neighbors didn’t. After hearing this rhetoric from the card-carrying safety congregation more times than a Buddhist monk can be reincarnated I figure some of them have to be lying.

If your goal is to ensure safety then step one should not be issuing a threat against people because I’m assuming that the ultimate goal is health-related. What does government force have to do with health? How does a fine and one year in prison make medical wonders? Does a Fourth Amendment violation prevent respiratory illness? I can assure you getting shot and killed for refusing to stop playing flag football with more than 10 of your friends is not good for your health.

Why do Americans drool over massive prison populations? There could, in the near future, be a jail cell somewhere in Virginia where a child molester, bank robber and an Outback Steakhouse owner that refused to close his restaurant all sit. You also have to wonder why potentially bringing someone with COVID-19 into a locked up overcrowded playpen is wise.

I thought we wanted to stop the spread but I guess since prisons are a handsomely profitable business for the state we’re going to have to risk it. Then again, they’re releasing criminals. So, with the new rules some prisoners leave and prisoners enter. I guess this policy is inspired by the emptying water out of a sinking boat dynamic.

It all seems so complicated but remember that this is nothing more than the state dictating the private activities of its residents. To briefly summarize my prior stated points, the Bill of Rights is a code of safety – a safety code meant to protect us from government force.

Most Americans today erroneously think that freedom is dangerous. They believe that somehow private citizens are incapable of rational volition but hated politicians (who are supposed to be us) are somehow not. Why do they only get expendable freedom but we don’t?

For those of you who didn’t drool yourself asleep in elementary school, you’ll know that one of the intents of the Founding Fathers was to abolish the distinction between the government and the people. In fact, it’s even in BIG cursive writing at the beginning of the Constitution. Politicians tend to overestimate the stupidity of the public. After all, they know these people voted for them. At least, deep down, they have some evidence of that. As much as I’m ragging on the public’s trust in government, I don’t think they’re as dumb as they appear.

Thankfully here states’ rights play a role. This isn’t enforced for the entire country… yet. Thankfully Virginia isn’t like Westchester New York’s version of martial law. You better at least sweat a bit in hoping it won’t reach their twin of Rhode Island’s door-to-door health police. Do you think raping the Fourth Amendment is good enough for them? No. They’ve also deployed the use of troop-enforced blockades that prevent people from crossing their “demarcation line”. Thank god it isn’t like Australia’s national debauchery which does include some regulations that could play out in Governor Mammy’s provisions.

Here’s some suspect ones:

“Wedding attendance is limited to the celebrant and two witnesses.  Funerals are restricted to 10 people.”

The funeral one hits home hard. Couldn’t saying goodbye to a deceased loved one be “essential” to a person’s life? Going to the wake of your 15-year old niece who committed suicide isn’t “essential” to a weeping person’s health? Hopefully, you’re a winner of one of the Aussie government’s 10 golden funeral tickets. I suppose you could put off the funeral. If others follow example though, funeral homes could face a snowballing of dead bodies.

“There are no sporting fixtures, sport training, use of outdoor gyms and playgrounds, use of public swimming pools.  And all beaches are closed.”

Here it is. You can literally face a legal penalty for being outside just like in Washington, DC. Better yet, let’s adopt the fatalistic Filipino version of getting shot and killed for being outdoors.

Even in the Far East, they shouldn’t be allowed to define the concerns of its citizens with its grossly elastic bullet list of commands (no pun intended). I’m tired of seeing these governments pop open a bottle of champagne when they see after a mandated quarantine is implemented there’s a drop in cases. Assuming that’s the reason, of course there is. There’s probably also a drop in car accidents and homicides. Everyone is inside!

Former democratic presidential candidate, Tulsi Gabbard is terrifying me in her support of “contact tracing”. Contact tracing is a form of surveillance where the government would have the ability to track whoever has come into contact with someone who has COVID-19. The end result would be forcing them into quarantine. My god.

This virus has been appallingly handled by at least two of the world’s most powerful governments and their officiated safety institutions. The wasteland known as China and the gullible United States represent the government portion. The FDA, The World Health Organization and the CDC represent the bought and paid for health organizations that perpetuated the spread. They’re responsible for the rigor mortis of thousands of people.

