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:
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 1st 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:
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?
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 1st
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 9th
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 1st
or 2nd 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.
No comments:
Post a Comment