A New Mantra: Ban Nothing

Here’s a bit of heresy: ban nothingDid that raise the hair on your back? Did it strike a chord? Did you find yourself thinking “but Thales, that can’t possibly work!”

One of the more bizarre news items of the day relates to a continuing fetish of American municipal governments for banning plastic straws. Now, a liberal acquaintance of mine assured me that he was not inconvenienced by the use of biodegradable paper and wax straws, and plastic straws do have various environmental consequences. In this, my liberal acquaintance is entirely correct. Yet I still disagree vociferously with these straw bans.

To illustrate why, let us go back to the days of Prohibition. Take a gander at these propaganda posters from the period:

Alcohol had then, and still possesses, a number of terrible consequences for overuse. We have drunk drivers, alcoholics, violent drunks, and to say nothing of the things I see DJing the clubs. Yet Prohibition failed and was repealed. Why?

The usual argument is that banning doesn’t work because people will get what they want regardless. There will be speakeasies and bootleggers, organized crime and street thugs. That’s partially correct. But let’s be frank. None of those things will be a problem for banning plastic straws. Certainly, I don’t see organized crime selling crates of plastic straws out of the backs of sketchy minivans. So what’s the real issue?

Freedom of choice.

If the harm of alcohol was eventually outweighed by freedom of choice, then how can we justify banning plastic straws? Many of the same Leftists arguing for banning straws are, in turn, proponents of the legalization of marijuana. Any substance, device, or creation of mankind will have costs, that is to say negative effects. This applies to every single thing man creates. Automobiles have negative effects. Cubicles have negative effects. Medicines have side effects, or can lead to addictions. Those ugly, tacky garden gnomes have negative effects (the sight of them used to drive my dog into a rage for reasons that are clear only to him).

The trick of the Left is to focus on those negative things in an arbitrary fashion. For the things they like, they speak only of the positives. Weed will save lives, reduce pain, relax people. For things they dislike, they speak only of the negatives. Straws will hurt turtles, and won’t degrade for decades. Animals might ingest them. Ban straws. Legalize weed. Ban guns. Legalize gay marriage. There is no principle here, no overriding guidance they are following, only arbitrary emotions. These are the whims of a mob. If 50% + 1 don’t like something that you like, ban it!

What a lot of people don’t realize is that the mob is not necessarily consistent. 50% + 1 may be found to ban anything and everything, because a person may like ban A, but be against ban B.

Most Leftists are essentially reacting emotionally, not rationally. However, some attempt to rationalize it by amount of harm. They attempt to weigh all of the consequences and all of the benefits, and say that if the balance is more toward harm than good, we should ban it. This presumes that all the consequences and benefits are known (or a sufficient number of them to make a reliable decision). This tries to masquerade as principle.

A common example is when they argue that guns don’t have sufficient benefit to outweigh the harm, but automobiles do. So even though automobiles kill more than guns, we should ban the guns, but keep the automobiles (some other Leftists want to ban both, there’s ban A and ban B for you, again). However, what is accepted as a benefit is not consistent between proponents and opponents of the bans. For instance, a Rightist is likely to include incidents where a thug was discouraged from attack merely by the brandishing of a firearm (such events are common), whereas the Leftist generally only wants to include incidents of a bad guy with a gun, stopped by a good guy with a gun, where the good guy is not employed by the government (far less common).

Furthermore, the Leftist generally tries to include suicides, even though many other alternate (and just as easy) suicide methods exist. Japan has a higher suicide rate than the US, despite a robust gun ban. The Left artificially reduces the perceived benefit, and magnifies the perceived harm by some subtle manipulation with regards to which statistics are accepted, and which are dismissed.

This leads us right back to the lack of principle. What the Left doesn’t like must be banned. They are quite casual with bans, too. They’ll ban guns and plastic straws, both. I heard a tale once of a town in Texas which banned inflatable gorillas. While I’m sure there is an amusing story behind the ban, it illustrates that nothing is beyond the reach of the ban hammer.