Yet despite the massive failure of these safety organizations internationally, these crooks, I’m told, should handle our health. Fine. The only trouble is Grandpa won’t be with us on take two.

The economist, Thomas Sowell was right when he said, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.” The government can hardly deliver a letter and somehow they think they’re going to be able to take on something that’s invisible?

It’s as if nutty Libertarian “conspiracy” theorists had a point about quarantines getting extended, the political obfuscation of information and deadly bureaucratic mishaps. Safety is only good if it’s in your own hands and not dependent upon the hands of others. That’s when you can accidentally drop your guard.

The best part is that my talking points of freedom don’t need long periods of experimentation. The results are unfolding right before our eyes. Unfettered activity is what makes society thrive. Don’t believe me. Believe our Lord and Savior the government. They’ve been kind enough to suspend a ton of their safety regulations on services ranging from hospitals to trucking. Even hand sanitizer was in jeopardy thanks to supposed safety. These are also the same safety protocols that have caused shortages. If anything, Governor KKK should encourage businesses to produce to curtail the virus and the lives ruined because of it.

The Noam Chomskys would have you believe that greedy capitalists take their money and leave in a time of crisis (as they supposedly did in Venezuela). Never would they ever fight on the frontlines with the proletariat we were told. Capitalist profit in the face of disaster is bad yet somehow when Governor Red Lips instates a $2,500 fine it’s justice.

It’s amazing that after this ban is hopefully lifted on June 10th, there will still be people who think the government is the best organization to create jobs and secure employment. In the deep recesses of their mind they’ll evade the fact they told thousands that their incomes aren’t essential. It undoubtedly reveals their true colors though. Government, regardless of emergency situations, have a hit list of who is expendable and who isn’t.

Governor Burning Cross needs to know that the most important kind of “dangerous” freedom is economic and medical – two things that hilariously already had safety regulations to supposedly help prevent situations like this.

You don’t fight a virus by being scrunched up in mandated corner. You fight a virus by going out and being creative in fighting it off. It seems obvious that the worse this pandemic gets or at least the worse media fear gets the more these policies will snowball. We already have news people hallucinating about dead people.

Yet, for whatever reason, politicians and their lobotomized sheep seem to be on a nihilistic mission to purposefully fight off any private aid.

Government resources = good. Private resources = bad. People say the American public school system isn’t successful. I disagree.

What happened to all that community teamwork rhetoric these blowhards preached? Why are their sentiments of “public input” all allocated to the governmental 1 percent of the public?

In the meantime, I’m hoping that Governor White Gloves doesn’t extend or add to his executive order. Then again, I’ve heard cases of the virus are rising. This is assuming the stats aren’t collected in a “hyper-sensitive” manner. Maybe if we mail him a bootleg copy of Disney’s Song of The South he’ll ease his power lust.

For those of you who still aren’t convinced of what I’ve written, calmly repeat to yourself, “It can’t happen here.”

**Disclaimer**

I do not, outside of insult and devilish humor, seriously believe that Governor Amos is a representation of anything you see in North Korea. I believe, to a point, philosophically he is but in actual implementation he is not…yet. The reason I put this disclaimer here is for consistency of my beliefs. I am appalled and tired of the left’s tired and false comparison of Hitler to Trump. Trump is not and will never be even the slightest contender for a Hitler or white supremacist comparison contest. It’s always important to keep government powers in check but in the process be realistic about it. The above is a cartoon by myself. That’s it.

George Mason University’s Self-Flagellation

George Mason University, a predominantly commuter college in Northern Virginia, is not a radical school in terms of woke elitist left-wing ideology but that doesn’t mean it isn’t immune to it.

As expected of a present day university, they do, hock around a bit of the white-guilt and anti-western civilization agenda.

A recent example of GMU’s white-guilt syndrome with a touch of scorn directed at western civilization is an Enslaved People of George Mason memorial deemed for completion in 2021.

The memorial is to commemorate the more than 100 slaves George Mason owned with the focus being on a child slave named, Penny and a manservant named, James. I guess the other slaves should’ve worked harder to get credit.

