in Uncategorized

Can forgiveness win, too?

The Civil War was brought to a close when General Robert E. Lee arrived at Appomattox Courthouse in Virginia to surrender on behalf of the Confederate Army. The terms of the surrender were remarkably generous. Confederate soldiers were promised immunity from prosecution even though they were officially guilty of treason, and they were allowed to keep both their weapons and their livestock. As General Lee rode away, many of the Union soldiers felt that a certain measure of gloating was in order. But as they burst into applause, General Ulysses Grant ordered them to stop immediately.

“The Confederates were now our countrymen,” General Grant reasoned, “and we did not want to exult over their downfall.”

We can be grateful that the war over gay marriage was not fought with muskets and bayonets, and that the casualties have been, for the most part, emotional and spiritual rather than physical. The war is now over, and gay marriage has won. But I fear that the divisions between the combatants over the rainbow will be harder to heal than they were between the Blue and the Grey. Neither side sees the other as fellow countrymen, and there are plenty who stand ready and willing to exult over their enemy’s downfall.

This is why I’m uneasy in the wake of the Supreme Court decision that is the cause for so much celebration among the victors and such major lamentation from the defeated. Personally, I think this conclusion has been all but inevitable for quite some time, and I’ve said my peace on the subject numerous times on this blog. I see no point in revisiting any of the underlying arguments, which are largely irrelevant at this point. The decision, in my mind, was merely a confirmation of an already existing reality, much like when the electors gather to select a president months after all the actual votes are cast.

So it’s not the fact that gay marriage is legal that makes me uneasy. Indeed, I’m happy for my gay friends and family, and I think there are a great deal of positives to a future where married gay couples have access to the benefits and responsibilities that married straight couples have. My uncertainty, then, is rooted not in where we are, but in how we got here.

It is an unhealthy reality of our civic life that ideological opponents increasingly see those on the other side not just as misguided or incorrect, but as the embodiment of evil. Where General Grant saw the defeated confederates as “our countrymen,” today’s politicos insist that those who oppose them are either devil-worshipping Stalinists or Nazi Klansmen, depending on whether you watch Fox News or MSNBC. Victory is not achieved by persuasion, but rather by character assassination. The opposition must not only be defeated; they must also be destroyed.

Which brings us back to gay marriage, i.e. the Forces of Love vs. the Army of Hate.

#LoveWins was the trending hashtag in the wake of the Obergefell v. Hodges decision, and the unambiguous implication was that hatred had lost. From the outset, gay marriage advocates have characterized those who oppose them, even to the slightest degree, as motivated solely by terrible, horrible, hideous feelings of animus. There is no such thing as principled, good faith opposition to gay marriage – there is only bigotry, ignorance, and white-hot hatred. And now that love has won, it’s not enough that hate has lost.

Hate now has to be punished.

Already, a columnist at Time Magazine has called for religious organizations to lose their tax-exempt status. Expect these calls to increase and intensify as the Forces of Love rally against the Churches of Hate. Already, Catholic Charities is being limited in their adoption services because they refuse to place children with same-sex couples. Businesses that won’t bake cakes or take pictures for gay weddings are getting sued into oblivion. Gay marriage opponents have long been branded as “intolerant,” but now the haters themselves will no longer be tolerated by the Forces of Love.  Apparently, intolerance is only a bad thing when the bad people are doing the intolerating.

So here’s my message to those who are tempted to gloat:

Congratulations! You won! I look forward to sharing a bright future with you in a world where two people who love each other can legally marry without opposition. But those who oppose you are still your neighbors, your friends, and your family, and some of them may have behaved abominably during the battle. Shouldn’t the goal now be to help them understand rather than punish them for their ignorance? Can you accept them for where they are rather than demand that they move to where you want them to be? Is it too much to ask for a modicum of grace from you for those you have defeated?

If love wins, can forgiveness win, too?

Jumpin' Jack Flash
Birthday Thoughts

Leave a Reply

58 Comments

  1. I believe there will come a time when cheese, formerly left in refrigerators, will be welcomed onto kitchen counters, pantries, and yes, even the television couch, without fear of being ridiculed as former milk, or curdled this or that or the other.

    You have opposed me on this for a long time, based on your virulent, narrow, medieval views of cheese. I can forgive you, but can you forgive cheddar?

  2. The rainbow forces of Peace, Love, and Understanding do not forgive. Those who oppose them do so because they are evil and bigoted — not because they have a different moral code, or a disagreement over process — and thus, do not merit forgiveness.