This morning, a local community page was full of demands to ban fireworks on behalf of pets, veterans with PTSD, and idiots who hurt themselves doing dumb things with fireworks. The chief proponent of the ban rattled off statistics not unlike what you see in the Prohibition propaganda. 12,000 people annually are hurt by fireworks, she said, and we can’t even count the harm to pets and veterans. They should be replaced with laser light shows, she demanded.

Once you get into debating the pros and cons of a ban, you have already implicitly conceded that bans are justified given a certain harm/benefit ratio. At that point, you are now vulnerable to the manipulation and spin of said data, which is commonplace. It’s an endless rabbit hole, and debates like that spiral into infinity. We’re all caught over the event horizon of a singularity of stupid.

So I’ll repeat the heresy: ban nothing.

An opponent of this statement may attempt to bring extreme circumstances to bear. “Oh, you mean you wouldn’t ban crime? Murder? Theft? Rape?” Each of those things is a violation on the individual’s rights to life, liberty, and property. Those are the consistent principles. So what about extreme drugs like cocaine, heroin, etc… Well, never mind the notion that banning these things has objectively failed anyway, regardless of how much I might loathe them. In my heart, would I like to ban them? Sure. Do I think it’s practical to do so? No. Every attempt has failed utterly. And that circles right back to the original point. Just because I loathe something doesn’t mean it should banned. This is a truth the Left has utterly failed to grasp. To them, dislike is coextensive with “get rid of it, get it out of my sight.” It’s the mantra of tyrants.

In any event, the principle of banning nothing need not necessarily be adhered to 100%. It’s probably impractical, just as my support for limited government does not necessarily imply that I think no government whatsoever can work practically (however much I’d like that). We might say we want to get as close to that principle as is possible and practical. Certainly we do not violate the principle for something as trivial as drinking straws. If you’re going to disobey the rule, you better have a damned clear, concise, and dare I say obvious reason for doing it. And even then, be exceedingly cautious.

Ah, but am I being arbitrary, even with that small concession? Maybe. I’d at least admit that I am, instead of trying to spin the argument otherwise. However, even those things I find incredibly distasteful, I would still not ban. The principle overrules my desires in all but the most extreme of cases – and possibly not even then, if the concerns of practicality can be addressed.

Don’t get caught in circular arguments about the harm and benefits of each thing the Left desires to ban. Instead, respond to the ban demand with some heresy. Tell them you want to ban nothing, and watch their heads explode with anger. For you have just dismissed the core of their entire worldview: that their subjective like or dislike of a thing should be taken seriously and given real weight.

Political Children

Well, dealing with a newborn, doing a lot of work, and getting my home fixed up and ready to sell all at the same time is… fun. And by fun, I mean sleep-depriving. But I’m coming up to the end on a lot of my work, which is good. In any event, a lot has happened since I was last blogging here. Of course, my first topic after my hiatus is going to have to be the guns. Specifically, the supposedly spontaneous child protests across the country.

To preface this, I don’t care what a child thinks about political issues any more than I worry about my dog’s opinion of my cooking. This strikes me immediately as similar to the “woke 8 year old” bologna that appeared all over Twitter in the wake of Donald Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

 

This is another manifestation of Weaponized Empathy. “It’s for the children” was a tactic employed by the media during the Syrian refugee crisis, often by showing carefully staged bodies of children, or as in one particular example, showing an injured child in an ambulance. In the latter, the child was dirty and bleeding, but journalists still found time to sit him in the otherwise clean ambulance and take a carefully-considered photo to push their political points.

However, today’s tactic is, perhaps, even more insidious. In this case, Progressives are using the gullibility and lack of experience of children to push for their political goals. One individual of some noteriety, whose name escapes me at the moment (it made the rounds on Twitter, if one of my readers has a name please drop it in the comments), mentioned that children are often wiser than their parents on social and political issues. And they are supposedly less gullible, too. And while Democrats want to raise the age required to purchase a gun, they simultaneously want to lower the voting age. Surely there’s no self-interest in that, right? After all, it’s easier to talk a child into Socialism with a basic “it’s not fair” kind of argument.