As a student of Mason, I have to say that the idea is inherently moot. I’m not for it or against it and, I’m sure, like most of the meaningless waste-of-space sculptures and statues on campus, generations of students will walk past it without notice unless they walk into it.

My criticism isn’t necessarily with the memorial itself, but more with the self-flagellating rhetoric behind it.

This is a quote from Ayman Fatima, the student research assistant who’s behind the project.

“It is important for our campus community to recognize that our university’s namesake enslaved blacks and that his Declaration of Rights did not extend to those he enslaved—because we can only begin to move forward once we have accepted our past,” she said.

Not only has every faculty member and student to ever set foot on GMU property realize our troublesome past but so has everyone else to have lived within the past 70-plus years in the United States.

The United States has accepted its past time and time again. In fact, it has been incredibly apologetic for it within the past 4 decades. It has acknowledged left and right every single atrocity to ever be committed. Educators and public legislatures at all levels have spent probably close to billions on race relations, reparations, diversity offices and programs, history initiatives, study programs, and even bizarro affirmative action programs all to “apologize” for the past.

After all these years, we apparently haven’t realized we’re burned out from our excessive knee-crawling that now we’re actively going out of our way to paint the US – a country that millions flee to – as, if not a scourge to planet earth, but a country that has barely scratched the surface of repentance.

This current form of white-guilt theology postulates that the US has an original sin from birth in the form of systemic corruption and that we are to spend the rest of our lives repenting in a swamp of guilt. By nature, original sin can never be fully repented as it is a genetic defect. This means our only refuge is to spend the remainder of history apologizing.

Self-pity is not an American or rational ideal and therefore should not be considered as a virtue nor form of domestic and educational policy especially at universities named after its founders.

In fact, it’s not uncommon for students to petition against statues and even mentions of the founding fathers. The most baffling cases involve the the University of Virginia where students were outraged at a university email that quoted Thomas Jefferson. Petitioning was also put in place to remove a statue of Jefferson. The reasoning being the man owned slaves and was a rapist. What do you want to bet the majority of those students ironically think Bill Clinton is a cool guy? How far off is GMU from being effected by this mental illness?

This bubonic-like plague is also a part of cancel culture. Cancel culture entails petitions to, not only get rid of tributes to past figures, but also current celebrities, private individuals, politicians, and other public figures who have fallen to past wrongdoings. Usually, the solution is wipe out any trace of what they did from wherever they may have a presence and remove them from a job. Mason students tried to implement this upon the university’s leaders when they hired Judge Kavanaugh to teach law classes.

Millennials and Generation Z: 1984 is not an instruction manual.

This memorial could potentially plant those seeds of absurdity at GMU – a university who is and has been humble enough to already recognize its past for decades.

Notice the misdirection here when it’s pointed out that Mason did not extend his Declaration of Rights to slaves. This is a form of bait and switch that, if not paid attention to, can make one think the founders were dirty rotten scoundrels in every sense even up to their ideas.

The key phrase here being, “did not” – meaning it happened in the past.

Regardless of the inconsistencies of the founders in their own lives, their ideas alone are enough to redeem the fact that they were slave owners. A shocking thing to say? Consider the time frame. They were no different than any other non-white slave owner in the world at the time.

That’s not to say that an issue like slavery should be subjected to moral relativism. It shouldn’t. Ever.

This rhetoric also doesn’t acknowledge that the founders’ ideas are what eventually helped create a societal chain reaction that would eventually free slaves and rocket our country into democratic and (classical) liberal prosperity.

To quote GMU Professor of Economics, Walter E. Williams from his August 27, 2019 Something to Think About column, “Black Americans have made the greatest gains, over some of the highest hurdles in the shortest span of time than any other racial group in mankind’s history.”

“The significance of this is that in 1865, neither a slave nor a slave owner would have believed that such progress would be possible in less than a century and a half, if ever. As such, it speaks to the intestinal fortitude of a people. Just as importantly, it speaks to the greatness of a nation within which such progress was possible, progress that would have been impossible anywhere else. The challenge before us is how those gains can be extended to a large percentage of black people for whom they appear elusive.”