    I predict that within 5 years a lawsuit similar to the one which put Sweet Cakes by Melissa out of business will be working its way through the federal court system. Within 10 years one will reach the Supreme Court. The Court will confer and listen to arguments, and — in a 5-4 decision — determine that, although sexual orientation is not listed in the text of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the legislative intent was to protect all oppressed minorities, and therefore the public accommodations sections of the Act will now apply (by judicial fiat) to sexual orientation.

  3. My view for a long time is that I do not owe those who disagree with me acceptance.or.brotherhood, merely tolerance. And more and more, as this ruling has become inevitable, “religious freedom” arguments seem designed to force us to do business with and respect those who disagree with us.

    A while back NOM put up a video of a woman who claims to have been fired for saying she “doesn’t support” gay marriage at work. I fail to see why her employer should be forced to employ her any more than he would be forced to employ someone who opposed interracial marriage openly.

    Speaking of which, didn’t Bob Jones University lose tax exempt status for banning inter racial dating? Why should we declare that tax exempt organizations are denied the ability to discriminate based on race, but can discriminate based on orientation.

    All this said, there was one State (Oklahoma, I think) where Democrats killed a religious freedom bill by inserting an amendment: any business that discriminates for religious reasons must post clearly visible notice, to avoid embarrassing would-be customers.

    I say, if bakers refuse to make gay wedding cakes, let them post notice publicly, so that all gay customers, and all those who stand with them, will know to take our business elsewhere. And if the bakeries fail, why should I feel sorry for them?

    • First things first: I did get your email, and I think you should launch your blog immediately. You write clearly and persuasively, and I think you’ll have no problem attracting like-minded readers.

      As to your question, I don’t think you should feel sorry for them. I think, rather, you should let the market take care of this issue rather than rely on the force of government to compel religionists to uproot themselves from centuries of doctrine. I think your suggestion that businesses announce their refusal publicly is a great idea, and I think those businesses will discover that the market will punish them more effectively than government could or should.

      • Thanks! I don’t know if you’re interested in the subject matter, but if you are I’ll definitely be sure to send you the link. I’ve gotten kind of lazy working on it recently, but it is almost ready to launch (the first 80 posts are fully edited, and I want to get the first 100 edited before launching).

        And what’s your opinion on tax exempt status? Do you think that it’s ok to withdraw tax exempt status for racial discrimination, but we have to give tax exempt statuses for organizations that discriminate based on sexual orientation? Or do you think Bob Jones University should have been able to keep its tax-exempt status?

        • I honestly don’t have good answers to those questions. Opposition to gay marriage is now the equivalent of racism, and I don’t think the two ideas are entirely analogous. I think the course of action that would be best for everyone would be to allow a sort of cooling-off period where those who currently enjoy tax exemption are allowed to maintain the status quo as the country gets to see what happens as gay marriage has time to become ordinary. When people realize that the sky hasn’t fallen, I think clearer heads will be able to sort this out better in that environment than in the one we have now.

          • …ok, now my first response, and your response reappeared! What’s wrong with this comment section! Feel free to delete the duplicate.

            But, just to be clear: So you accept that opposition to interracial marriage is automatically racism?

          • Yeah, there is something buggy about this particular blog theme. It doesn’t seem to like Chrome very well either.

      • I made a reply earlier, but it doesn’t seem to have posted…weird…

        Firstly, thanks! I’ve gotten kind of lazy lately, but all I really need to get it ready to start now is 20 more posts edited (I already have 80 edited). Don’t know if you’re interested in the subject matter, but I’ll definitely send you the link.

        Secondly, what about the tax exempt status issue? Do you think Bob Jones University should have been able to keep their tax exempt status? Or do you think that race should be treated differently than sexual orientation in discrimination laws?

    • I’m no Constitutional scholar, but it’s long been my feeling that the Exclusion Clause which provides for a separation of church and state (unless you’re an anti-separatist), is what allows for gay marriage. If marriage is a religious institution, then government has no business interfering with it, and I tend to side with Rand Paul’s recent assessment that government ought to get out of the marriage business altogether. In essence, homosexuals shouldn’t need government’s permission to get married in the first place.

      And it’s certainly foolish for any business to turn away any customer for nearly any reason in the Obama economy.

      Having said all that, would your concept of a public notice warning customers of that business owner’s religious practices resemble anything like this by chance:

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/nbero2p

      Additionally, I’m wondering if you feel that gay bakers ought to be forced to bake cakes for Christian fundamentalists?

      http://preview.tinyurl.com/oabzsbx

      And if they don’t, should they be required by the state to pose similar signage?

    • I posted a clear, on point response to this that I know Stallion would enjoy immensely, but it would appear that it may have been shuffled into a spam folder.