Look, the fact is children just don’t understand. That’s why they are children, not little adults. They don’t have the life experience to make such weighty decisions yet. The fact that some of them were talked into protesting (I seriously question the spontaneity of these events) doesn’t mean anything. When I was a child, I once threw a ball of watered down toilet paper at the gym teacher, and the other kids laughed and clapped when it happened. Children do a lot of stupid things.

Woke 8 year olds around the world were trashing Trump, right? Just like mommy told them to. Now students are comparing the NRA to the KKK, just like their parents and/or teachers are doing. And so long as they parrot a Leftist agenda, why not, right? I’m sure if a bunch of 8 year olds started protesting abortion, the Left would tell us how the kids are brainwashed or something. The media spin would go in the opposite direction, because according to the media, Left = good, Right = bad.

Hilariously, as a friend of mine pointed out, the children cannot even maintain a level of consistency (because they are children) in their messaging. Take a look at this hilarious example and see if you can spot the contradiction:

 

I don’t care if a child is singing the praises of Donald Trump or comparing the NRA to the KKK. He’s a child. His political opinions are irrelevant. Anybody attempting to cynically use a child’s ill-formed positions in an effort to sell a political agenda is evil. Such people are using our natural instincts to protect and cherish our children in order to sell a political position. Forget the facts, forget the rights of Englishmen. Forget history, forget economics, forget what actually works and what doesn’t. Instead, the message is this: “do what we say, or else you hate children.”

It’s conceptually no different from “you want to push granny off a cliff.” It’s an emotional argument. Pure rhetoric and a form of Weaponized Empathy.

Yesterday my 3 year old wanted a popsicle for breakfast. Because he’s a child. His opinions on nutrition are irrelevant. And so are the opinions of children on the matter of gun ownership and gun control. They are being used as pawns in someone else’s game. And the idiot who said children are less gullible than adults is a liar.

I mean, what’s next at this point? Here’s a list of some unpleasant truths about Progressives and the cynical manipulation of people:

  1. Leftists like mass-immigration from the third world because they believe such people are more gullible, and thus easier to con into Socialism.
  2. Leftists like child-protests, because children rely on popularity and peer pressure more than adults, and are more gullible, thus easy to con.
  3. Leftists want to lower the voting age because the younger you are, figures the Leftist, the easier it is to con you into voting their way.
  4. The lower your economic class, the Leftist figures, the cheaper it is to bribe you into voting their way.

And so on and so forth, ad nauseam.

Everything they do is about more Socialism. And they don’t care what lever they use to move you out of the way of Progress ™. Sad stories about third world refugees failed to move you? Okay, bring out some pictures of dead kids. That didn’t work? Con their own kids into some kind of twisted version of the Children’s Crusade and get them protesting in the street. That didn’t work? How about some woke 8 year olds on Twitter? How about some peer pressure? How about threatening your income?

You have to understand, with these people, the means doesn’t matter. Only the end matters, and the end, as they see it, is Socialism.

This lever failed to move me. It was, in fact, one of the dumbest Weaponized Empathy tactics I’ve seen them deploy in recent days. If we listened to children, everybody would be eating junk food, watching TV, posting on social media, and playing video games basically 24/7.

But what do I know, right? Listen to some 10 year old who was talked into protesting by his teacher saying he could get out of class early. Because that clearly makes sense, right?

Modern Media, Superiority Complexes, and the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect

Social media is full of long-winded, acrimonious debates about politics, sociology, cats, etc… It’s enough to make a man seriously consider giving it up completely. My colleague at Liberty’s Torch discussed cutting that particular line earlier, and though I have not done what he did, I’d be lying if I told you I didn’t think about it.  Mostly, the arguments are just for show. People don’t expect to win hearts and minds in them, not really. Rather, it’s often just a virtue signal, or the refilling of narcissistic supply.