With as much money as GMU rakes in you’d think instead of reaching back into the past for grievances due to lack of present ones, they’d help spread awareness about modern day slavery. Thousands of men and women fall victim to the clutches of Islamic theocratic slavery in the Middle East on a daily basis. Thousands of African males are sold into slavery in Libya as I type. Those truly systemically corrupt nations should be educated in George Mason’s philosophy of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

When things like this get pushed under the rug and we focus on things that we’ve all addressed and can all uncontroversially agree on as being bad, I can’t help but think there’s an anti-US sentiment lurking underneath.

This project is nothing revolutionary. It’s nothing brave. It’s nothing stunning. Also, why keep putting students in control of things?

To Sing or Not to Sing: More Natl. Anthem Controversy

This will not die. I thought after NFL player, Colin Kaepernick’s National Anthem kneel “protest” we’d be done with this issue. U.S. soccer player, Megan Rapinoe, refuses to sing the National Anthem with the rest of her team.

Apparently, it’s a protest to Trump’s administration, although I’m not sure how the National Anthem is exclusive to any president’s administration because with that logic you’re effectively saying, “Whenever I hate the president I hate America.” The song, if anything, is a tribute to pride in American values such as freedom and perseverance through all the times our freedoms have been threatened. Regardless of your political affiliation or what is currently wrong with the country, there’s nothing wrong with singing in unison to celebrate the principles the U.S. was founded upon.

I’ve always had mixed feelings on this issue. I don’t like the idea of pledging allegiance to anything. In fact, I view disobedience as an American value or at least the freedom to be disobedient. In many words, it can be summed up as, “There’s nothing more American than challenging America.” Pledging allegiance is more or less a principle fit for communist and socialist countries, at least in its purest form, even though their disciples ironically view themselves as non-conformist rebels. Then again, I see nothing wrong with celebrating and praising countries founded upon rational objective values such as individualism.

I love the U.S. and I am critical and disappointed about a lot of the un-American activities and policies going on right now, but its been getting an unbelievably harsh rap since Trump’s 2016 win for whatever reason(s).

I’m also against pageantry and symbolism. It’s arbitrary junk. What’s with the standing? The kneeling? The floating? The hand over your heart? The salute? These couldn’t be more made up and while we’re at it let me just express that they lack total creativity. I’ve also yet to see how these are integral to loving America. Just like the right, the left is filled with just as much symbolism in their protesting except theirs is blatantly tacky showboating that accomplishes nothing.

By this point, it seems like mindless tradition because if you listen to the usually right-wingers who say it has to be done, they give less than convincing answers just like the “rebels” who want to kneel or not sing. I have to say though that if you want to see the SJW side of right-wingers say the flag should be burned, the National Anthem is stupid, and the Pledge of Allegiance is a badly written poem.

Be prepared for threats of force and accusations of being a libtard-communist who should be punched by a marine. That’s something that a supposed conservative told me once. This does not mean you hate the country. As for the lefties who say, “I don’t hate America, I just want to make it better” what they really mean is, “I don’t hate America, it’s just that only when it isn’t like America anymore I’ll love it.”

Now, what does the National Anthem even have to do with sporting events? You got me. I’m not sure what throwing, catching, and hitting balls have to do with a political and cultural philosophy. In some ways, it’d be like going to see a movie and then having an actor or actress say, “Halt! Let me go on a rant or speech about my political views and what I support.”

That’s also very applicable to the people who say sports organizations penalizing players who kneel or don’t sing is censorship. It’s not. In fact, I think if your attitude is wanting to politicize anything unrelated to politics you should be booted.

You’re free to be a moron somewhere else as it should be.

I don’t take the side of Rapinoe (who looks like a stereotypical SJW) and I DO NOT take the side of Kaepernick (who took his Nike money and ran) because I hate symbolism and I definitively hate symbolism that’s done for NO reason (i.e., Rapinoe’s and Kaepernick’s).

 

 

Separating The Art From The Artist

Today’s cultural witch-hunts have gone too far. Its utopian ideals of infallibility go against the confines of human nature. The personal actions of people are constantly getting called out and while that’s not always a bad thing it can be bad when the person’s societal contributions get thrown under the bus with the person themself.

Take artists as an example. 

When the wrongdoings of artists are revealed today they get subjected to a tense societal debate about their actions along with scrutinizing arguments as to whether or not people should continue admiring that person’s work.

