“Transphobic,” “You didn’t have to” and “dog whistle.”

What do those three phrases have in common? 

They are three of the most ridiculously over-used phrases in order to accuse someone of saying (or writing) something discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever, even if the person never had any intention of doing so.  When people use there it is one way of making it hard to have a rational discussion or debate about….. anything, really.

I’ll use real-life examples to illustrate where I am coming from…

---

Transphobic.

I already aired my feelings about gender dysphoria on a previous blog, so I’m not going to get into that here.  But really, unless a person is an author of one of those “bathroom laws,” I seriously doubt that anyone is actually “transphobic.”  The definition of a phobia is an irrational fear of something.  I don’t think anyone save for those bathroom law people actually fear transgender people. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I made a comment that it’s stupid how transgender “women” who have not yet had the reassignment surgery call heterosexual men “bigoted” or “discriminatory” for not wanting to date them.  The person I was talking to said, “how so?”  I said, “Because a transgender woman who’s pre-surgery is basically a man wearing makeup and a dress who’s pumped full of hormones, I wouldn’t want to go out with one of them either!”

Yep, you guessed it.  I got called transphobic. :/  I said “I don’t have a fear of them, I just wouldn’t date one that’s pre-surgery and still has a dick!”  That should be enough IMO.

---

You didn’t have to.

This is a phrase used when someone wants to accuse you a making a veiled statement aimed at a certain person or group disguised as a benign comment.  Problem is, too many people use it to accuse others of making veiled statements when it was not their intention at all. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I was explaining to someone why a person would choose Parkland (FL) as a place to live.  I said, “People tolerate the high real estate prices and property taxes to live there because Parkland has extremely low crime rate, unlike say Opa-Locka (FL) where you pretty much need to wear a bulletproof vest to take the trash out.” 

Someone heard me and said, “That’s discrimination.” 

I asked, “how is it discrimination when I didn’t mention race?”

Person says…. you guessed it, “You didn’t have to.” 

So I guess you cannot even have a rational discussion about crime rates between cities anymore without someone accusing you of making a veiled racist comment.  Real nice huh?

---

Dog Whistle.

This is the “top definition” of a dog whistle from the Urban Dictionary: “Dog whistle is a type of strategy of communication that sends a message that the general population will take a certain meaning from, but a certain group that is ‘in the know’ will take away the secret, intended message.” 

Like the phrase “You didn’t have to,” too many people nowadays use it to accuse others of making veiled statements when it was not their intention at all. 

I’ll give a recent example.  I was telling someone how a friend of mine, when her daughter was a teenager would refuse to allow her to go to the Coral Square Mall after 5PM because that’s the time when “gangs of seedy looking punks” would start to congregate outside.

His response?  “Tell you friend that is so fucking racist!”

When I said I clearly didn’t mention race, he said “That right there is a fucking dog whistle man!”

I was stumped because at the time, the only “dog whistle” I knew was the, well, actual dog whistles that you use on dogs. 

Let’s just say that I’m a grown man in my 30’s and even I refuse to go to that mall after 5PM, but I guess to some people you’re automatically talking about “minorities” when you say “gangs of seedy looking punks.”  Which is odd because the racial markup of Coral Springs (Home of that mail) is still majority Caucasian.

---

Now for the rebuttals:

Calling a pre-op transgender woman “a man wearing makeup and a dress pumped full of hormones” is indeed transphobic.  What, so in order to be considered a “woman” to you, she has to have the reassignment surgery?

It’s not transphobic, it’s the TRUTH!  Don’t like it, go hide in your safe space!  To answer your second question, YES!  That’s all I’m going to say, if you don’t like it too fucking bad.  I’ll repeat it again: One cannot be transphobic if he or she does not fear transgender people.  Refusing to date a trans person who still has their reproductive organs from their “former” body is not, I repeat NOT transphobic.

Don’t want to be accused of making a thinly veiled racist comment?  Don’t use a city that is majority African-American in your “crime-rate comparison.”

Racial markup has nothing to do with it and that is the problem with “you didn’t have to.”  I could compare Parkland to a  high-crime city with a majority white population like Palm Beach Gardens and some idiot will accuse me of calling the people of PBG “white trailer trash.”  So it’s a no-win situation that stifles comparative discussion.

When people say “gangs of seedy looking punks” they are almost always talking about minorities.  Don’t want people to accuse you of making a dog whistle?  Don’t make a statement like that. 

So a seedy looking punk can’t be Caucasian?  What planet are you from?  Just so you know, I talked to someone about Chicago's gun problem.  I made the statement, “Chicago doesn’t have a gun problem because of the gun control laws, they have a gun problem because of all the street gangs where even the cops are afraid to venture into some of those areas!”  Yes, I got accused of making a dog whistle.  Yes, this is why we can’t have a rational debate on this kind of stuff.

---

Conclusion…

These phrases (along with others) are the reasons why people have to walk on eggshells or not have any sort of discussion on various issues because the people brainwashed by the PC-brigade will accuse them of being discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever.  In fact these phrases don’t even have to be mentioned they’ll just accuse you of being one of those things.

Here are some:

Saying “people on welfare” is somehow racist, it’s now “individuals on public assistance.”  News stations are actually saying this now, which incredibly stupid. 

Saying a job should promote and/or hire based on merit and qualifications rather than gender is somehow “sexist” now and calling companies out for it can actually get you fired.

Saying a woman in Israel can freely wear a sleeveless tank top without having to worry about being murdered in an “honor killing” unlike the neighboring countries is somehow “bigoted” and “islamaphobic.”

Owning a piece of property and refusing to rent to people on section 8 based on prior experience is “racist” (Even though the majority of people on it are Caucasian).

A person wants to know why you spent $100K more on a house in area B than a house in area A, you tell him that it’s in a much better location, he tells you “That’s a dog whistle.”

To extend on that, I told someone if money was not an issue and I wanted to stay in Broward County I would only move to one place: Parkland.  Somehow, despite not mentioning race this was somehow “racially motivated.”

A fashion blogger can write, “Like it or not some types of clothing do not look good or look ridiculous on certain body types” and she’ll be accused of “body shaming” and “fat shaming” without ever mentioning weight or size, not to mention “sexist” even though she’s a woman herself.

I once knew someone whose parents lived near Monsey, NY where I used to live.  He told me that his father was in sales (Don’t remember exactly what) and he hated dealing with the people there because “getting people to spend over the bare minimum was like pulling teeth” and “they were always trying to barter.”  I told a family member of mine this and he blatantly accused this guy’s father of being an anti-Semite, despite never mentioning any religion (For those that don’t know Monsey has a predominantly Hasidic Jewish population but other people live there as well).

In closing…. 

As you can tell, because the PC-brigade has pretty much brainwashed people into thinking that everything nowadays is somehow discriminatory/racist/sexist/bigoted/whatever you are pretty much rendered silent to avoid being accused of such.  It it something that our forefathers never imagined when the drafted the 1st amendment. 

And I’m out….

The topic of abortion and a woman’s reproductive rights.

One thing about me is that even though I am not a liberal, I am very vocal about my support for women’s reproductive rights. Which is why I can never fathom myself to be a republican or “conservative.”

Most republicans constantly like to assault Roe Vs Wade every chance they get under their allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky. The democrats like to champion to keep it upheld, as it should.

Now, while abortion is sometimes used as a form of birth control which I don’t really agree with (But women should still not be denied safe and legal access regardless as sometimes they are simply not ready for a child), there are times when abortion is necessary – and a reason why women need to have safe and legal access to them without obstruction or requirements whose sole purpose is to make the woman feel like shit for wanting to have one.

Here are the common ones I could think of:

Saving the mother’s life.

I did research on this, and high risk pregnancies not only put the mother’s life in danger if she carries the baby to term but there is a high chance that the baby will not be born alive either (And if it is, it may only survive for a few hours or days).

Knowing that, why would anyone not have an abortion?

Let’s just say this: If I met my dream girl, got married to her and she got pregnant but the doctors told her there is a high chance (As in 90% chance) that she will die if she gives birth, then hell yeah she is having the abortion and trying again for a less riskier pregnancy…. One that won’t result in death. If I met my dream girl, nothing (Short of something like a car crash) will take her away from me.

I typed something similar on a discussion forum years ago and this one person wrote:

“That’s pretty heartless. You would seriously kill your child to have her?”

I didn’t answer the way I wanted to because I didn’t want to be thought of as a selfish prick, but I’ll answer now:

Yes, I would do it. Every time. I may be a selfish prick, but I would be a selfish prick that still has my wife at the end of the day!