  4. It’s certainly foolish for any business to turn away any customer for nearly any reason under the Obama economy.

    Having said that, would your concept of a public notice warning customers of that business owner’s religious practices resemble anything like this by chance:

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/nbero2p

    Additionally, I’m wondering if you feel that gay bakers ought to be forced to bake cakes for Christian fundamentalists?

    http://preview.tinyurl.com/oabzsbx

    And if they don’t, should they be required by the state to post similar signage?

    • Sadly, my phone won’t let me see the picture. If it’s a sign saying that a racial group isn’t allowed in a business, then yes it would likely look like that. That’s what killed the bill. Republicans had no argument against such a requirement, but it still had the spectre of “Whites Only.”

      And you need to be more clear on what you mean by “Christians?” If you simply mean they refuse to make a cake for any Christian wedding, then yes they should post notice, but I’d question how the hell they’d even be able to run a bakery in a country where the vast majority of the population identifies as some form of Christian.

      If you mean should they be required to bake a cake that, for example, had anti-gay slurs on it, then they would have no more need to post notice than a black baker would need to post notice that he won’t bake a cake and decorate it with gay slurs.

      I think there was actually a case recently where a homophobe wanted a gay-friendly bakery to bake a cake covered in gay-bashing bible verses (based on the story I read he probably just wanted to file a lawsuit in retaliation for the bakery that was shut down). They told him that.they’d bake the cake, give him the icing, and he could decorate it himself.

      • I think it’s very interesting that you’re in support of the concept of the signage without viewing the context of my question. Everything old is new again. But I’d highly recommend finding a way to view the picture, and then reevaluate your answer.

        I’m not sure why I would need to be more clear on what I mean by “Christians,” when many of those who propose who Christian bakers should or should not bake for are themselves not more clear.

        I agree that it’s silly for any business to turn away customers based on religious beliefs, both ways, since it’s already difficult to generate profit in the Obama economy, and ultimately a business owner can find nearly anything to disagree on, with nearly every customer that walks through their doors.

        I’m also pleased that you agree that any such law or signage requirement should be applied equally to all parties.

        My main point here is to ask the question, that if we support notions of free association, then why do we need a signage regulation whereby an overbearing motherly government decides who should or should not be allowed in their tree house?

        Certainly a black baker should not be expected to bake a cake for a KKK celebration if they choose not to, but should they really be required to post signage stating so?

        • I think my second response addressed your final question.

          That said, I ask for a clearer definition if “Christian” because Christians are not what we’re really talking about here. There’s a tendency in this country for the right to frame every conflict as “X vs Christians,” even when Christians hold a wide variety of opinions on the subject.

          The same thing happens with the evolution debate. Creationists will refuse to call themselves Creationists, and constantly say “Christian” to sound more sympathetic, even though worldwide most Christians believe in evolution.

          You’re question was written to imply that gay people have an objection not to homophobia, but to the belief that God became human and died for our sins 2,000 years ago. This is disingenuous on your part. If you find the word “homophobe” distasteful then find another accurate term.

          • You seem to be anticipating sentiments within me that don’t exist. Remember, the caricature of the conservative that the Collective has programmed you to believe in is based mostly on falsities.

            Your second response does not in fact answer my question. Your second response attempts to clarify the distinction between refusing to provide a service vs. producing a product. It is a counterpoint in anticipation of a point that I had and have no interest in making.

            What my question asks instead, is not anything in regards to the product vs. service distinction, but rather whether or not we really need a motherly government to step in and impose signage regulation to address what really ought to be a 5 minute conversation between mature adults, handling the situation amongst themselves. Please review the question as actually written.

            I don’t offer a clearer definition of Christian, because those who insist they know who Christians ought to bake for themselves do not offer a clearer definition. I mean Christians in exactly the same sense they do, whatever sense that may be. If you want to know what sense that is, ask them. Or ask yourself, as it seems you may be one of them.

            My question was not to imply that “gay people have an objection not to homophobia, but to the belief that God became human and died for our sins 2,000 years ago.” This is what idiot professors have programmed you to recite, who in turn took their lessons from 1960s era comedians like George Carlin, as they were developing modern progressivity through the haze of LSD and other mind altering substances.

            I suppose that sentence was designed to shock and/or offend the imaginary conservative caricature, but the Earth is roughly 4 Billion years old, and the word homophobe isn’t distasteful, it’s just inaccurate. People who hate homosexuals, aren’t afraid of them; they just hate them. And people who frown upon that lifestyle don’t always necessarily hate them either. But I don’t know what this has to do with anything, other than relating to the progressive tendency to want to drag every gripe they want to pontificate on into every conversation. The sentence is mostly just amusing in its adolescence.