From Picasso to Bill Cosby everyone has done everything from cheating on a spouse to prosecutable crimes. They’re people too no matter how much we put them on god-like pedestals yet just because they’ve done wrong doesn’t mean their immoral actions leak into their work. The distinction between person and art has to be drawn and a rationale has to be standardized for those who still admire these people. 

Artists are usually complex people rife with inconsistencies and troubles for many reasons. Somebody could make an empowering movie about the importance of friendship yet in real life the director is hated by everyone he comes into contact with. Why should we care though? The movie still has an important message and you can admire the director’s skill for getting that across.

Sgt. Pepper is a great album. The Beatles are an inspiration to many yet their personal use of drugs is something many may be against yet that shouldn’t taint their admiration for them as artists. They should care less about their personal actions. 

The art should stand separately from the creator(s) non-artistic personal choices because what does that have to do with their work? Does that change the positive artistic influence these artists have on culture? Does that make their ideas bad all of the sudden?

Art can be an expression of a person, but as a consumer of art your gauge should be whether or not you enjoyed the work not what the artist did on their way to buying a paintbrush.

What’s worrying is that instead of a sane follow up conversation, it’s demanded their works be deleted, censored, taken off the air, torn up, burned, and torn down with the goal being to erase this person from history. Why not just erase all art? In many ways this current knee-jerk reaction isn’t about a genuine fight against wrongdoing but instead an Orwellian fight to erase or create a severe bias on history. 

It’s an ad hominem attack too. “I love Mike Tyson. He’s my boxing inspiration and has taught me how to set goals.” To which someone may respond, “He’s a convicted rapist though.” What does his boxing have to do with his criminal record?

For those of you who admire Claude Monet’s serene garden paintings you better hope it never comes out in 2054 that one night in 1860, after 75 beers, he made a derogatory remark about Tibetans. #TibetanLivesMatter #EndTheAltRight 

 

How To Initiate A Street Fight With Someone Whose Views You Hate

With punching “Nazis” and kids who have staring contests with Native Americans being all the rage these days it’s important to know how to initiate a street fight against someone whose ideas, words, and headgear you may hate. 

1. Make sure your political opponents do not support gun rights when you support gun control. This could very well mean that you’d be initiating an encounter with someone who is armed. 
2. Be able to tell whether or not that person is carrying any weapons other than a gun like brass knuckles, a taser, a knife, pepper spray, nunchucks, etc. Those might hurt more than a punch in the event you get struck by one. Also, do prior research as to whether or not this individual knows martial arts because those can hurt too.
3. Make sure the person you’re about to assault is mentally stable. Sure, there’s people who may just try to beat you up in return but there’s also people who may be insane enough to actually kill you without a second thought. 
4. Analyze as to whether or not your aggravated assault plan has an escape route. Street fights are unpredictable as the person you may want to attack in public might look alone but that doesn’t mean his/her friends who’d gladly help him/her in wiping you out of existence aren’t inconspicuously lingering around them. Be prepared to possibly fight off multiple “Nazis”.
5. Practice. Before getting into an illegal altercation make sure you’re used to the stinging pain of what it’s like to punch somebody in the face. It’s not like in the movies. Also prepare for the event that this person may not get knocked out on the first hit if you even make it that far. 
6. Realize that the women’s self-defense video from Buzzfeed is less realistic than any of the fight scenes in The Matrix. 
7. Take a class on self-defense against words, hats, and facial expressions because chances are if you can’t handle the above you may not be able to handle bone fractures, broken ribs, your torso colliding with the concrete ground when you find out the person you just attacked knows jujitsu, a crushed larynx, a busted scapula, or a perforated lung. 
8. Be sure to not attack this person on their own property because then stand your ground laws may apply to your potential prey. This means that they can potentially kill or badly injure you without legally being required to flee the incident before defending themselves. 
9. Guys, just because you get into a physical fight doesn’t mean women will want to sleep with you. This is true especially if you’re in a hospital bed hooked up to a breathing tube thinking, “Oh man. I shouldn’t have attacked that guy who was a member of Bikers for Trump.” No. You’re torn up “This is what a male feminist looks like” t-shirt splattered with your blood does not make you look any less of a virgin than you did before. 
10. Ladies, I would not recommend you attack a dude. While I do support women’s rights, the laws of physics tend not to be as favorable to women as they are to men in co-ed street altercations. Also, if you’re 50 years old or above I would not recommend starting a street fight with someone who’s decades younger than you and looks like they lift weights. 

