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.
Some of our moral and intellectual superiors are trying to convince us the underlying cause of the execution of two Roanoke journalists is an abstract thing called “gun violence.” Others argue it’s bigger than that – it’s actually an unfortunate example of “workplace violence”:
UC Haas School of Business professor Jo-Ellen Pozner says one possible key to addressing workplace violence is to find ways to address employees’ mental health and wellness.
“It seems clear that there was an emotional, mental health issue going on here and that’s I think the key to figuring out how to deal with these things in the workplace,” Pozner said, “I think there’s a public policy question there that we need to address in a larger level, that’s less about workplace violence and more about the violence in our society today.”
This isn’t just nonsense, but dangerous nonsense. Vester Flanagan hated Whites, and was convinced Whites conspired to hold him back and demean him out of racial hate. He was so obsessed with his delusions of racial persecution that anything could set him off, as one ex-coworker commented:
‘We would say stuff like, “The reporter’s out in the field.” And he would look at us and say, “What are you saying, cotton fields? That’s racist”.’
‘We’d be like, “What?’ We all know what that means, but he took it as cotton fields, and therefore we’re all racists.’
Fair added: ‘This guy was a nightmare. ‘Management’s worst nightmare.’
I’ll bet there are thousands more just like him. People like Flanagan constantly hear warnings that Whites are holding them back and oppressing them. That’s the drumbeat you hear from the Social Justice Warriors, antifa thugs, newspaper editors, and race hustlers. According to these prophets of doom, even Whites who appear helpful and supportive are still responsible for something called “institutional racism” that silently and secretly prevents Blacks from getting ahead. White success, on the other hand, is assured by another malevolent and unseen force called “White privilege.” So Vester Flanagan only struck back at those who exerted their mysterious and detrimental power over him.
The gatekeepers of approved thought who bloviated that the Charleston murders were caused by a memorial to Southern war dead are now scrambling to assure us it wasn’t anything THEY said that fueled Vester Flanagan’s hatred of Whites.
“Rare Liberty” posted a link to this story on Facebook with the caption “Go ladies.”
So I guess Rare is feminist now. It would conform to their PC trend. Christian morality, tradition and chivalry dictate that women should not serve in combat positions, nor be crammed into small quarters with a bunch of men. Rare sounds like a bunch of juvenile social justice warriors on tumblr, not a serious conservative/libertarian site.
Attention Establishment conservatives: if your candidate of choice isn’t being denounced by Mexico as a “racist,” he’s doing something wrong.