            In any case, I would strongly suggest discarding all of the entirely worthless lessons your teachers and professors gave you, which leads you to these kinds of incorrect insights in response to points that were never made.

            What I’m really interested in now though, is if you took the time to view the image I posted above so you understand the context of the question I asked?

          • “Certainly a black baker should not be expected to bake a cake for a KKK celebration if they choose not to, but should they really be required to post signage stating so?”

            That was your question. Should a black man have to put out a sign saying he won’t make a racist product? No. Also, having to deliver a product to a racist rally would obviously create a work hazard he wouldn’t have to subject himself to. But if he’s going to be running a background check on all his customers to find out their associations, and what their baked goods will be used for after they’re picked up, then yes he should inform them of that.

            “What my question asks instead, is not anything in regards to the product vs. service distinction, but rather whether or not we really need a motherly government to step in and impose signage regulation to address what really ought to be a 5 minute conversation between mature adults, handling the situation amongst themselves. Please review the question as actually written.”

            This is a valid point, but my issue is treating race differently than religion.

            “I don’t offer a clearer definition of Christian, because those who insist they know who Christians ought to bake for themselves do not offer a clearer definition. I mean Christians in exactly the same sense they do, whatever sense that may be. If you want to know what sense that is, ask them. Or ask yourself, as it seems you may be one of them.”

            We don’t say Christian. The term I usually hear is “people with a religious objection.” (and no, my mind will not be changed on this point if you can dig up a few examples of liberals saying “Christian” on the web).

            “This is what idiot professors have programmed you to recite, who in turn took their lessons from 1960s era comedians like George Carlin, as they were developing modern progressivity through the haze of LSD and other mind altering substances.”

            Your argument here boils down to “people I disagree with use this argument, therefore it’s wrong.” The source of the argument is irrelevant.

            “I suppose that sentence was designed to shock and/or offend the imaginary conservative caricature, but the Earth is roughly 4 Billion years old, and the word homophobe isn’t distasteful, it’s just inaccurate.”

            My point was to demonstrate a dishonest rhetorical tactic. The question of whether or not you agree with Creationists has nothing to do with whether or not you use their tactic. You insistence that bakers who refuse to bake cakes for gays for religious reasons be referred to as “Christians” without further qualifiers is an attempt on your part to force me to declare myself at odds with “Christianity.” I refuse to take your bait.

            “People who hate homosexuals, aren’t afraid of them; they just hate them. And people who frown upon that lifestyle don’t always necessarily hate them either. But I don’t know what this has to do with anything, other than relating to the progressive tendency to want to drag every gripe they want to pontificate on into every conversation. The sentence is mostly just amusing in its adolescence.”

            I feel that the usage of words is far more relevant to their meaning than their etymology. I’ll freely admit that the etymology of “homophobe” does not fit it’s current meaning. But, it’s the only word I have that’s both exclusive to people outside the category being discussed (unlike “Christian” which include many LGBTA people), and inclusive of people of other faiths who have a prejudice against gays. Do you have another word that would fit these criteria? If so, let me know and I’ll use it.

            “In any case, I would strongly suggest discarding all of the entirely worthless lessons your teachers and professors gave you, which leads you to these kinds of incorrect insights in response to points that were never made.”

            As soon as you give me a reason to, rather than just ad-hom attacks on people you disagree with…

            “What I’m really interested in now though, is if you took the time to view the image I posted above so you understand the context of the question I asked?”

            I love how you fail to even acknowledge technical inabilities to do so, and instead assert that the only reason I haven’t viewed it is a lack of “time” (implying laziness on my part). The answer is no, it didn’t come up on my computer either.

          • I think you’re being a bit melo-dramatic here, and interpreting insults where none were made.

            Whether you’re unable to to view the image because of a lack of time or technology issues is in my mind irrelevant.

            The bottom line here, is that you really do need to view the image before this conversation can progress further. Find a friend to help you if need be.

            Or, here’s a direct link if it helps you:

            http://i61.tinypic.com/5ciyw9.jpg

          • Was finally able to view the image, and it’s of Nazi’s hanging a sign saying to not buy from Jewish businesses.

            …and, so what?

            Nazis are evil because they did bad things, things are not bad because they were done by Nazis. If the worst thing the Nazis ever did was refuse to buy goods from Jews history would have remembered them as “bigoted jerks,” and nothing more.

            Are you now claiming that boycotting anyone is wrong because the Nazis once held a boycott?