I hope this helps in fostering better peaceful dialogue among opposing sides! 

Art Always Ages Well

The best thing about art is that it’s expendable. It can provide commentary on the time it was created and it can give perspective to where we’re going, where we are, and where we’ve been. 

Times change yet are those changes rational? The 21st century says otherwise. 

Feminists rail against the beauty of Disney princesses. Comedies are accused of being “problematic” because they’re irreverent. Male super heroes are now bastions of “toxic masculinity”.  Race groups try to collectivize the artistic likes of its “members” (i.e., Apu). Rafaelite art is considered “sexist” for showing nude women. Ancient Greek white marble sculptures are attacked as perpetuating white supremacy. Baby, It’s Cold Outside is supposedly an ode to “rape”. 

This is nothing more than what psychologist Jonathan Haidt refers to as “outrage culture”. It’s most innocent form is an agenda spawning from brainless sheltered denizens who cannot control their impulses so they feel the need to control others. Their overlords have taught them everyone is out to get them. That’s why they attack Halloween costumes and Dove soap. 

It’s most nefarious agenda is censorship. Ban it all. Cover the nude statues of women in bags. Accuse their admirers of perpetuating the “R” or “S” word. If you know anything about censorship you’ll learn that its supporters go after truth and objective ideals. Such things can be found in the examples above. Comedic censorship falls into this since comedy is rebellion. This is why Nazi Germany, the USSR, and North Korea aren’t known for their sense of humor. 

Ironically the tumors who fetishize about “diversity” want conformity. The Simpsons is now all yellow. If you censor one thing it’s easy to go to the next. It’s a subtractive process motivated by power lust not justice. “Expand your power and you’ll be safer.”

Don’t go into art thinking to find puppies and rainbows. Art is a window into the best and the worst. It makes life entertaining and more compelling. So what if James Bond has bad traits? That’s what makes him compelling and thought provoking. 

These complaints are only made possible by privileged people who have the choice of being outraged. Instead of the rape crisis in the the Congo they attack songs that aren’t about rape. Instead of recognizing India as the most racist country, they go after an Indian cartoon. Instead of attacking countries where women are 10th rate citizens they attack Disney princesses. Instead of attacking dictatorships they attack superheroes. 

Their value judgements are skewed and their arguments can be laughed off at face value. 

Going back to my intro point, even if the above complaints were legit it only heightens the importance of those pieces as they provide an incentive for thought and view of the ever expanding or declining human condition. 

Diverse Conformity

The diversity fetish of liberal progressives continues to tap dance around western societies on a daily basis.

Regardless of what you’re told, the left’s old age diversity scheme is predicated, not on diversity, but on conformity. They even admit it in one of their worn diatribes on the supposed power structures that make up societies in the west. 

Take this as an example: 

Left: We love racial, sexual, sexual orientation, and gender diversity.

Also left: Race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender are social constructs used to oppress the “marginalized”. 

If their second contradictory point is true, what’s the point of diversity? If everyone is the same (i.e., no racial or sexual differences) why fight for it? And if those differences are made up what’s left? Policing thought of course. 

That being said, it doesn’t mean if you’re of a certain race or sex you should think and act a certain way but those differences – which exist on a base level – help make people individuals and therefore “diverse”.

The only diversity that actually matters though is diversity of thought which will only happen so long as the principles of free speech are adhered to. 

The left is okay with free speech when it criticizes straight white males but when it pertains to non-whites it’s not okay. Lets be honest though. The left is okay with criticizing anyone – regardless of race, sex, sexual orientation, and gender – so long as they’re not on the left.  

What interesting conversations will result if everyone is brought together based on meaningless traits like race, shoe size, blood type, allergies, sex, hole preference, and gender, or even strict adherence to leftist politics? 