Now I know someone is going to ask me this question:

“What if your dream girl wife decides to run the risk of going to heaven to save her child?”

“Heaven,” for fuck’s sake. Please! Sorry, but if she decides to pledge allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over her well-being and life, then she really “isn’t all there” sanity wise and to be honest is not someone I would want to be in a relationship with, much less marry so I hope to never be put in that situation.

---

Downs syndrome or other birth defects:

After doing research on downs syndrome, it’s pretty easy to see why 70-80 percent of fetuses that test positive for it are aborted.

The number would be higher, but some states have passed laws making abortion illegal if downs syndrome is the reason. Not surprisingly, despite these laws forcing women to carry the damaged fetus to term, the laws do jack shit in helping the woman with the high costs of raising a child with downs syndrome once it’s born.

When a woman carries a fetus to term that tests positive for downs syndrome – again, many times under the allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky – she is in my opinion committing child abuse.

Why do I think that?

Children born with downs syndrome have the mental and cognitive capacity of a small child even when they get into their teenage years and adult life. They have a litany of health issues including heart and lung problems plus they are 15 times more likely to develop leukemia.  They tend to have extreme mood swings. They have shortened life spans, and in many cases when they get older they start to lose much of the mental capacity they still have, so they have to be put into a specialized care center when that happens. They constantly have to hear people telling their parents “you should have aborted when you had the chance.” Hell, even their own mothers are saying it on record. Plus, they require constant adult supervision (either via parent or guardian) because their mental condition many times causes them to act up inappropriately in public and can never be left alone due to said mental condition, so say goodbye to living independently.

Keep in mind, this was everything that I researched and observed! Knowing all this, why would you want to saddle a human being with all these problems? You are not being fair to a child by basically saddling him/her with a very subpar quality of life with no chance of ever elevating out of it, and that is why I would abort any fetus that tests positive for downs syndrome.

Now here is what someone said to me on this topic:

What if they had a prenatal test for say autism, would you abort your child if it test positive?

First off, prenatal testing for autism doesn’t exist yet so that’s a genuinely stupid question. But to answer the question that is asked as if they did exist….

For starters, such a test would have to detect the severity of the autism. I’ll give an example. A family member has a friend’s whose grandson has severe autism. He can’t talk; he communicates by using grunts. He has random and frequent “meltdowns” so bringing him to public places such as restaurants is all but impossible and his mental condition pretty much assures him a stay in an assisted living facility for the rest of his life once his parents are gone. In addition, like a downs syndrome kid even though he’s nearing teenage years he has the mental and cognitive capacity of a small child.

So yes, if such a test detected a severe autism I probably would abort. It’s all about quality of life, and if a test was positive for something that would give a child a shitty quality of life in my opinion you are being crueler to it by carrying it to term then terminating the pregnancy.

By the way, “quality of life” doesn’t just mean medical or physical well-being. When a person with downs syndrome or severe autism gets a job in a certain field they’re not expected to get, it tends to make the local TV news. Why is that? Because their limited mental and cognitive capacity almost always relegates them to jobs like supermarket bagger or cart getter, which is why getting a job that is better than that is, well…. Newsworthy.

By the way, so I don’t have to create a whole new section….

It doesn’t just go for downs syndrome either. If prenatal testing reveals a birth defect that is going to severely affect the quality of life – like a condition that prevents half its skull from forming like this child here - I would abort. Yeah, the link says he is still living. But how good is the kid’s quality of life going to be as he gets older? That is the question I would raise to anyone who finds out that a fetus is going to be born with a severe condition that is going to make its life hell, and in many cases short.

---

Rape.

There is a reason why nearly all pregnancies conceived through a rape are aborted. The biggest reason is that these pregnancies are certainly not wanted, first and foremost. Children of rape are looked at as a constant reminder of the heinous act committed against the mother, so they are oftentimes neglected and treated like shit. That’s not exactly something anyone should go through.

But, there is another reason. Let’s say the mother deems the child not at fault for his/her “father’s” crime, and decides to carry it to term and love it like any other child. Thanks to some states being run by misogynistic assholes, they have passed laws granting the rapist visitation rights. Can you believe this?! Sorry, but a man who conceives a child through rape is not a “father.” He is an unwanted sperm donor, and should be treated accordingly.

But some might say….

“Doesn’t matter he is still the child’s father!”

If you say this, congratulations for being one of the said misogynistic assholes. You want to know why giving rapist’s visitation rights are a bad idea? Because there is a chance he might harm the mother again, that is why! Shame on the people who passed those laws knowing this! To be honest, that is why children of rape who are carried to term are often given up in a closed adoption, because the child will eventually start “digging” to find out info on the man who conceived them, putting the mother’s life in danger.

Now you see my nearly all pregnancies conceived through a rape are aborted?

----

Gender-based abortions.

Pro-life advocates say that people who have gender-based abortions (aka sex-selective abortions) are “selfish individuals who don’t want to deal with having a son or daughter.” While I’m sure some are, the reason for this type of abortion is because some females carry the gene for a disease or condition that only affects a baby if it’s a certain gender. If a mother knows she carries a gene for a condition that is going to say, make a male child suffer greatly, why put a child through hell simply because his only crime was being born male?

A good example is Lenz Syndrome. It’s a very rare inherited condition that causes the affected person to be born with eyes that don’t function, or be born with no eyes at all. It generally only affects males and yes, the mother can be tested to see if she test positive for the gene. I saw this story on one of those evening news-magazine type shows where this selfish mother tested positive for the gene but had not one, not two but three male kids and two were born without eyes and one was born with just one usable eye. How is this being fair to them, knowing that their mother knew ahead of time?

That’s why gender-based abortions exist, not so parents can get out of raising a male or female kid!

---

Incest.

The reasons for this are obvious, so I’m not going to touch on it here.

----

Now for the things that pro-lifers try to pull that try to restrict abortions, or put a woman through physiological warfare just for wanting one:

1. Ridiculous requirements on abortion clinics that only serve one purpose – to shut them down.

You know the ones. Like in the state of Texas, where doctors at abortion clinics had to have admitting privileges at local hospitals or that the walls had to be a certain width.

Thankfully the Supreme Court struck this one down

2. Forcing a woman to get a sonogram before an abortion.

Is there any real reason for this, other than to make a woman feel like shit for wanting to have an abortion? I mean, that is the only reason for this law.

3. Banning abortions in case the fetus tests positive for birth defects.

Click here for info on the infamous law in Indian.

As I mentioned earlier, states pass these laws then do nothing in helping a woman with raising a child with sometimes severe birth defects.

----

Now there is one law that I wanted to get a bit more in-depth on….

Parental consent and notification.

Regarding this, I am fine with parental notification. However, I am against parental consent. I just looked and the states that require parental consent are mostly the southern or "red" states. Go figure.

The reason is simple: There are going to be parents who are more concerned with their allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over their own daughter’s wants and in many cases, well being.

Let’s give an example, a scenario if you will. Say a 15 year old girl gets a bit too frisky with her boyfriend one night (It happens!) and gets pregnant. The girl wants an abortion, for obvious reasons. The father is okay with it but the mother starts in with her “all life is a gift from god (Barf!) you are having this baby!” bullshit and refuses to let her have the abortion. Then the girl sees a doctor who tells her at best, having the baby will result in never being able to have kids again downs the road to dying in childbirth at worst. She begs her mother to let her have the abortion. Her mother screams, “This was god’s plan you must have this baby!” So this poor girl is now being forced to carry a baby to term that she didn’t want in the first place that puts her life in danger. All because her colossal bitch of a mother (who at this point doesn’t deserve the title of “mother”) wants to pledge allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky over her own flesh-and-blood’s health and well-being.

I will tell you all this: Any parent that forces their daughter to carry a fetus to term even if it will cause harm needs to be charged with felony child abuse, interfering with a child’s medical care (which is a felony, by the way) and if the girl dies in childbirth, murder.

The scenario described above is the exact reason why I am against parental consent. In addition, it can cause young girls to do some pretty irrational things if they knew one of their parents would refuse to let them have an abortion.

Case in point? I’m sure a lot of you remember this girl who threw her baby out her apartment window.

Now don’t get me wrong, what she did was indefensible. That judge who handed down that sentence was a moron, by the way. But back to what she did…. people were speculating as to why the girl would do such a thing.

Allow me to speculate. I mentioned this in an earlier blog, but Nebraska is a state that passed a law requiring minors to get parental consent to get an abortion. If I were a betting man, I can bet that she knew her mother would refuse to sign off on an abortion and got desperate, more so as time went on. When people get desperate, they tend to do some pretty irrational things, as in this case here.