          • I think you need to familiarize yourself with the concept of a “canary in a coal mine.”

          • If you argue that boycotts are a canary in a coal mine, then we could logically conclude that every boycott every held was inevitably a precursor to genocide. Hell, we could argue that every sign of disapproval ever given was a precursor to murder.

            Last week I saw a mother complaining about her son’s table manners. IN A WEEK SHE’S GOING TO TRY TO MURDER HIM!

    • Also, a secondary point: There is a distinction between refusing to serve a person, and refusing to produce a product. The number of products a business would refuse to produce would obviously be far to great to post public notice for all of them.

      Let’s use my earlier example again: The gay-friendly bakery never refused service, they refused only to produce a specific product, which they would produce for no one.

      Flipping it to the homophobe bakery, as pedantic as it sounds I’d say that they’d be within their rights to say that all wedding cakes they make must have a bride and groom depicted at the top (which the customers could, obviously, switch out). They, however, refused to bake ANY wedding cake for the customers, never even hearing what type of product they wanted.

  5. Polyandry, Polygamy, and eventually inter-species marriage is the end result. After which the Progressives will tear down the Washington Monument and replace it w/ a U.N. sanctioned Tower of Babel — then, and only then, will the Crescent Moon be satisfied.

    • Animals cannot sign marriage contracts. Inter-species marriage would be possible only if we met another species which was sentient, and had a concept of marriage.

      If it’s between consenting adults, I have no objection to legal polygamy, although it would likely require tax code revisions.

      Polyandry is a form of polygamy, making your statement redundant. I believe you meant “polyandry and polygyny.” You fail.

        • The link you gave me makes no mention of animals signing contracts. The article even acknowledges that the reference to habeas corpus in reference to a chimp was an error by the court (presumably some clerical mistake). But, thank you so much for pointing out the existence of crazy people who talk about “animal rights,” surely that means that all people who are against cruel treatment of animals and gay marriage are crazy, huh?

          This is an utter Red Herring.

          • I’m not sure if you understand what the definition of a red herring is.

            If animals cannot sign contracts, then how is it that Sharon Tendler and Cindy the Dolphin were able to get married?

            And what’s stopping anyone from marrying the Eiffel Tower? All one has to do is make a rubbing of any part of the tower, and you then have your mark or signature.

            Why are you trying to dictate who or what people can love? Don’t they deserve equitable equality equally under the law?

            The primary problem here, is that you weren’t around 20-30 years ago (or more accurately you weren’t politically aware 20-30 years ago), to hear people balk at notions of gay marriage in exactly the same manner that you now balk at notions of interspecies marriage, and objectum marriages.

            But I’m willing to make a wager, that in 20-30 years from now if you’re still a drone in the Collective, that you’ll be marching arm in arm down the streets in protest/support of this sort of thing.

          • “If animals cannot sign contracts, then how is it that Sharon Tendler and Cindy the Dolphin were able to get married?”

            Legally, they didn’t.

            “And what’s stopping anyone from marrying the Eiffel Tower? All one has to do is make a rubbing of any part of the tower, and you then have your mark or signature.”

            To be legally recognized a signature requires consent. That’s why I can’t hold a gun to your head, make you sign something, and hold you to it. Inanimate objects cannot give consent.

            “Why are you trying to dictate who or what people can love? Don’t they deserve equitable equality equally under the law?”

            Animals and inanimate objects are not equal to humans under the law, whether or not humans love them does not change this fact. Single gays are equal to single straights under the law, so logically they should have the same rights as single straights, which includes a right to marry, and thus cease to be single.

            “But I’m willing to make a wager, that in 20-30 years from now if you’re still a drone in the Collective, that you’ll be marching arm in arm down the streets in protest/support of this sort of thing.”

            That which can be asserted without evidence can also be discarded without evidence.

          • What does it matter if they did legally or not? How many homosexuals married before the law decided to officially recognize their union?

            And what happens when once day the law does in fact recognize interspecies marriage, as some activists are tirelessly working towards?

            http://www.wnd.com/2014/11/court-told-humans-could-marry-animals/

            Will you then march into irrelevancy with a shaking fist insisting that animals cannot marry humans while it simultaneously happens all around you?

            And how do you know whether or not inanimate objects can give consent? What do you know about the nature of their love? Isn’t declaring that the Eiffel Tower is not equal to humans a form of Anti-Objectum bigotry?

          • “That which can be asserted without evidence can also be discarded without evidence.”

            “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” ~George Santayana

        • So, I’ll assume your response to everything I’ve said not related beastiality is “I decline to answer?”

          • Huh? What non-existent point are you responding to now?