Why do they love superficialities instead of ideas so much? Because superficialities are meaningless compared to ideas. And when you focus on meaningless traits you leave the mind unguarded to be swept into dogma. 

This is what their true motives are. 

Look at the previous election. The left hit social media with a tidal wave bragging about how the first left-handed Latina was elected to janitor at the senate, the first lesbian basket weaver was elected to Congress, the first Ugandan male to lose his virginity at 35 was elected as a representative, yet all of those “very important” qualifications for running a country in turmoil left out one elected leader. 

Why? Because she is a republican. Young Kim, is the first Korean woman to ever hold elected office. 

As a side note, it also works against their narrative of the US being a racist and sexist country. 

The diversity con of superficialities is just a front to show people that they’re not racist or sexist. What they don’t understand is that intellect is what gives people their humanity – not their genetic traits. 

The left: making everyone diversely left-wing since their slave owning days. 

“Baby, It’s 1984 Outside!” Art vs. Real Life

It’s December of 2018 and you better believe it’s cold outside but not with snow and Christmas cheer. Instead, with rape and victimization accusations for the holiday standard, “Baby, It’s Cold Outside“.

It’s certainly not an original accusation for a song and it’s not even an original accusation for this particular song since the controversy first arrived in 2016.

I’m personally worried about the rampant rape crisis in the Congo but what would I know?

The case has come back to national attention thanks to the radio station Star102 (Cleveland) who decided to go all 1984 and ban it due to tyrannical #MeToo listener demand. I suppose next they’ll ban, “Louie, Louie”. Should the FBI open an investigation on “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”?

Songs have always had a history of being accused of having subliminal messages in them and usually by puritanical politicians and Victorian era dinosaurs.

The same old 1950s pious preacher “Rock “n” Roll is Satan’s music” arguments are back again. The arguments last appearanced in the 80s with the PMRC (Parents Music Resource Center) trying to censor songs and regulate music distribution and then again in the early 2000s with an attack on rap lyrics.

It’s not only worrisome to me because these acts encourage censorship but it’s also worrisome that some people don’t realize they can in fact change the station on their car radio. Here’s an instructional guide.

Recent tweets by “renegade gender scholar”, James Lindsay, gave an apt summation of the lyrics.

“The lyrics might be pressuring, overly assertive, irritating, untoward, unappreciated, out-of-line, or downright jerky, but they’re not “rapey,” which is also a word that helps exactly zero problems. There are also other more nuanced readings of them.”.

Lindsay also commented on the recreational outrage of the ban:

“People helped: 0 Rapes prevented: 0 Situations improved: 0 Reactionaries triggered to stop libs at any cost: Way more than 0.”

If this innocent song, that doesn’t even begin to hint at sexual violence by any stretch of the imagination, was even a serenade to rape why don’t the #MeToos petition radio stations to drop rap? That’s an entire genre of music dedicated to communicating graphic violence of all kinds.

How is Idon’tknowjeffrey’s song, “Rape Rape” not under widespread controversy?

Let’s play a game. Which set of lyrics should be considered problematic in the era of #MeToo?

Lyrics #1:

“Rape, rape
Rape, rape
Rape, rape
Rape, rape

Make her suck your dick the first date
You scared to rape a bitch? I can’t relate
She let me in her house, nobody safe
Now pass the plate, rape, rape”

Lyrics #2:

“I simply must go (Baby it’s cold outside)
The answer is no (But baby it’s cold outside)
The welcome has been (How lucky that you dropped in)
So nice and warm (Look out the window at that storm)
My sister will be suspicious (Gosh your lips look delicious!)
My brother will be there at the door (Waves upon a tropical shore)”

I personally can’t tell the difference between the two. Wink, wink.

With regards to “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, correlation is not causation. Just because certain elements being described correlate to a specific conclusion doesn’t mean it’s connected to that conclusion in any way. 

At the end of the day what is the lesson to be learned? The lesson to be learned is that art is fake. It’s fictitious. Sounds, images, sculpture, nor writing are on the same scale as serious problems.

In art a different universe applies from everything involving morality to the laws of physics. Of course there are going to be things that are contradictory and problematic with regards to real life.

Does anyone realize that most things expressed in art would be illegal in real life including everything from Superman to Mickey Mouse?