----

Women should not be denied access to contraceptives….EVER.

It’s that simple. There have been talks about employers objection to having to pay for insurance that covers women’s contraceptives. Well guess what? It’s not their bodies! They need to stay out of it and let women have affordable or covered access to the stuff she needs to stay healthy! If they don’t like it, then maybe they shouldn’t run a business if they are going to want to control women’s bodies!

Same thing for a pharmacy. If they don’t want to carry things like contraceptives or the “morning after pill,” then maybe being a pharmacy is the wrong business for them.

---

I admit that this blog kind of fell on the…. Back burner. But since that time there are some things that came up that I want to mention:

---

Oklahoma is trying to pass a law that requires a woman seeking an abortion to get permission from the father of the fetus. Here is why that is a bad idea.

Link to story.

First, it must be noted that the author of the bill linked above called pregnant women “hosts.” As if that wasn’t misogynistic at all! *sarcasm*

Basically, it is exactly what I put: if this bill passes, it would require a woman seeking an abortion to get written permission from the father of the fetus.

The law says that it makes exceptions for rape, incest and to save the life of the mother. But the one glaring omission is that it does not make exceptions for women in abusive relationships.

That right there is why it’s a bad idea. Why would you force a woman to carry a child when she knows that means it’s going to tie her to a man that may end up killing her? You know full well that many abusive men will say “no” simply to be an asshole and spite her.

Also included is a provision that would make it illegal to abort a fetus if it tests positive for a genetic defect or a condition like downs syndrome. Yet again, nothing that provides financial assistance to the women forced to carry the damaged fetus to term.

---

Now for some rebuttals that people reading this will surely ask or want to say that I am going to answer now:

1. What happens if your wife tells you what you want to hear then decides to run the risk of going to heaven if it means carrying the fetus to term?

As I mentioned before I wouldn’t want to be in a relationship with someone like that especially if she “tells me what I want to hear….”

2. If you don’t want to run the risk of your wife taking a chance of going to heaven to save her child don’t marry a woman with deep religious beliefs.

You mean a crazy religious zealot who believes in fairy tales to the point where her health and life is not as important as a fetus that may not be born alive anyway and might kill her? As I wrote previously, not someone I would want to be in a relationship with, much less marry.

3. Here’s a thought…. If you can’t stand the thought of raising a baby with downs syndrome or severe autism give it up for adoption!

With all the healthy babies that are put up for adoption, why would any prospective parent adopt a baby with downs syndrome? Besides all the problems that child is going to saddle the parents with, I can only imagine how that kid is going to feel when it finds out its birth parents gave it up due to its condition! 

4. There are some people that will read this then look at your life and say it is a very subpar quality of life, should your mother have aborted you?

Congrats on using the “debate by hurling insults” method! For starters, I’m not perfect (no one is), but I am a healthy individual who stands a good chance of improving myself at any time to get things that I want or simply put myself in a better situation. People with downs syndrome or severe autism don’t have that chance.

5. Just because the baby was conceived through rape does not make it any less valuable, why make it pay for its father’s crime?

Okay so…. Let’s force the woman to go through a pregnancy she never asked for, then if she lives in a state that passed misogynistic laws she’ll be forced to grant the rapist visitation rights. So in other words, let’s make the woman pay for the crime of the rapist. You’re so right! *Note sarcasm.*

BTW, about the visitation rights thing….

After doing a little more research into this, there are no particular “laws” that grant a rapist visitation rights, but rather 31 (!) states that do not have any laws on the books preventing a rapist visitation or even trying for custody. So in essence, those 31 states need to act like the other 19 and sign laws banning these unwanted sperm donors from ruining their victim’s life any further!

Which brings us to a comment on one of those news sites about this issue, I kid you not:

6. The reason for the lack of laws in certain states to prevent visitation or custody demands by rapists is because some women cry rape to block the father from seeing his child. How is that fair to him?

Let me tell you, when I read that it made my blood boil. People who make statements like this are the reason why over half of rapes go unreported, because women know that in many cases they are in for more punishment than the actual attacker. The person who wrote this should be ashamed of himself.

7. In your parental consent scenario, if the daughter wasn’t such a slut she wouldn’t get pregnant! Time for her to face the music!

When you were a teenager, how many dumb things did you do out of impulse? If your answer is “none,” then you’re a fucking liar. This is another case of “love the fetus hate the woman,” that is you would rather see a 15 year old girl with a full life ahead of her possibly die in childbirth just because of a mistake she made.

8. Parental consent laws were put in place to curb teen pregnancies. If teens know that their parents may refuse an abortion they are less likely to have sex. You do know that, right?

Yeah, I do know that. But in the process it also causes religious fanatics to refuse their children proper medical care. I am pretty sure that in the scenario I mentioned, her daughter’s health and well being trump’s the parent’s allegiance to a mythical deity in the sky.

9. In response to that Nebraska teen who threw her baby out the window, there are safe heaven laws set up so a woman who gave birth to an unwanted child can drop it off at any fire station or hospital. She could have done that, but let’s say you’re right, why is she having sex if she knew her mother would refuse an abortion?

I was actually going to agree with this until you made that ridiculous comment “why is she having sex?” See below as to why….

----

Allow me to interrupt the rebuttals as there is a comment I see plenty of times whenever the abortion topic is brought up:

“You make your choice when you spread your legs and have sex, don’t want to get pregnant, don’t have sex!”

See, I have a big problem with this comment. If I am in a healthy relationship with my significant other, who are you (in a general sense) to tell me that I should not have sex with her and who are you to tell her that she should not have sex with me? Secondly, notice how this comment is usually aimed at insulting the woman, but nothing is usually said to the man? Last I heard it takes two people to get a woman pregnant!

Yes, we know that pregnancy is the biggest risk to sex. But we like doing it because it is a basic human need that has to be satisfied. That is why abstinence doesn’t work. Same reason why the D.A.R.E program is a failure. When you tell someone not to do something, the first thing they are going do is, well, do it.

It’s the same thing with driving. Lots of people drive to work every day knowing that there is a risk of getting into a crash that could leave them severely injured and unable to work, but drive anyway.

Would you tell a person this? “If you know full well that you can’t afford to get injured in a crash either find a job that lets you work from home or take the bus every day!”

No, because it’s stupid!

The thing is that both have risks, but so do a lot of other things. Running into risks are a fact of life.

Now I know that people are going to say “condoms!”

Now I know that birth control like condoms are not 100%. I consider birth control to be like modern safety features on new cars, just because they are there doesn’t mean that they are going to prevent you from getting injured or killed in an accident.

For that….. there’s always the morning after pill.

----

Now back to my regularly scheduled rebuttals:

These two are intended for what I wrote above:

10. Sorry bro, sex is intended for one thing: procreation. NOT pleasure as people like you seem to think it’s for. We’re the only species in the animal kingdom that thinks that sex is for pleasure.

I must remind you that the only people who seem to spout this nonsense are the ones who belong to the cult known as the Catholic Church (Yeah I called it a cult, you have a problem with that?). The same church that was under a child sex abuse scandal, mind you. Think about this for a moment: If sex was really “just for procreation” then why do we have a whole damn industry dedicated to making products to enhance the pleasure of sexual intercourse and also prevent pregnancy? Yes, I do get that we are the only species that does use sex for pleasure but that’s simply because we’re more evolved than other animal species out there.

11. Food, water and shelter is a basic need. Not sex. Some people go many years without sex.

Bill Mahar touched on someone like this a couple of years ago in his “new rules” segment (Skip to the 1:56 mark if you must).

I know that most people probably won’t go on mass shooting sprees, but let’s face it, if you go too long without sex you tend to be a bit…. Hostile…. And not the type that a Snickers will resolve either.

12. Men should have a say in the matter if their girlfriend/wife is going to get an abortion. Secondly, if a man is abusive why is she having sex with him?

No he shouldn’t because it’s not his fucking body, simple as that! As to your second question, I really hope you’re kidding about that. Refusing sex to a person who is abusive oftentimes makes the situation worse; any woman who was in an abusive relationship can tell you that. For a woman in this situation it’s literally either tolerate the man’s dick for the night or refuse and get beat up. Oh by the way, one thing that abusive men will sometimes do is use things like condoms that have been intentionally tampered with to trick a woman into what she thinks is safe sex to get her pregnant and tie her down to him. THAT is why requiring a father’s permission for an abortion is a really bad idea.