  6. Unrelated rant: Jerry Seinfeld is a crybaby whining because young people don’t think his material is funny. And since he’s the Grand Lord of all comedy, young people not finding his material funny must mean that young people have no senses of humor. It’s not as if comedy needs to compete in a free market, and his comedy has fallen out of favor as values have changed, exactly as the comedy of his parents’ generation did. God forbid he try to adapt and write new material, rather than making passive aggressive rants in interviews.

    Of course I’ve been told by his fans in comments sections that I’m oppressing his free speech by saying I don’t find him funny, so pardon me.

    • I’m not sure that young people find much of anything funny. They’ve been subjected to years of hard core training in actively looking for things to be offended by, as opposed to receiving genuine education in public institutions. It’s almost as though they feel that being offended imbues them with some sort of importance.

      • May be another duplicate, but whatever.

        Comedians popular with young people: George Carlin, Jimmy Kimmel, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, Steve Carrell, John Oliver, Doug Walker…

        And the Right doesn’t get to flip their shit about rainbow colors on the White House and then complain that we’re offended too easily.

        • What about comedians popular with young people?

          Well, I didn’t flip my shit over rainbow colors on the White House, primarily because I don’t care, and am not opposed to gay marriage.

          But then, you keep arguing against that imaginary conservative caricature you’ve been programmed to believe in, rather than me.

          • You said you’re not sure young people find “much of anything funny.” Then how did the listed comedians gain popularity?

            As for your other assertion, I’ll just follow your example of showcasing one loon, and asserting that you’ll agree with him in 20 years if you’re conservative.

            I just tried to copy and paste a link, but my phone wouldn’t do it, so look up the youtuber WildBillForAmerica and watch his video “The Flags of Fascism.”

            In 20 years you’ll agree with Bill if you’re still a conservative.

          • I should have been more specific and said young people of today.

            I think I’ll have to disagree with Wild Bill For America with regards to the Rainbow flag being a flag of fascism. Certainly the ISIS flag is though. As for symbols of fascism in America, I’d say the Obama logo represents fascism quite nicely.

            After all, not only are private citizens now being forced to act against their religious beliefs and fined when they don’t, but they’re also now being silenced about being forced to as well.

            http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/02/state-silences-bakers-who-refused-to-make-cake-for-lesbian-couple-fines-them-135k/

            Interpreting these government actions as acts of fascism is a reasonable thing, but hey, reason itself is apparently a white male Euro-Christian construction, or something.

            http://dailycaller.com/2015/07/03/professor-reason-itself-is-a-white-male-construct/

          • “I’m not sure that young people find much of anything funny.”

            Given that assertion, how do you explain the popularity of the comedians I listed?

          • …ok, seriously, I post a second response when my first one doesn’t show, up, so suddenly my first response does show up, and your response to it. I’m really starting to hate this comment section.

            And I disagree with people being able to marry animals, but you’re allowed to simply assert that at some point in the future I’ll change my position and be for it, so why can’t I assert that you’ll change your position and start comparing the rainbow flag to the flag of ISIS?

            As for this being fascism, can you please tell me what the Government is doing, fundamentally, that’s different from the Civil Rights Act of 1964. And if there isn’t any fundamental difference, why are you blaming Obama for expanding government protections that were first created when he was 3 years old?

          • Yes, I think it has something to do with this particular blog theme. Other themes have worked well here, but for whatever reason this particular theme seems to be very buggy, although it seems to work best in Firefox.

            I’m not asserting, I’m predicting, which is why I proposed a wager; because I could be wrong. But I doubt it.

            The Collective will always need some civil rights movement as a tool it uses to facilitate the imposition of its authoritarian will on an otherwise unwilling citizenry. Already we see some homosexual activists lamenting that they will no longer be part of a cherished grievance class, and indeed now that the Collective has achieved its facetious goal, it is moving on to other things such as polygamy and what not.

            But also remember that my prediction comes from years of experience, of watching and reading and listening to the Collective. Additionally, while you’re certainly free to make a similar prediction about the rainbow flag, you’re far more likely to be incorrect than I am, simply by virtue ot the fact that conservatives understand liberal positions, better than liberals understand conservative positions.

            http://hotair.com/archives/2012/04/13/confirmed-conservatives-understand-liberal-positions-better-than-liberals-understand-conservative-positions/

            Well, one thing the government is doing differently in this regard is silencing those charged with gag orders on the charged to prevent them from discussing the case. So not only is government depriving them their right to freely practice their religion, it’s also stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Would you like to explain to us how gag orders and religious restrictions/mandates are not fascist?

            Another fundamental difference is the fact that Democrats were vehemently opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and filibustered it.

            http://patdollard.com/2014/02/flashback-lyndon-johnson-on-phony-war-on-poverty-ill-have-those-niggers-voting-democratic-for-the-next-200-years/

            Since then however, the Collective has found ways to use marginalized peoples as pawns to facilitate its smelly political struggle.

            Now, even though there are fundamental differences, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily in favor of the Civil Rights Act either. I’ll support free association over nanny-esque tree-house rules every day of the week. As far as why I would be blaming Obama for expanding government protections that were first created when he he was three years old; because he’s the one that expanded them when they really should be repealed.

          • Well I just posted a response but I think it might be in the moderation hamper.

          • “But also remember that my prediction comes from years of experience, of watching and reading and listening to the Collective. Additionally, while you’re certainly free to make a similar prediction about the rainbow flag, you’re far more likely to be incorrect than I am, simply by virtue of the fact that conservatives understand liberal positions, better than liberals understand conservative positions.”

            And I spent years as a religious fundamentalist. Doesn’t that entitle me to an opinion on your trajectory? More significantly, a few posts back on this very blog I was criticized for referencing “dogwhistling.” Either I can respond to things not within the literal text of my argument, or the other side can’t.

            “Well, one thing the government is doing differently in this regard is silencing those charged with gag orders on the charged to prevent them from discussing the case. So not only is government depriving them their right to freely practice their religion, it’s also stripping them of their 1st Amendment rights to free speech. Would you like to explain to us how gag orders and religious restrictions/mandates are not fascist?”
            Citation? I need a clearly idea of what these “gag orders” state.

            “Another fundamental difference is the fact that Democrats were vehemently opposed to the 1964 Civil Rights Act and filibustered it.”
            That was before Nixon’s Southern Strategy got the Dixiecrats to switch parties. Feel free to correct me if my history is wrong on that.

            “As far as why I would be blaming Obama for expanding government protections that were first created when he he was three years old; because he’s the one that expanded them when they really should be repealed.”

            Pretending for a moment that the Executive branch did this, rather than the Judiciary…would you be just as mad if he’d simply done nothing and been a hypocrite?

            And once again: How do you explain the success of those comedians?

          • *within the literal text of the other side’s argument

          • “And I spent years as a religious fundamentalist. Doesn’t that entitle me to an opinion on your trajectory? More significantly, a few posts back on this very blog I was criticized for referencing “dogwhistling.” Either I can respond to things not within the literal text of my argument, or the other side can’t.”

            Nope. Because I’m not a religious fundamentalist. In fact I’m mildly agnostic so I’m not particularly religious at all.

            Remember drone, you’re arguing against the conservative caricature that the Collective programmed you to believe in, rather than me.

            “Citation? I need a clearly idea of what these “gag orders” state.”

            I believe the citation was posted above, if not here it is again.

            http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/

            “That was before Nixon’s Southern Strategy got the Dixiecrats to switch parties. Feel free to correct me if my history is wrong on that.”

            Sorry drone, even the NY Times recognizes the myth of the Southern Strategy.

            http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html

            “Pretending for a moment that the Executive branch did this, rather than the Judiciary…would you be just as mad if he’d simply done nothing and been a hypocrite?”

            President Obama doing nothing is what sane people pray for, but at what point did the Collective recognize and respect the separation of powers? Did I miss something?

            “And once again: How do you explain the success of those comedians?”

            Their careers began before the perpetually offended Snowflake Generation was born.

          • “Nope. Because I’m not a religious fundamentalist. In fact I’m mildly agnostic so I’m not particularly religious at all.
            Remember drone, you’re arguing against the conservative caricature that the Collective programmed you to believe in, rather than me.”

            You complain that I’m arguing against a caricature, but you constantly talk about hippie professors and LSD.

            “I believe the citation was posted above, if not here it is again.
            http://dailysignal.com/2015/07/06/sorry-slate-oregon-did-put-a-gag-order-on-those-christian-bakers/”

            Fair enough, point conceded. What’s your opinion on the Conservative press overlooking their decision to Dox their would-be clients?

            “Sorry drone, even the NY Times recognizes the myth of the Southern Strategy.
            http://www.nytimes.com/2006/12/10/magazine/10Section2b.t-4.html”

            One problem with your source: It doesn’t give an end-point to the study. Did they include the last election? The one before that? The one before that? Just the 50s and 60s? While I know anecdotes in-and-of themselves don’t prove a point, I live in the South and know numerous poor white people who live under the impression that the food stamps they get are ok because they “need them,” but are convinced that the reason they’re poor is somehow black people taking some nebulous larger amount in public assistance.