A few posts in, and the insults about stupidity, bigotry, Dunning-Kruger, and otherwise will make themselves known. And in them we see the true purpose of many such debates: feeling superior. If you infer that your opponent is a Nazi, you feel morally superior to him. If you call him stupid, you can feel intellectually superior. The bigger the audience, the better, so more people can affirm your superiority over your enemy. The actual issue at hand is rarely as important as these feelings. Find me a Facebook debate, and I can almost guarantee you at least one participant who is engaging in this behavior.

And since no one is really arguing in a dialectical manner (though you will see the word “facts” repeated as mantra for things that aren’t), nothing gets resolved. No new knowledge is gained, no insight or deeper understanding. It is purposeless mental masturbation. It certainly doesn’t make one an intellectual, or more intelligent.

What I’ve come to realize is that this behavior on social media is a microcosm for our society at large. The same behavior applies at the highest levels of media and politics. Most of these people have no idea what they are talking about, even most of the so-called experts (contrary to Tom Nichols’ assessment of political expertise). Find me an expert pilot, and we can go through his records, how many hours he’s logged, on what aircraft, and with what results. It is demonstrable. There is no similar metric for media talking heads, especially where results are concerned. And for politics, and measure of this is bound to be skewed by the political views of its members, such that our reliance upon it is already suspect.

This leads to an environment of low accountability. Oh, sure, if a man like Dan Rather gets snookered by some fake memos very publicly, the house of cards can fall down on him. But the mistake has to be high profile enough and, paradoxically, covered by the media enough, for it to get out in the first place.

Michael Crichton explained the problem as the Gell-Mann Amnesia Effect. Observe:

Media carries with it a credibility that is totally undeserved. You have all experienced this, in what I call the Murray Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. (I call it by this name because I once discussed it with Murray Gell-Mann, and by dropping a famous name I imply greater importance to myself, and to the effect, than it would otherwise have.)

 

Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect works as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray’s case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward-reversing cause and effect. I call these the “wet streets cause rain” stories. Paper’s full of them.

 

In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story-and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read with renewed interest as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about far-off Palestine than it was about the story you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.

 

That is the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. I’d point out it does not operate in other arenas of life. In ordinary life, if somebody consistently exaggerates or lies to you, you soon discount everything they say. In court, there is the legal doctrine of falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, which means untruthful in one part, untruthful in all.

 

But when it comes to the media, we believe against evidence that it is probably worth our time to read other parts of the paper. When, in fact, it almost certainly isn’t. The only possible explanation for our behavior is amnesia.

A combination of superficial understanding and political narratives results in articles and news programs that make no sense. The percentage of the problem attributable to either feature varies widely from case-to-case. Sometimes it is blatantly political, and it cannot be explained by ignorance. Other times, it is probably best explained with stupidity. Most cases are probably a little of both. The media and its supporters, meanwhile, are quite blind to this. I came across this gem this afternoon, and it made me laugh out loud for the sheer stupidity of it:

lolol

The amusing thing is how easy this is to disprove. A quick glance at the SAT scores of incoming college students, broken down by major, is sufficient to reveal the error (see page 13 here). Of the STEM majors, all outscored journalists (see: engineering, physical sciences, mathematics, computer/information sciences). Some did so by staggering margins (see: mathematics). That the author of that tweet couldn’t be bothered to check his work, when claiming high intellect, is actually pretty damned hilarious. It’s enough to make me wonder if the guy is secretly trolling.

Anyway, point is, try Michael Crichton’s test for yourself. It’s something I’ve spoken of before – I just lacked the convenient name for it. Talk to other people who have done the same for different subjects, people you trust. You’ll soon see just how wrong the media is. Trump frequently calls CNN fake news, but in reality pretty much every outlet I’ve seen is full of shit to greater or lesser degree. Sometime I’d like to see a counter for how many times individual journalists have been caught in lies, or made serious mistakes driven by stupidity and ignorance.