---

Now I will admit something…. Most of my rebuttals are based on things I read online or listen to in person from people who object to a person’s stance on topics like mine. This next rebuttal was said to me right to my face when I told him my stance on abortion if a test for autism existed:

“Do yourself a favor and please never have kids because if this is how you feel it’s clear that you are not ready mentally or emotionally to have even a healthy child, much less one with downs syndrome or autism.”

This just proves my theory: That “conservatives” (which is what this person identifies as) like to debate by hurling insults. Who the fuck is he to tell me I’m not ready to have kids just because I am pro-choice?

---

For the “overturn Roe Vs Wade” crowd….

For the people who want to see abortion totally outlawed in the name of whatever fairy tale or cult they have allegiance to, I’ll give you El Salvador. Abortion is illegal there – it doesn’t matter if a woman is raped or if it’s needed to save the mother’s life, it simply cannot be performed.

Even worse, women there are jailed for simply having a miscarriage or stillbirths!

What angered me is this paragraph here from the above linked article:

"El Salvador's abortion law gained international attention in 2013 with the case of a woman identified publicly as Beatriz.

Beatriz, a 22-year-old peasant, suffered from lupus and was several months pregnant with her second child when the fetus was diagnosed with anencephaly, meaning it would be born without part of the brain and could not survive. Doctors determined that her own medical condition made carrying the baby to term a threat to Beatriz's life.

She appealed all the way to the Supreme Court to be allowed to terminate her pregnancy, but her petition was denied, in effect ordering her to carry to term a baby that would not live and might instead kill her. Ultimately, in a de facto compromise, she was given a caesarean section in June 2013, when the fetus was 27 weeks. The baby died five hours later. Beatriz today continues to recover."

Yep – they forced a woman to carry an unviable fetus to term that dies anyway hours after “birth” and leaves her permanently scarred and is still not fully recovered to this day. All of this to pacify the pricks at the Catholic Church/Cult. I swear, I fucking hate religion.

But back to the ridiculous part about the miscarriages. Let’s say Roe V Wade is overturned and states like Alabama or Mississippi immediately sign laws to criminalize abortion. How long will it take for a woman to have a miscarriage or stillbirth, be accused of intentionally causing it and jailed for it?

Because when you criminalize abortion…. It doesn’t stop at abortions. Miscarriages and stillbirths in places like El Salvador are often blamed on the woman so some sort of criminal charge is placed on her.  Because it's not really about abortions, it's about hating women.

This cannot happen in America. Not in 2017…. Not ever.

Read this line from the article I posted above: “The World Health Organization estimates that more than 35,000 women in El Salvador obtain unsafe, clandestine abortions every year.”

With that said…. Why hasn’t one of our well-known millionaires/billionaires offered to fly a woman from El Salvador to the US to have the abortion performed if it’s required to save her life and then fly her back home afterwards? Stray question I know…. But it’s worth a thought!

El Salvador is a small country, mind you. If abortion was made illegal here in the US the line might read, “The World Health Organization estimates that more than 5,000,000 women in the US obtain unsafe, clandestine abortions every year.”

Think about that for a moment. In addition, this is what might happen if abortion is criminalized:

1. Women will be throwing their newborn babies in dumpsters / trash cans or out windows.

2. Women will be taking an “accidental” fall down the stairs or “trip” over something and “by chance” fall on their belly.

3. Child abuse cases will skyrocket as mothers who are forced to carry an unwanted fetus to term will treat the kid like shit.

4. Women will be traveling out of state to get their abortions, totally rendering laws in their home state useless anyway.

PS: Before anyone says "Then states should make laws prohibiting this," what are they going to do, ask every woman who crosses state lines if they're pregnant?

5. Even worse, they will pull a Casey Anthony and pretend to be a loving devoted mother for the camera than one day snap and kill the poor kid.

6. Women who can’t afford to travel to a state that keeps it legal will have “hotel room” or “back alley” abortions where their life will be in danger.

7. For women that maintain a rational mind and use what is known as a “safe haven” law, fire stations will probably have to hire dedicated people just to handle the influx of babies being dropped off there.

8. The next one deserves its own special explanation if Roe V Wade is overturned….

Let’s say there is a 17 year old girl named Lisa. She works a low-wage job at a supermarket. She is in a healthy relationship with her boyfriend and yes, they have sex. Despite them taking all the precautions – birth control, condoms, etc – Lisa gets pregnant. Lisa cannot afford to be raising a child at this stage of her life. However, her state criminalized abortion since Roe V Wade was overturned so she runs the risk of being jailed for having one. She cannot afford to travel out of state either and she does not want to run the risk of going to a shady “doctor” to do a hotel room or back alley abortion….

….Fast forward 9 months. Lisa gives birth to her baby. Her boyfriend gets freaked out and runs off, leaving her to take care of it alone. Lisa ends up going on public assistance like welfare, WIC and section 8. Other people find out she is on public assistance to help raise her child, the same ones who pushed to have abortion criminalized. Those same people tell her, “Why did you have sex knowing you might get pregnant,” “I can’t believe my tax dollars are going to a woman who couldn’t keep her legs closed,” “You’re being a drain on the welfare system,” “You should have been responsible instead of being a slut” and other phrases.

That is what gets me about the pro-life crowd: They want so bad to force a woman to carry an unwanted fetus to term then hurl nothing but insults when she has to go on public assistance to help her raise said child.

----

Conclusion….

I could write something about this, or I could just show you this George Carlin video:

I have already explained the scenarios as to why abortion needs to stay legal and easy to access. I have already shot down the rebuttals given to me. But let me tell you something about the pro-life crowd….

They are not really pro-life. They are pro-birth. Once a baby is born they don’t give two shits about it. It they really cared, they wouldn’t be trying to cut programs like welfare, WIC and other types of public assistance. If they cared they would pass laws making school lunches free instead of letting some kids go hungry in schools. If they cared they wouldn’t be cutting after-school programs. They don’t care if a fetus might kill the mother if carried to term leaving the women’s boyfriend/husband to raise the child as single dad. They don’t care about the woman, only the fetus. Really, as George Carlin alluded to pro-life people only care about children once they reach the age where they can join the military and be sent off to war.

It’s not even about the abortion. “Pro-life” people just want to exert control over women’s bodies. This is heavily apparent when that asshole congressman in Oklahoma called women “hosts.” Which leads us to….

Look at the hypothetical scenario with “Lisa” a few paragraphs above. Most of the insults aimed at her are based on sex. Most pro-life people are upset that there are women who have sex for pleasure and not for procreation. They can’t grasp the thought that this is not the dark ages and sex can be used for excitement, joy and overall fun. Again, like George Carlin alluded to “pro-life” people look at women as nothing more than brood mares who should only be penetrated when they are ready to start a family. Pro-life people literally lash out at modern women for having sex for pleasure rather than procreation. That’s a problem in 2017.

As I wrote earlier in the “For the ‘overturn Roe Vs Wade’ crowd” section, criminalizing abortion will not just stop at abortions and create a whole slew of problems. We’ll become El Salvador where a woman has a miscarriage or stillborn and the state she’s in will accuse her of causing it and try her for murder. We’ll be seeing all the things I listed and more, not to mention women being insulted if they end up keeping the baby and going on public assistance…. for simply having sex.

All this…. Because some people’s allegiance to a damn fairy tale of a mythical deity in the sky.

I am done.

Why…. I…. am…. no…. longer…. a…. Liberal.

They say that your ideal “leanings” usually go three ways: Liberal, Moderate or Conservative. 

I’m not going to go into details but I can say that I have always considered myself a liberal.  I believe in equal rights for everyone (Yes that includes marriage equality for gays and lesbians) and I believe that women’s reproductive rights should not be infringed upon.  I also believe that corporations should have to abide by some ground rules (regulations) in order to avoid screwing over employees and customers just to squeeze more profits out for their shareholders.

But lately, I have come to the realization that calling myself a liberal is against many of the principles I current have.  I am a human with my own principles and convictions, but if I had to choose, I would call myself a moderate.

Let’s take a look at the things that made me switch….

---

1. Free speech is not just speech you agree with. 

I’m sure you have recently seen the riots and protests at Berkley University just because they invited Brieitbart editor Milo Yiannopoulous to speak at their campus: 

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2017/02/01/uc-berkeley-campus-protest-milo-yiannopoulos-breitbart/97378104/

 

As you can read, it turned violent and the school had to cancel his appearance.  This is the biggest problem that liberals have – if it’s not something they agree with, the person with the “offending” speech needs to be silenced or told he/she cannot say it.  