            “President Obama doing nothing is what sane people pray for, but at what point did the Collective recognize and respect the separation of powers? Did I miss something?”
            Not sure how that relates to my question.

            “Their careers began before the perpetually offended Snowflake Generation was born.”
            This makes no sense on two levels:

            1) If this was the case, wouldn’t the snowflake generation reject them the same way they rejected Jerry Seinfeld’s contemporaries?
            2) I specifically included Doug Walker, whose career started in 2007, when I was a college Sophmore.

  7. So now that the conversation with Mustex has essentially run its course, I can turn back to Stallion’s original post.

    Stallion mentions that “an unhealthy reality of our civic life that ideological opponents increasingly see those on the other side not just as misguided or incorrect, but as the embodiment of evil.”

    I think the real problem here is the inability to identify true evil, simply because it may take the form of friends, family, and neighbors.  Leftists, are in fact the embodiment of evil, and history repeatedly teaches us this over and over again. Look at how willing leftists are to use marginalized people such as homosexuals as pawns to further their smelly political struggle.

    Let’s take a look at Stallions next sentence, in which he says, “Where General Grant saw the defeated confederates as “our countrymen,” today’s politicos insist that those who oppose them are either devil-worshipping Stalinists or Nazi Klansmen…”

    The problem that Stallion is having here, is that everything he’s listed is in fact left of center.  Modern day Satanism is a kind of atheist religion where by the carnal desires of material reality are worshiped, dare I say free-love.  Stalinists whose leader is responsible for the Holodomor are communists.  Nazis were leftist socialists despite tireless revisionism over the last decade attempting to claim that Nazis were only pretending to be socialists to get elected, because of socialism’s sterling reputation.  After all, free markets and limited government don’t exactly come to mind when thinking of the Nazis.  And of course the KKK, which was founded as a militant terrorist arm of the Democratic Party.

    http://www.nationalblackrepublicans.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=pages.DYKKKKTerroristArmoftheDemocratParty

    https://web.archive.org/web/20150403081223/http://constitutionalistnc.tripod.com/hitler-leftist/

    This is the problem here.  Public education has convinced generations of people that if there are crazies on the left, in the way of communists and so forth, then there must be crazies on the right too, in the way of fascists and so forth.  It’s only fair after all, that all parties be perfectly equal.  But this couldn’t be further from the truth.  In reality, Communists and fascists are one and the same, on the left side, with libertarian minded folks on the right.  Klavan explains much better than I.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HzA7QomW4kY

    Left is in fact evil, because that’s what evil is; leftism.

    This problem can be seen in the conversation with Mustex. As part of the special snowflake generation, he’s been awarded participation trophies, been danced around so as not to hurt his delicate feelings, and never been told that any of his ideas just weren’t very good. We see the example of the signage. Everyone who was taught by aging hippies who stumbled out of the piss holes of Woodstock and took over education, has a poor education. This includes almost all of us, Mustex included. Because of this poor education, he’s convinced that his idea for signage is fresh and new and great, completely oblivious to the fact that it has been tried many times before and is one of the first signs of a growing fascism, as the party in power becomes increasingly bold in their intolerance of whatever group they’re scapegoating for the failures of socialism at any given moment. Even after seeing the image of Nazis placing just such a sign on a Jewish business, he’s still convinced that such a thing is not evil just because the Nazis did it, failing to recognize that it’s one of the early symptoms of fascism on the rise.

    Time Magazine calling for the tax exempt status of religious organization sis just the beginning. No doubt drones in the Collective are salivating over the thought of having an army of Lois Lerners pouncing on their religious foes. Now, we have white college professors openly calling for whites to commit mass suicide in a “moonbattier than thou” moment.

    http://www.weaselzippers.us/228045-white-college-professor-all-whites-should-commit-mass-suicide-for-being-complicit-in-slavery/

    Professors, Stallion. The people tasked with teaching your children.

    So no, I can’t buy into any kind of moral relativism where leftists are treated as sane adults with different but equal ideas, and that we should all just get along, when I know damn well from their own unhinged behavior that they’re the furthest thing from sane, they have no intention of even entertaining any such thoughts of forgiveness (as though they’re in any kind of position to grant any), and they will never be satisfied until every man, woman, and child is subjugated under their wacko ideology, which does nothing but create a nightmarish living hell wherever it’s allowed to fester.

    Civil War? Bring it on

  8. For some reason my July 4th comment summing things up here didn’t show. Maybe it’s still in the moderation hamper or spam basket?