Should we correct art to not exhibit unrealistic or “actually unacceptable ” behavior? Here are some parallels.

Romance songs can all be considered lewd proposals and sexually abusive since in the songs the singers seem to randomly express the lyrics to a stranger they have a secret crush on. It’s also perpetuating unrealistic standards for verbal skills since in real life people don’t talk in song form.

James Bond would probably be in prison for all of his cold kills. So, in the next Bond movie let’s have him stand trial at the U.N. for killing people who should’ve been kept alive for evidence.

Heavy Metal bands would be in jail if they acted out their lyrics so let’s have them write songs about going to the grocery store or sitting in traffic.

The Beatles would be jailed by the coast guard for piloting a yellow submarine in unauthorized waters. This is something that is promoted in their song and movie, Yellow Submarine. What would be worse is if the coast guard found LSD in the hatch to the sub. So, let’s explain to kids why it’s bad to objectify hippies on drugs piloting a complex piece of technology in the ocean.

Superman would face multiple offenses due to flying around in undesignated fly areas and not respecting proper air zoning regulations. Kids should be taught airspace codes so when they’re old enough to fly they don’t violate them.

Tom and Jerry shouldn’t be enjoyable unless you find a cat getting electrocuted funny. Let’s now have all the electrical sockets in the house on the show have those plastic covers on them.

Elmer Fudd would be in jail because of decades of hunting without a license, destroying forests, and unauthorized use of dynamite just to kill a rabbit. To make it realistic his cartoons can depict him waiting years to get a hunting license and a license to carry a rifle. Then it can show him reading a map trying to figure out which government sanctioned territories he can hunt in and which animals he can hunt.

Santa would be in jail for centuries worth of home invasions from around the world and bootlegging things like iPhones, PS4s, and The Avengers Blu-Ray/DVD/Digital Copy combo packs. Let’s totally abolish the myth of this con-artist burglar.

Shaggy and Scooby Doo would be crippled overweight diabetics in wheelchairs and probably would’ve died a few years after the show’s start in 1969. Now we should know to get rid of all the monsters in the show and replace them with health educators who’ll teach kids the dangers of eating too much junk food.

The magic duo, Penn & Teller, made a great parallel that goes with my points. In the mid- 90s when video games like Grand Theft Auto were gaining popularity and scorn by anti-violent video game parents groups, they made a video game called Desert Bus in order to parody their demands. The premise of the game is to drive a bus in the desert to Las Vegas. See? Very representational and morally acceptable to real life.

Nonsense aside, can it be understood that in the original contexts the works all permissibly fit and flow well as an artistic expression of the way people envision the context of life? This doesn’t mean that what’s supposed to come across in art are the “egregious” behavioral dreams of the artists at hand.

Bond can wrecklessly kill bad guys all he wants because we know they’re all evil and therefore the movies should fictionally do away with them as they please. Jerry can continue to electrocute Tom because it’s a cartoon and it’s funny to see bad things happen in a rubbery cartoony way that you know is fake. Superman can keep up the good work. Shaggy and Scoob should continue to gorge themselves with food because fiction enables you to get away from serious consequences.

As for “Baby, It’s Cold Outside”, it’s “okay” to be seductive in that approach within a song. It can probably be acceptable in real life too depending upon the approach.

​I suppose you’ll say, “Art can make people do bad things.” No. No it can’t. I don’t know how many more times we have to address that these worries are scientifically unfounded. Frank Zappa when confronted by lyric controversies observed that most songs are love songs so he proclaimed, ” If songs could make you do something we’d all love one another.”

Please stop equating art and accusing it of being the seed of destruction. It is an inexcusable scapegoat. It’s also a massive insult, and degradation to the actual problems of the world.

Let’s prioritize our problems. Let’s stop using our recreational time for going up into Grandma’s attic and dusting off old meaningless insignificant harmless objects of the past and focus on the issues of the present that really matter.

Let’s all demonize the first world privileged feminists who have the luxury of complaining about “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” along with “sexist sandwiches and “sexist air conditioning.”

Most importantly, let’s realize the value of free speech in deciding what’s good and what’s bad.

Happy Holidays! (P.C. approved).