Look, we all know that Milo is a raging a-hole.  But he has a right to speak no matter how much of a raging a-hole he might be.  You may not like it, but such is life.  Get over it.  Just like he has a right to say what he wants, you have a right to make commentary on it after he spouts his nonsense.  But to make efforts to silence him is totally NOT what the 1^st amendment is all about.

The same can be said when people start protesting when Anne Coulter which causes her appearances to be canceled – she may be an evil wench, but people need to let her speak and decide for themselves if they like what she spews out of her mouth!

---

2. Schools are more interested in self-esteem than making kids learn and parents are to blame as well.

We all know that participation trophies do nothing but teach kids that the only redeemable skill is “showing up.”  Never excelling, never competitive, never wanting to do better, just “showing up.”  

I was against the whole concept, then found out it was – you guessed it – a liberal concept.  But I cannot completely blame schools for this.  I blame the parents.  Because you had a few instances where their precious little snowflakes came home crying that they “didn’t win,” so what did they do?  Let’s give everyone a trophy even if they didn’t deserve it just so they don’t get their feelings hurt!   I could go on but there articles out there that explain deeper about this, so I’ll leave it up to them.  

But it’s not just participation trophies that are messing up students in the name of self-esteem.  Ever heard of “social promotion?”  It’s where a student fails to meet the minimum requirements to move onto the next grade but instead of leaving him back so he/she can learn, they promote him/her anyway.   It’s done for two reasons: 1) Because the teacher had enough and wants that student out of his/her class, and 2) they are afraid that leaving a student back will mess up his/her self-esteem.  Guess what?  If your precious little Timmy or Suzie is too stupid to move onto the next grade, tough shit!  Leave him/her back and make them learn!  Of course, I found out this process was started by…. Liberals.

Also, did you know that some schools are actually forbidding teachers from giving out F’s, and if they do they are not allowed to write it in red ink because it has a “confrontational tone” that may harm kids’ self-esteem.   What the actual fuck?!  Hey, I have an idea… Don’t want an F?  Make the effort and actually study and do well on an assignment.  Simple!   Again, liberals thought of this.

But get this…. It doesn’t just extend to the classroom.  Parents are actually refusing to let their kids participate in extra-curricular activities or try and learn a new skill (musical instrument, for example) because they are afraid that if they fail it will hurt their self-esteem.  

I’m going to reference a favorite sitcom of mine – Last Man Standing.   One of Mike Baxter’s daughters has a son.  On one episode, the kid wanted to participate in a mini-rodeo.  His daughter (The boy’s mom) was afraid to let him do it because she was, well, afraid of what his self-esteem would be if he failed.

Mike Baxter said this:

“If you don’t let him fail he’s not going to be good at anything.”  

That’s the main idea.  If you don’t let children find out that they suck at something, they are not going to end up having any marketable skills.  You have to find your niche, and the only way to find it is to suck at some things before you find something that you are good at.  

Personal experience here: I discovered Stevie Ray Vaughan’s music way back in the late 1990’s.  My mother caught me playing air guitar to one of his songs.  So she thought being an “Air SRV” could translate into, well, an actual SRV.  She bought me a guitar and lessons.  But I just couldn’t grasp playing the real thing and when I saw that it was going to take 10 hours of practice a day every day to even approach SRV’s playing level, I said to myself “screw this shit” and stopped.  But then I discovered that I was seriously into technology so that is where I found my niche, still to this day.  But I had to find out that I sucked on a real guitar before finding what I was actually good at and that is the point.  PS… Still an SRV fan.

---

3. Why does everything have to be body/fat shaming?!

Allow me to throw myself into the shark infested waters on this one, as this is probably going to ruffle more feathers than possibly anything else on this list.  

Simply put, why is it that when you even remotely criticize someone for choosing an outfit that simply wouldn’t look good on them, you are either fat shaming or body shaming?

Liberals have managed to convinced certain people that it’s ok to wear anything despite the FACT that in certain situations the person does not have the right body type to pull it off, or it simply looks ridiculous.  

When someone says anything or writes anything about it, the person doing the commentary gets immediately blasted as “fat shaming” or “body shaming.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, it is not a good thing to poke fun at someone just because of their size.  But come on now – certain articles of clothing are meant only for people of a certain body type! 

In fact, I’m not going to get into bigger women right now, I’m going to list an example of the opposite….

Very low-cut outfits: Yes, any woman can wear a low cut outfit.  BUT – if a woman is only an A or barely a B cup, what’s the point?  As Max Black said to Caroline on Two Broke Girls, “If you don’t have a car why open the garage?”   Low-cut outfits only make logical sense when a woman has a c-cup or higher.

Now people who read this are going to try and bash me by saying, “They can wear whatever they want if it makes them feel good and/or sexy!”  Okay, yes that’s true but I can reserve to have the thought process that it just looks silly if they don’t have the, um, assets that can pull off the “look.”

It has gotten so bad that shows like the “Fashion Police” have to walk on eggshells to avoid pissing off the snowflakes, resulting in them becoming rather dull.  Which is amazingly stupid as their job on a show like that is to make commentary on the clothes that people are wearing and the people wearing them.

I’ll give a personal example here.  I refuse to wear sleeveless “muscle shirts.”  Mainly because I know that due to my chest hair and current physique, it would look downright silly.  So when someone tells me, “Do yourself a favor and do not wear a muscle shirt,” I say, “thanks but I already know.”  What I don’t say is, “Oh my god you’re body shaming me I can wear whatever I want!!!!!111111!!!!!11111”

Oh fuck it, I will go there regarding bigger woman: There are plus size models like Ashley Graham and Robyn Lawley that are truly hot and look they actually eat, and then there are “models” that shouldn’t even be called that.  Sorry, but no one wants to look at some 300-pound chick trying to rock a G-string or a skin revealing tank top.

---

4. Penalizing or making fun of a person for buying/having a certain car or truck is dumb….. 

….Or, it means you’re a liberal.  Or a Prius driver.

For real, I know many people across both ends of the spectrum.  The only people who think of ways to punish someone for buying their choice of vehicle or bitch at someone for it are liberals or Prius drivers. 

People you know may ask you, “What is your current dream car?”

I answered that question honestly to someone who asked…. A Dodge Challenger Hellcat.  That’s for a new car.  For a classic, a resto-modded 1970 Chevelle SS with a built LT4 or LSX and modern suspension and brakes.

What was this person’s response?  “So you don’t care about all the pollution you’re creating as long as you get your jollies off and annoy the people around you with your loud exhaust?”

I wanted to tell him to get back to his Prius.  At least the cars I like don’t look like an egg and have to struggle to get to 60!  Oh, and while the Prius may have very low smog emissions, it does have a very high amount of smug emissions.  

But that nonewithstanding…. Here is the interesting thing about the Prius that a lot of the smug dullards who drive them don’t know (Or they do and just prefer to turn a blind eye): Unlike a lot of Toyota’s models which are made here in the USA, the Prius is made in Japan and shipped over here on a huge cargo ship that pollutes way more than even a thousand Hellcats or resto-modded Chevelles.  Plus, once the battery finally dies it cannot be recycled, it has to be disposed of in a landfill where it will just pollute the ground.   But hey, as long as it gets 52mpg, right?

This may come as a shock, but one eco-friendly company I like is Tesla.  This isn’t even about Emissions.  It’s about being able to buy a Tesla.  Several states have actually passed laws prohibiting Tesla’s “direct-to-consumer” sales model.  Guess who actually ghost-written those laws?  Yep, the dealer associations that are scared of competition.  Reminds me of municipal broadband!  Like in Michigan, if you want a Tesla you have to travel out of state.  Tesla has stated in the past that the reason it is hesitant to let private, franchised dealers sell their cars is because the staff “may not be properly suited to effectively sell the cars.”  This is a nice way of saying that the typical car salesperson is too stupid to actually know enough about the car to sell it properly.  Which based on mine and others’ experience is correct.  

 In Oregon, there was a lawmaker that tried to pass a bill that would impose a tax of $1000 every five years to owners of vehicles 20 years old or more:

http://jalopnik.com/proposed-oregon-bill-would-tax-people-with-cars-20-year-1792227249

Okay, the article has been updated to say it died in congress…. because it was amazingly stupid.  The bill failed to mention the two points you would think it would try to accomplish: Pollution and Safety.  After all, no matter how you slice it, a 20 year old car is not going to as efficient or safe as a new or recent-model used car.  But the bill failed to mention that.  It appeared to be just a money grab scheme.

If you think that is dumb, take a look at this idiocy.