These are the same people who, like the randoms on Facebook, want to demonstrate how enlightened they are, how wise, all-knowing, and progressive. They have a bigger podium, of course, and more spectators. But the motivations are similar enough. It’s all about appearances and narcissistic supply. It all boils down to a statement even a toddler could understand, and likely hears frequently on the playground. “I’m better than you! Neener-neener!” But they aren’t willing to do the work. They all expected Hillary Clinton to win, right up until she didn’t. Never forget how badly they called that election. If you get amnesia about their smaller mistakes, at least hold on to that one. They pretend to expert status. Meanwhile Trump, the supposedly stupid bigot, baits them like a matador. It’s comical how he plays them.

They want so desperately to shout down this man. I once thought it was because of his immigration policies – and I have no doubt that was a major factor, at least at first. But I’ve come to realize that there’s a deeper reason. He makes them look like idiots. He hurts their egos. Because, deep down, they know they aren’t the superior intellects they pretend to be. They know they are fake news. And he not only sees through them, he’s exposed them as frauds in front of the world. This they cannot forgive, or forget.

Insight From a Reader

A reader of The Declination by the alias of fslenentine had this to say on the matter of Padraig and others like him.

The question of Padraig’s intellectual insecurity is more consequential than is generally realized.

Today, intelligence is increasingly the most important attribute one can possess. No longer are there multiple avenues to social worth, just the one.

The problem is that most people aren’t smart enough to be special, and two thirds of the population is average to below average.

This has produced a culture of lying. Everyone has to pretend to be smart, and we all have to pretend that they are so in order to avoid being called out for our own banal mediocrity. After all, the average IQ in this country is 98 but the average self-reported IQ is 118, more than a full standard deviation away.

The internet makes it incredibly easy to give the superficial appearance of intelligence. Consider the old tactic of “link-storming” in which someone would just post, in place of an actual argument, links upon links which often only have passing relevance.

The end result of this is that most everyone is pretending to be smarter than they are, and thus live lives of deceit. They are wracked with insecurity and it manifests in malice.

Psychologically speaking, they’re angry and resentful at the world because they aren’t as special as they’ve been told and/or imagine themselves to be.

I call it the “American Idol” problem in which a competent but unspectacular singer is turned down and leaves in utter shock, having never considered that he/she might not be good enough. After all, everyone told them how great they were.

People who live fraudulent lives are prone to resentfulness and then true malice.

I suspect that this has much to do with the embrace of postmodern marxism.

Universities, in a classic sense, challenge students with truly difficult material from truly remarkable minds. The brutal truth is that most people aren’t intellectually equipped to deal with Kant, Aquinas, Jung, and so on.

Bringing in more students means lowering the bar, intellectually speaking (and please, this is no comment on gender or race because that’s the first place Padraig will go. It’s a pure numbers game), not just for students but teachers.

Now we have generations of failed intellectuals with delusions of grandeur and wracked with resentment, unable to solve the immensely complex problems that society presents. As such, they retreat into pseudo-intellectualism, i.e. postmodernism.

It demands no rigor and affords them the ability to create what is the equivalent of fan theories about movies. Clever, fun, but meaningless. More so, they bury it in opacity. They abhor clarity for it exposes the vacuity of their efforts.

Increasingly mediocre teachers combined with even more increasingly mediocre students means a ripe environment for pseudo-intellectualism.

This affliction affects the slightly above average person the most because they’re smart enough to know that they’re above average, but not smart enough to be insightful or special. Thus, what’s their intelligence worth? To them it should entitle them to a place of status. Instead it just means that they can be a mid-level accountant or marketing manager. That’s simply not enough. They expected more. They were promised more. Now they feel angry and betrayed which causes them to lash out.

My rambling point is this: we overvalue pure intelligence and thus we create a situation in which many, many people have to pretend to be smarter than they are, and that produces psychological resentment, which is the foundation of malice.

