19 Sep 2017

“Like Living in an Asylum, Where You Have to Worry that Any Word You Say Might Provoke an Outburst from a Lunatic”

, , ,

(Headline from BGA)

Kurt Schlichter explains that the left keeps changing the rules in order to keep winning.

The Brooke Baldwin mammary mess is just another example of how liberals leverage their ability to create new rules out of thin air as a means of asserting their power over us normals. What was A-OK yesterday is now forbidden, and what was forbidden yesterday is now mandatory. Their goal is to keep our heads spinning and paralyze us with fear, like nearsighted corporals caught in a minefield and terrified that if we take one wrong step we will detonate a concealed wrongthink booby-trap. They want us living in fear of their fussy wrath, and that is precisely why it is so important for us to keep abreast of pseudo-scandals like this so we can nip these libfascists’ schemes in the bud and deny them the ability to rack up yet another victory in the culture war. …

Part of the strategy behind the new rules is to not actually have any firm rules, to make you so uncertain and timid that you’re unwilling to take any action because anything you do, at any time, can be a violation of a rule that didn’t exist 30 seconds before. If you do talk about female body parts, you’re wrong because you’re insulting womyn, and if you don’t talk about female body parts, you’re wrong because you are invisibling womyn. Basically, if you don’t have any female body parts, you’re just wrong all of the time. Unless you have fake female body parts and betrayed your country; then you are America’s greatest hero and a martyr to Harvard’s infamous legacy of transphobia. Or something.


3 Feedbacks on "“Like Living in an Asylum, Where You Have to Worry that Any Word You Say Might Provoke an Outburst from a Lunatic”"

Seattle Sam

Potter Stewart famously once said that while he couldn’t define obscenity, he would know it when he saw it. While I’m sure that seemed rational to people at the time, I always wondered what would happen if we simply allowed mobs of people to define offense. Now we know.

A hundred years ago in certain locales you could be punished for “sassing a white man”. Now it appears that you can be punished for a “micro aggression” against a black one — as determined by the one who sees it as a sass, of course.

The same people who are trying to define many deviancies down are simultaneously trying to elevate other deviancies. In Seattle if you’re a homosexual pedophile you can be elected mayor. But if you question Global Warming, you may not serve. On ESPN you can call the President a white supremacist, but you may not infer that black athletes might have different characteristics than white ones.

I am now starting to understand how people in reeducation camps must have felt.


Well said! Reminds me of the childish game of someone who declares they are “Gender Fluid “, which is a construct to declare bigotry on anyone who guesses incorrectly at any given moment; it is a classically childish example of a no-win guessing game. Solution- refuse to play.




Please Leave a Comment!

Please note: Comments may be moderated. It may take a while for them to show on the page.

Entries (RSS)
Comments (RSS)
Feed Shark