It’s sad what happened, but for the father to blame Tesla instead of the fact that his daughter was drunk was, well, ludicrous.  He blames the Tesla’s ability to have instant acceleration for the crash.  What gets me is the part where he is thinking about suing Tesla.  Come on!

----

5. Gender Dysphoria. 

Actually, if the body-shaming bit doesn’t give me flak this one will….

Gender Dysphoria, for those that don’t know, is a delusional disorder that causes a person to believe that they are a gender opposite to the one they were born with.  This is what causes a person to want to become transgender. 

Now with delusional disorders, we as a society work to treat them and attempt to reverse their effects.  But for some reason Gender Dysphoria is the only delusional disorder where we as a society are now satisfying the delusion rather than treatment and reversal thanks to liberal political correctness.  Gender Dysphoria is, for all intents and purposes a mental illness.  Any psychologist will tell you that one aspect of a mental illness is when the brain tries to convince you that you're something you're not.  Now, I don’t think that being transgender itself is a mental illness.  But the disorder that causes someone to want to be transgender certainly is.

Look, it’s quite simple really – if you’re born with a dick, you’re a man and if you’re born with a vagina you’re a woman.  No amount of messed up signals in your brain is going to change that.  Because DNA and biology.  No amount of hormones and surgery to give a man a fake vagina or a woman a fake penis can change that.  Because again, DNA and biology.  

I have no issue with people who are or want to become transgender.   If they want to do that to themselves, fine.  But can you imagine if other delusional disorders were to be looked at the same way as Gender Dysphoria?  Meaning, satisfied instead of treated and reverse attempted?

I’ll give three examples:

Anorexia and Bulimia: People with these eating disorders think they are fat when many times they are not and either starve themselves (Anorexia) or binge-and-purge (Bulimia).   If we started satisfying these disorders there would be a lot of dead people from lack of food and nutrition.  It would be truly disastrous to have these disorders satisfied rather than reversed.   

Erotomania: The Wikipedia entry reads, “….a type of delusional disorder where the affected person believes that another person is in love with him or her. This belief is usually applied to someone with higher status or a famous person….”   Remember Rebecca Schaeffer, or more recently Christina Grimmie?  Their killers were more than likely suffering from this.   I can imagine more awful tragedies would happen if this disorder was satisfied.  

Schizophrenia: Can you imagine if we satisfied this illness and told effected people it’s ok to hear and listen to the voices in their head?  Can you imagine the craziness that would result?  Yes, there might be violence.  Yes, I am aware that a study was done that concluded that 97% of people with Schizophrenia do not have violent tendencies.  Before anyone asks, yes I think that study was bullshit and told to lie to avoid making Schizophrenia patients look bad.

Back to Gender Dysphoria, what is really saddening is that parents are actually letting their kids take hormones and even get surgery when the American College of Pediatricians (In other words, actual experts) thinks that is a really bad idea.

Read sentence 5 of the above linked article: 

“According to the DSM-V, as many as 98% of gender confused boys and 88% of gender confused girls eventually accept their biological sex after naturally passing through puberty.”

In other words, they’ll grow out of it soon enough.  Also, read sentence # 8.  I agree with that 100%. 

Moving on….

----

6. Equality means more than just “equal pay,” it should also mean getting rid of double standards….

I am still “liberal” when it comes to equal pay, maternity leave and the like.  But there is something that people shouting “Equality!” seem to never talk about: The ridiculous double standards that still plague certain aspects of society.  

Take domestic abuse, for instance.  Now, abuse is wrong whether it’s committed by a man or woman.  But did you know that 40% of domestic violence victims are men?  Also, a very small amount of that abuse is reported.  Probably because the man knows that other people will poke fun at him, point and laugh, be told to “toughen up,” or just “walk away.”  How is that fair and how is that “Equality?”

Let’s focus on “walk away.”  That may be fine if the woman has only her hands, but what if she has a knife, a brick or even a gun?  Are you just going to “walk away” and let her stab you, bash your head in or shoot you?  

This video is probably the best example of why it doesn’t matter what gender the violence is coming from.

On a lighter note, let’s talk about another subject: Dating.

It can be as simple as one’s preferences.  Let’s talk dealbreakers.  I have one definite dealbreaker and one that if not a dealbreaker, it’s pretty damn close: Obese and cigarette smoking.  

I can tell you right now, it will be fine if a woman is a few extra pounds but if she is obese that is a no-go.  No matter what other boxes she may check, once I see that she looks like pre-weight-loss Mama June that finishes it for me.   The other thing is cigarette smoking, mainly because I don’t take well to the smell and it would be like kissing an ashtray.  

But for some reason, it seems to only be OK when a woman lists her dealbreakers.  She can say she is not attracted to extremely heavyset guys and that would be OK.  She can say that she won’t date a smoker and that would be OK.  She can say that she won’t date a guy under 5’7” and that would be OK.  She can even say that anything less than a Bachelor’s is a no-go and even that would be OK.

But despite me only having two dealbreakers, these are some of the responses I have gotten from various people over the years from both woman and guys I know:

“You need to stop being a Shallow Hal.”

“You’re seriously going to throw someone away just because she smokes?”

“Big girls need loving too.”

“If she smokes just request that she rinses her mouth with mouthwash!”

The worst came from a person who I thought would understand more than other people I know:

“In your current state you really don’t deserve to have dealbreakers.” 

All I can say to that is…. What an asshole.  So according to him I should just date whomever I can date just to say that I am dating someone.  That is ridiculous. 

Tell me something…. How is that “equality?” 

---

7. When your “group” does bad things, own it and denounce it instead of trying to label people.

I could write a couple of paragraphs on this or I can show you this video of one of Bill Mahar’s new rules segments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=965RuG22-Aw

I’ll try to give my 2 cents on this: Basically, if you are part of a group or religion that is doing most of a certain bad thing (Like terrorism), you need to own it and denounce it.  But you also need to understand why extra scrutiny may be placed on you and therefore not bitch and moan about it. 

I’ll be a little more blunt about it: If your kind is doing the biggest percentage of a certain bad thing, your ass deserves to be looked at with a little extra scrutiny and concern!   Even if you are doing nothing wrong yourself, you need to take a look at why it’s happening, understand the scrutiny, denounce the problems and make an effort to make a difference and show people “most of us are not like that.”

As the video points out, liberals are placing certain groups of people on what I call the “don’t touch” list.  Muslims are apparently on the top of that list.  When you try to have any reasonable conversation about it, you get labeled a bigot, islamaphobe, or a racist.  The label “racist” is odd to me because Islam is not a race, it’s a religion.

There was a term I heard once called “Sudden Extremist Syndrome” or SES.  It can affect anyone of any religion, like that kid who shot up the black church or the guy that shot up the abortion clinic in Minnesota.  But it seems to happen to Muslims more than any other organized religion.  Why is that?  This is one of the discussions we need to have without liberals screaming “Bigot!” or “Islamaphobe!” at you when you try to discuss it. 

Calling someone those labels just makes things counterproductive and also makes it harder to have a conversation or debate on the subject. 

One of the things I will agree with liberals on is that calling terrorism “radical Islamic terrorism” accomplishes nothing and actually gives the real extremists ammunition to launch more attacks.

   

It’s just terrorism.   The aforementioned kid that shot up the black church in North Carolina and the guy that shot up the abortion clinic in Minnesota were both Caucasian.  Are they both terrorists?  Absolutely!

By the way – please spare with the “But there are radical Christians and Catholics out there!” speeches.  I know they are out there – usually they don’t kill people, they just try to sign laws allowing gays/lesbians to be discriminated against, laws to have women’s reproductive choices to be taken away and laws that favor corporations over the customers and employees. 

---

8. We need to stop with giving people a pass for saying something while labeling others as racists/sexists/bigots/whatever just because they’re not the “right” person to say it.

Remember when Senator Marco Rubio said – in public – that if you come to America, you should learn to speak English?  Well a lot of people agreed with him – including me.  

I take no issue with what he said.  I take issue with the fact that it was only “acceptable” for him to say it because he’s latino.  If a white person said the exact same thing, he would be called a “racist” or a “bigot” and people would be calling out the pitchforks.

I made a blog about something similar this before, so I’m not going to go too deep on it, but I’m really tired of liberals always bitching and crying foul when a person says the “wrong” thing when a person of another ethnicity or group can say the same fucking thing and get a totally free pass. 

Case in point?   A black man I know will only date white women.  I asked him why that is, this was his answer, I am paraphrasing here but you’ll get the gist:

“Imagine that the “Drama” scale goes to 10.  The issue with black girls is that the vast majority turn that shit to 12.  I don’t need that in my life.”