Enter Padraig. He’s not here to discuss, which is what intelligent people generally do. They recognize the limits of their intellect and enjoy discussing with people who see the world differently. He’s not here for that. He’s not even here to lecture. He’s not even here to show-off his superior mind. He’s here to establish his bona fides as a true intellectual by attacking. That’s all he has: malice.

The all-too obvious problem is that he’s not particularly impressive. I don’t think he’s stupid but he seems perfectly average to slightly-above average. He offers no original thoughts of substance and I think it’s because he doesn’t have any, and he knows it, which is why he’s here, attacking a small blog.

Dystopic is, in his mind, an easy target. He wouldn’t risk going after someone who’s a heavyweight. Hell, I doubt he’d even risk attacking a minor leaguer like Ben Shapiro. He has no intellectual heft and he knows it. He just thinks Dystopic and his viewers don’t either.

***

This is a very important concept to understand. I’ve said for a long time that many Lefties are motivated by a desire to appear intelligent and moral, to be superior to those knuckle-dragging, hateful Republicans, or whatever the Leftist boogeyman of the day might be.

The question is why?

Fslenentine answered it succinctly. I frequently tell people here that I’m just a regular guy trying to work through the political ratfuck of our age. But the fact is, I could have been a Padraig myself, were circumstances a little different. I recognize in him certain character flaws that I once expressed, though not quite so obviously. Two things conspired to prevent that. First off, while I was probably the smartest kid in my high school (and it was not small), when I began writing software, I realized that much smarter men existed. I soon had the notion that I was uniquely clever or special beaten out of my skull.

Second, and perhaps most importantly, I began gaining recognition for genuine intellectual accomplishments. Nothing too big, nothing that would make me famous or land me a chapter in the history books, but real nonetheless. I started seeing my work out in the world – you’ve probably seen it too, though you’d never know it. And once you accomplish something real and meaningful like that, the sort of false ego-stroking you get from winning Internet debates on meaningless shit feels hollow and fake.

Nonetheless, it’s easy to become a cruel, angry person when reality doesn’t kiss your ass the same way all the fawning idiots of your youth did. I don’t blame a man for going through that period. But I do blame him for never exiting it.

This SJW Should Win a Razzie

I don’t even have much commentary for you. Just go read the article and watch the video contained therein. This SJW delivers a terrible, B-movie hate crime performance trying to make out a bunch of store clerks to be racist scum because, God forbid, an item somewhere in the store has a Confederate flag on it.

SJW Mom Triggered by Confederate Rug Shows Us How NOT to Fake a Hate Hoax

It truly is utterly amazing to watch. Fake crocodile tears, screaming in fear of a guy standing still 50 feet away…

Social Justice is Word Salad

Folks, we’ve gone beyond mere doublethink into the Twilight Zone of Social Justice insanity. There is nothing too stupid, too bereft of meaning, to become an SJW headline. It’s getting to the point that a random chat bot could compose headlines that made more objective sense. Turing’s test must now be applied in reverse: when does a human being become so stupid as to approximate an AOL chat bot?

For our first example, I present Exhibit A:

C_4KFXoUIAEH0Hu

 

There is narcissism, there is solipsism, and then there’s whatever the hell this is. The ability of SJWs to coin irrelevant, bizarre jargon for their nigh-incomprehensible word salad is impressive, in its own way. Although, this headline begs the question: did this woman swear an oath to lie only with herself?

I can only presume that this woman conducted a sort of false ceremony in an effort to convince others that she was happy with her miserable life. More attention-seeking devices from the same species that invented the selfie stick and duckface, because damnit, it all has to be about me. Why go through all this effort to convince others of your satisfaction in your choice to remain single? If Social Justice remains true to form, we will soon be told that “sologamy” is morally superior to mere monogamy, because all sex is rape, or all men are evil (#YesAllMen). But hey, it’s all about equal rights for women, right?

