1) liberals will blame guns
2) interventionist conservatives will think it means we should bomb some far off nation (what we should really do is restrict immigration and disengage from the Middle East)
3) PC flag fliers will signal like crazy on social media that they harbor no wrongthink in their PC pristine minds unlike all those poopy headed wrongthinkers.
The third group is by far the most insufferable.
Hawthorne mentioned the #NRORevolt phenomenon in the post below. Perhaps we should bring people up to speed who haven’t been following this. I’m not exactly sure what article started it all or if there was even a specific initial article that did so, but some alt-right websites have apparently put out the word on several recent NRO pieces and then swarmed the comment sections, much to the chagrin of NRO and the regular commenters there.
I haven’t commented at NRO in many years, except maybe a comment here or there that I don’t recall, so it took me a while to figure out how the game is played. I made a few deliberately pretty benign comments on a recent article, and was then accused of being an “@troll” in some of the replies. At least I thought I was being accused of being a troll. It turns out, it was actually an attempt to censor me.
From what I have picked up reading some of the comments, NRO delegates policing the comments section to senior commenters. Apparently two @troll replies from designated commenters below a comment gets the comment deleted and the Disqus user identity banned for a week.
What boggles my mind is that there are obviously some commenters who see it as their duty to police against wrongthink sneaking into the comments section and seem to relish the task of @trolling comments and getting them deleted. I simply cannot fathom this mindset. I think trolling comment sections of left and faux right websites is a useful strategy, but I have expressed concerns about the crudity of some alt-right trollers. But the censorship going on in the comment sections at NRO is not just about crudity, it is also (primarily) about the content of the thought expressed. Censoring comments to me is an expression of intellectual cowardliness. I would never think of doing such for fear that someone might think I was afraid of an intellectual fight. When I see a comment that raises my ire, I don’t think “I’m going to delete that comment.” I think, “I’m going to refute that comment.” It seems obvious to me that the former response is based on intellectual fear and the latter is based on intellectual strength.
So stand up and act like men, NRO comment section. Stop being a bunch of intellectual girly men.
The correct answer on who should be on the new $10 bil is “No change.” Don’t the candidates know that conservatives don’t like change? I’m not that fond of Hamilton or Jackson, but I would not support changing them just on general principles. Especially not making an obvious politically correct move and changing it to a woman. Carly Fiorina is the only one who got this right.
Let’s make #dontchangethe10 a thing.
Debates among reasonably intelligent political hobbyists on Facebook are more substantive than what we saw last night. That is why my favorite response of the whole night was Rand Paul on birthright citizenship. He actually made relevant historical arguments about why the 14th doesn’t really enshrine such a thing. It was not the original intent of the amendment and the Supreme Court case that allegedly settled it (Wong Kim Ark) was not really a good test case for illegals anyway because Ark’s parents were here legally and were essentially permanent residents. I almost fist pumped after that answer. Then he had to go and PC pander on pot. Sigh. I really don’t have the temperament for major party politics.
*This post originally stated that Rand had also suggested putting Rosa Parks on the $10 bill, but that was in error. He suggested Susan B. Anthony. A few others suggested Rosa Parks.
This is very disappointing, as “Eye of the Tiger” is the single best song ever in the history of mankind. Too bad Survivor had to go and PC Clown themselves. What exactly are they surviving? A SJW tongue lashing?
Some hack intern at National Review named Ian Tuttle wrote a whiny piece about all the ‘White Nationalists” supporting Trump, and the comment section erupted into an epic battle. At the time of this writing there were 2505 comments and that is apparently with a whole lot of deletions. Off course the NRO regulars are crying out for comment censorship, indicating their fear of actual engagement. Much better an echo chamber.