His words, not mine.  But if you asked a white guy if he would date a black girl and he said no followed by something like what was written above, he would be called a racist, bigot, etc all because he is apparently the wrong skin color to say it.

It’s not just ethnicity.  I’ve covered sexual harassment before.  Let’s say a woman comes out and says “Other women need to stop lodging bullshit sexual harassment complaints simply because the wrong person asks them out for coffee or compliments their choice of outfit, it harms the legit harassment that is actually going on.”

Now, there is nothing wrong with anyone who says that – male or female.  But for some snowflakes out there, if a guy were to say the exact same thing he would be accused of being sexist, misogynist or any other label that want to put on him.  For what?  Because he’s a guy he can’t say it?  Bullshit! 

---

9. When it comes to women in big leadership roles, no one wants to address the elephants in the room for fear of being called “sexist.”

Take a look at this article HERE.

Then take a look at this one HERE.

Look, I’m not going to bash females in leadership roles if they do well and can make a company flourish.  Take Mary Barra, the CEO of General Motors.  Under her watch the company has churned out some of the best products they’ve ever had.

But no one bothers to mention an aforementioned “elephant in the room:” That for many women in leadership roles, their success and failure can be compared to the New York Yankees.  When the Yanks win, they usually win by a lot.  But when they lose, they usually get clobbered.   You rarely see a Yankees game where they lose or win by only 1 or 2 runs.  In other words, no middle ground to speak off most of the time.  

In other words, when they do good they do really good, and when they do bad they do really bad.

The reason?  Women are emotional creatures, so when a woman makes a decision on something, she usually makes that decision based on emotion rather than logic. Not all the time, but many times.

It can be anything, case in point?  When I was working for Radio Shack, I showed a woman our selection of cordless phones.   She gravitated to a Vtech model that was junk (Actually, if you work sales at a place that sells phones, you know that all Vtech phones are/were junk.  They need to stick to children’s toys).  I tried to steer her to our Radio Shack branded phones (Rebranded Unidens) or the Panasonic models because they, well, weren’t junk.  But no, she had to have the Vtech because it looked “pretty” and “had a nice color screen.”  Actual call quality be damned, I guess.  When I came back from my day off, I found out she returned the phone “because it was crap.”  Hey, I tried to tell her!

Another example is the Fiat 500 (The regular one, not the L or the X versions).  There is a reason why the Fiat 500 is known as a “chick car:” Its buyers are majority female.  Just about any car guy will tell you that unless it’s the “Abarth” model, the 500 is crap.  It has almost no engine power, it has a poor reliability record, the crash test ratings are putrid and it is overpriced for what you get.  But women seem to like it because it’s “cute” and is “available in pretty colors.”  Never mind that you pretty much have to have your mechanic on speed dial and if you get hit by anything larger than a Mini Cooper or Smart Car you’re going to be toast.  But hey, at least it’s cute and is available in pretty colors, right?!

It is very much an emotional purchase, not a logical one.

Now, onto a female CEO that is the poster girl for what not to do when running a business: Carly Fiorina.

I was working at Staples when she became CEO.  Almost immediately, when they did the “huge product rollout” back in I believe 2002 I saw that the changes under her watch were not exactly for the better:

1. HP’s inkjet printers were known for their reliability.  The 900 series was a legend in this regard.  Also, their ink cartridges were HUGE, you could go for months before needing replacement.  The first inkjet printers under Fiorina were just flimsy, like they would break if you just brushed into them.  Their cartridges were also tiny, in fact people who “upgraded” to the newer printers found that their output only lasted a couple of weeks before needing replacement.

2. Fiorina led the charge in buying Compaq, for some stupid reason.  Was it to eliminate a competitor in the field of shitty desktop computers?  Some say it was to get access to their Proliant line of servers, arguably the only Compaq product that was actually good.  This still goes down to this day as the one of the worst purchases a modern company made.

3. Fiorina took the decision to outsource nearly all of the consumer-level tech support to India, while leaving the business-class tech support here in the United States.  I do not have to tell you how this one single decision was the single thing that destroyed HP’s reputation in customer satisfaction.  Mainly because HP was telling you, “If you buy a Pavillion you’ll get someone in India who is reading from a script that you cannot understand but if you plunk down enough cash on a Vectra you’ll get someone from the ‘States who knows how to troubleshoot the issue in his sleep.”  In other words, if you want decent service you’ll need to spend 2 grand or more on a professional workstation….

Now, one can argue that she was making money for her company (Although I’m not seeing how buying out Compaq helped).  On that end, she did succeed.  But she made money by screwing over any company’s most important asset – the customers that actually buy the products.  That’s no way to run a business.  Were they all logical decisions?  Of course not.

There is another aspect of women CEOs that people don’t want to admit and I’ll use a recent example:

You may have heard about Elizabeth Holmes.  She was the founder and CEO of Theranos, a manufacturer of blood testing equipment.  When I first read about her, I was skeptical.  Man or woman, I’m always weary of someone that comes out of nowhere with a product that claims to do a particular function better than more established names.  Well I’m not even going to give out links.  Just google “Theranos scandal” to see what I mean.  She basically pulled off one big con job and people fell for it.

One group that fell for it is Walgreens.  You know, the huge pharmacy chain.  Once they found out they pulled their contract with Theranos and are now suing over it.

If some financial struggling computer techie writing a blog can see it, why couldn’t Walgreens?

The answer?  When I first saw Elizabeth Holmes I said, “she’s pretty cute.”  That right there is how she was able to pull this off.   Ever heard the (admittedly harsh) term “blinded by a pair of tits?”  Studies Like this one HERE have shown that pretty people, especially women, can get away with more simply because people are instantly more trusting of them.  People saw this cute chick selling the blood testing equivalent of snake oil and fell for it.  If she was a fat balding dude in his 50’s people would have been “wait, something is off about this….” And that would have been the end of it.  But because she was a pretty girl people fell for it. 

To a lesser extent, there is Marissa Mayer who is the now former CEO of Yahoo.  Under her watch, there was a massive data breech that exposed the accounts of many millions of users.  Reports show that Yahoo (most definitely under her insistence) said “No credit card or other types of info” was stolen.  Oh yeah?  How to do explain THIS?  All Yahoo said was that people need to just “change their passwords.”

To be fair, any law firm that still uses Yahoo Mail would not be my first choice in a law firm.  Secondly, what the hell were they thinking with sending out credit card info through regular email?!  But up until then people believed Yahoo’s statement – because it came from Marissa Mayer, and being that she is a pretty woman, people are more likely to believe her. 

---

10. Stop calling people names just because they have preferences or won’t partake in something!

We really do need to stop this shit.  But thanks to liberals, if you dare say that you won’t date someone for any reason you’ll be subjected to all sorts of labeling and name-calling. 

Case is point?

I got called “self-righteous” by someone when I told her that I wouldn’t date a cigarette smoker, even after I told her I don’t take well to the smell and it would be like kissing an ashtray. 

Someone asked me would I date an Arabic or middle eastern girl.  I said no, unless she was Israeli.  I got called a “racist” even though “Arab” is not even an actual race. 

Here is one that I want to highlight most, though:

Someone asking me recently in this day and age would I date an openly transgendered woman.  I answered honestly: Only if she has had the full hormone treatment, adams apple shave, Electrolysis treatment, and most importantly the reassignment surgery.  Otherwise “she” (in air quotes) is just a man wearing makeup and women’s clothes and in that case most definitely NO…. FUCKING…. WAY.

Instead of this person being understanding and saying “okay,” I got called a transphobic bigot.  Really, what the actual fuck?!   Being transphobic means you have an irrational fear of transgender people.  I am not afraid of them, I just would refuse to date one if “she” still has a penis!  That’s not being transphobic, that is what any reasonable heterosexual man would say!

It’s not just about dating preferences.  People really need to stop making fun of others for simply choosing to not do something.  Case in point?

I would not skydive.  You wouldn’t even be able to pay me to skydive.  There are 2 reasons:

1. Why jump out of a perfectly good plane, seriously?

2. If the parachutes fail and you go *splat* on the ground, you’re dead!

You don’t believe how many times I got called “boring,” “afraid to take risks,” one person even called me a “hypocrite” because apparently, wanting to drag race cars if I hit the lottery “poses the same amount of risk.”  Um…. No it doesn’t.

I also will not bungee jump as well.  Sorry, but that is another activity that I will just not partake in.  Mainly because if that bungee cord snaps and you fall to the ground, you’re dead!  Please don’t start with “the amount of bungee accidents is extremely small,” how often do you think those bungee cords are actually inspected?

Oh, one more….

Remember when I said I won’t date a cigarette smoker?  Well some time after, a friend of mine asked me if I’d date a porn star.  I told him, “Sure why not?  It’s a job like anything else.  I will admit that it would be weird if she did boy/girl porn, but if it’s girl/girl hell yeah!  In fact I might ask if I can sit in and watch!”  My friend accepted my answer (As anyone should), but then someone else who heard me said, “If you refuse to date a smoker but will happily date a porn star that means your since of morality is terribly misguided!”  Um…. To whoever said this to me, go fuck yourself.  Thank you.

The point is, we should not be poking fun at people or inserting labels on them just because they have a preference or refuse to partake in something.  This shit with telling others how they should live their lives is a big reason why democrats and independents keep losing elections.  There, I said it.

----

With that said, let’s move on to the rebuttals and I got a lot of them….

Rebuttal to #1: Want to know why the protests against Milo Yiannopoulous and Anne Coulter happen?  Because we need to stop giving people like these a platform to spew their offensive drivel!

My response: What is offensive to YOU may not be offensive to someone else.  YOU do not get to dictate someone else’s ability to speak.  You can whine about it all you want but we have a 1^st amendment and such is life in America – and it’s a great thing.

Rebuttal to #2: Agree on the whole participation trophy bullshit and the shit about the red ink but the reason for social promotion is so that situations don’t happen where you have a classroom full of 18year old 9^th graders.

My response: So what?  Make them learn!  I’m tired of hearing about kids graduating high school while only being able to read at a 1^st or 2^nd grade level.

Rebuttal to #3: The reason why we call people out for body and fat shaming nowadays is simply no need any more to tell someone that they don’t have the “correct” figure to wear something.

My response: You are entitled to rationalize it all you want, but if a woman is 280 lbs and tries to rock a skin-revealing tank top for example it’s just not a good look.   There is some clothing that only looks good on smaller sizes.  There’s no easy way to say it.

 Rebuttal #4: Not everyone is going to have the same taste in cars as you.  If someone doesn’t like your car, move on!

My response: You missed the point.  That entry was for people who act like this to others simply for driving the “wrong” vehicle.

Rebuttal #5: People like you labeling gender dysphoria a “mental illness” have caused people with it to commit suicide. That’s a big problem.  Also, It sounds like you won’t be the most understanding person if you have a kid that “identifies” as an opposite gender.

My response: For your first bit, how is that my problem?   Secondly, if I had for example a son and he started going around saying “I’m a girl” I would try as hard as possible to steer him in the right direction rather than encouraging him into doing something that is impossible. (NOTE: I disagree with the person in the link that transgender itself is a mental illness).

Rebuttal to #6: Agree on the domestic violence thing, but the dating bit? That isn’t double standards.  Based on those things said to you I think people are trying to tell you “Don’t be so damn picky.”

My response: What you just said right now is a double standard, sad thing is that you probably don’t even realize it!  Want to know why?  A woman can be single for a long time and people would tell her, “You deserve to have the man you want, just keep trying!”  Meanwhile guys are told “don’t be so picky.”  WTF?

Rebuttal to #7: People with attitudes like yours are the reasons why muslims are being harassed and/or attacked in public seemingly on a weekly basis.

My response: Did I say anything in that section that even suggested attacking and harassing muslims?  No, I did not.  You are doing what is known as “selective interpretation” to fit an agenda.  Stop it.

Rebuttal to #8: This I agree with, but a little insight for you: When a woman of a certain ethnicity is labeled as a “drama creator” what a man really means is “I can’t control them and they won’t put up with my bullshit.” 

My response: Thanks for the insight.  Thanks for keeping this short, and it’s because….

Rebuttal to #9, part 1: Ah yes, the old “women can’t be CEOs because they’re too damn emotional” argument.  You really think that is not sexist?

My response: I never said they can’t be CEOs.  Selective interpretation at work again!  I even praised a female CEO.  Would I do that if I was sexist?

Rebuttal to #9, part 2: Don’t you like the Hellcat?  How is a 707hp machine that you can never properly use on public roads not an “emotional purchase?”

My response: The challenger has a 5 star safety rating (Only thing it didn’t ace was the IIHS small overlap test and that’s because that test didn’t exist when the platform was released), roomy interior, a usable back seat, a large trunk and plenty of engine power.  An emotional purchase?  To an extent yes, but at least it has more pros than cons.

Rebuttal to #9, part 3: You’re right that Elizabeth Holmes was a scam artist, but how do you explain Bernie Madoff?  He fooled everyone as well, and it certainly was not because of looks.

My response: Apples and Oranges.  Madoff used his reputation to pull people into his scam, not to mention that multiple people tried to alert the authorities that something was up and were brushed off each time.  If you did a little research, you would know that.

Rebuttal to #9, part 4: Carly Fiorina did what she was hired to do: Make more money for the shareholders.  Like it or not, they are the most important aspect of the business, not the customers.

My response: If you look at companies that prefer to please the shareholders over their customers and to an extent the employees, they will always have a terrible customer service rating compared to companies that don’t.  Sort of what happened to HP.

Rebuttal to #10, part 1: No reasonable person is going to call you “self-righteous” for preferring someone who doesn’t smoke.  You must have said something else to prompt that, admit it!

My response: In fact, this person kept pressing me for an answer so I finally said, “The other reason is that just by smoking that tells me that she has a non-caring attitude about her health and if that is the case what else does she not care about?”  If only he would have just accepted my first answer….

Rebuttal to #10, part 2: Again, no reasonable person is going to call you a “racist” for refusing to date an Arabic chick, again you must have made a comment that prompted it.

My response: I just don’t find them attractive.  Is that good enough of an answer for you? 

Rebuttal to #10, part 3: It sounds like you refuse to partake in activities that involve some risk, which is fine but you must realize that every time you get in your passenger car and drive on the street you run the risk of dying in a crash.  Plus, it is hypocritical to say you won’t skydive but will happily hurl yourself down the ¼ mile at 200mph or more. 

My response:  The difference is, you stand a chance of surviving a car crash.  I don’t like to partake in activities were the chance of survival in a worst-case scenario is 0%.  Is that good enough of an answer for you?  Also, when you’re in a purpose-built drag car at a sanctioned drag strip the chance of surviving a race crash is much higher than a crash on the highway in a street car.

Rebuttal to #10, part 4: The morality aspect aside, if you don’t date a smoker you won’t like dating a porn star because most of them are on drugs, and I’m not just talking about weed either.

My response: This is a common stereotype that is not true – as long as you don’t listen to the anti-porn propaganda website Fight the New Drug.  Remember, this is the same website that alluded that men who watch porn are more likely to commit sexual assault, which is proven to be untrue.

And finally, a rebuttal that explains just how PC we have become....

Between calling gender dysphoria a “mental illness” and refusing to date a transgender woman just because she still has her male parts, it shows that you’re clearly transphobic.  Say you meet a good locking woman and she tells you she’s trans.  Would you seriously ask her if she still has her penis?  BTW, homosexuality used to be classified as a mental illness too….

My response: I don’t know where to begin.  First, a “phobia” means you have an irrational fear of something.  So in order to be “transphobic” I would have to have an irrational fear of transgender people, which I do not.  But I’m also not going to wear rose-colored glasses either.  If your brain is trying to convince you that you’re something that you’re not, that is the definition of a mental illness!  Sorry, but unless a transgender woman has had the reassignment surgery plus the others I listed earlier, it’s a no go.  I would be out of there!  I’m not dating someone who is still in essence a dude wearing makeup and women’s clothes.   If that makes me “transphobic” then so be it. 

BTW, yes I know that homosexuality used to be called a mental illness and that is wrong (which is why it got removed from the list you’re referring to many years ago).  If someone happens to be attracted to the same sex, that’s simply who they are.  Not the same thing as gender dysphoria in my opinion.  Not even close.

----

Conclusion.

This blog took a while for me to write.   Mainly because I had feared that some people might stop talking to me or stop being friends with me over it.  But it took remembering what I read on an opinion piece to finally get me to finish this blog:

“If people stop being friends or unfriend/unfollow you on social media due to your opinions, thoughts or convictions, then they weren’t really your friend to begin with or simply intolerant of other peoples’ views.  So post what you want and fuck them.”

With that said, I wrote this blog because I was tired of people calling me “liberal” when many of my convictions are not of the liberal construct.  Many of these convictions are things that others are afraid to say or write publically because some dope out there might get “offended.”  

Well guess what?  If they get offended, that’s on them…. Not me.

Have a good day everyone.