Let’s move along to Exhibit B:

C_y0qJRXsAAs-hQ

Affinity Magazine is one of the few SJW rags to approach Gawker levels of Social Justice virtue signalling. I actually skimmed this pile of drivel, and I feel dumber for having read it. One quote stood out as especially idiotic:

The surplus of women seeking higher education at universities has created less power for women in relationships they develop. This has caused women to compromise their Christian values and have sex in order to attract and keep a male partner. Women have to compete with one another for a male’s attention. Because of the ratio, women are both pressured into being promiscuous and being slut-shamed by the Christian influenced American society.

Here we see the SJW ranting about the “surplus of women seeking higher education.” Presumably, she is bothered by the fact that more women than men are attending and graduating colleges these days? I thought education was all about empowering women? Make up your damned mind, please. Now, she explains, colleges are promiscuous because they are not Christian enough? And this is, somehow, Christianity’s fault because America is mostly Christian.

Even a superficial reading of the article is sufficient to expose the author as a drooling idiot.

On to Exhibit C:

C_jfQdMXcAAZGPa

Family is a concept Marxism has been at war with for a very long time. A strong nuclear family tends to resistance collectivization because of the simple truth that a parent generally wants the best for his children. Bread lines, riots in the streets, and the other sorts of things common in Communist countries just aren’t seen as wonderful and great for the children. Certainly Venezuela’s infant mortality rate didn’t so so well recently.

And so for SJWs, anything to promote the image of families as divisive, oppressing, and outmoded is quite welcome, even when presented in the passive-aggressive form of “how not to hate your husband.” The very premise is ridiculous. You don’t need a guide to tell you not to hate your husband. If you hate him, why are you married in the first place? And why would having a child with someone you love cause you to suddenly do a complete 180 and hate his guts?

Exhibit D:

18489649_10155272425336171_392767465694103847_o

 

Okay, it’s not a news headline. But it is a spectacular example of just how far the Leftist will go in his quest to make everything political. A mother who died 25 years ago is dragged into a political tweet about Trump on Mothers Day. This rationalization is like a final boss in the game of word salad. The pretzel-like intellectual hoops Joss must jump through to associate his dead mother with Donald Trump are truly staggering to observe.

What is this? What is he even trying to say? Is he saying he’s glad his mother is dead, because if she were alive, Donald Trump’s existence would somehow ruin her day? Is he saying that, if his mother wasn’t dead, he’d “give her the gift” of death, because Donald Trump is president?

Our final exhibit today exceeds even the idiocy and pettiness of Joss Wheedon:

CNN-Trump-2-Scoops-Ice-Cream-w-border-e1494644022327-620x437

Yes, my friends, this is true. Trump sometimes eats more ice cream than other people at the dinner table. CNN thinks they are delivering a funny when the reporter says “and CNN got the scoop… literally!” Bad puns aside, the pettiness of talking about dessert choices at the White House is low even for the very same media that fell for the 4chan Russian hotel prostitutes hoax.

When I saw this graphic floating around Social Media, I was convinced it was a photoshop job, just because I couldn’t believe even CNN would stoop quite that low. But I suppose I shouldn’t have been surprised, after all the media told us that Trump’s habit of ordering his steak well done was some kind of apocalyptic omen.

Oh, whatever will you do, if you are eating dinner at the White House, and the server brings you one scoop of ice cream, and gives Trump two!

The lengths the media has gone to in order to discredit Trump is unlike anything I’ve ever seen in America. The vitriol, the passive-aggression, attacking him for even the most minor and petty of perceived transgressions against the gods of ice cream scoops has convinced me that this is only one step removed from all-out open warfare. Nothing is off limits. Not even the most minor of things, one’s taste in food, is off the table.

The attack is 24/7, never letting up for even a moment, with the entire media, most of the government, and most of the entertainment industry engaged in constant battle against Trump’s administration.

They didn’t even hate Bush quite this much.

%d bloggers like this: