For a group that tries to make rational objectivity and scientific evaluation part of their very identity, you would think liberals would be somewhat immunized from credulously plunging into popular myths and downright paranoid conspiracy theories. Apparently believing yourself to be intellectually superior to the average bear actually makes one more prone to errors in reasoning. Here are a few hilariously blatant pieces of fiction that have become points of faith for the progressive Democrat crowd.
I’ve predicted for a while now that it’s only a matter of time before Cathy Reisenwitz, eager eyed young feminist and rent-seeker extraordinaire, finally achieves her life long ambition of being paid to speak at a conference of neckbearded libertarian social outcasts only to be clumsily hit on by one of the smellier basement dwellers while riding an elevator. This will allow her to realize her ultimate end game of ranting about patriarchal oppression at the hands of the male dominated libertarian community and kick off an ideological civil war inside of the liberty movement, eventually spawning Libertarian + with Reisenwitz ascending to the throne as their chief representative.
I’ve long maintained that you can predict most liberal positions will just be the opposite of whatever conservatives are talking about at the moment. This is certainly the case any time some progressive smirks and proclaims that Islam is totally no different whatsoever than Christianity in terms of social consequence. Even the New Atheists, a group notorious for misadventures in philosophy, are at least intellectually honest enough to loudly disagree with the liberals on their naive premise that Islam is “no more problematic than Christianity” and cite plenty of convincing reasons for why this isn’t true. Quite naturally, the liberals considered the intellectual case for disapproving of Islam at considerable length, and then constructed a carefully reasoned rebuttal of this premise. Just kidding! They did nothing but scream “Islamophobia” at full volume, peppering retorts of “Not All Muslims Are Like That” in between mandatory accusations of xenophobia and racism.
I have been dragged through this debate so many times that the talking points have been ingrained into my neural pathways like the well worn action of Grandpa’s old Remington shotgun. For the record, I am pro-gun, but for infinitely simpler reasons than the typical pundit: I just like guns. To put this in liberalspeak, if two consenting gay adults wanna use a loaded AR-15 as a sex toy, that’s their business, and you religious bigots had better keep your intolerant noses out of their bedroom. The only thing they’re hurting is their alimentary canals and possibly the muzzlebrake on that Colt. Of course, to be fair, both pro-gun and gun control advocates make some predictably stupid points in this discussion, so let’s lock and load the primary examples of bad premises and shoddy thinking:
Being one of the only atheists in existence to actually spend time examining theistic arguments instead of just posting Christopher Hitchens memes, I’ve been reading Edward Feser‘s The Last Superstitution: A Refutation of the New Atheism, a book I firmly recommend to anyone interested in either Thomas Aquinas’s metaphysics or seeing Richard Dawkins get some much deserved intellectual ridicule. One of the concepts addressed is the New Atheist tendency to fixate on facile and easily dismantled arguments since the philosophical nuance required for attacking the more esoteric and complex variety eludes their feeble understanding.
Reactionary circles tend to reserve a lot of venom for the Libertarian crowd, much of it well deserved when one considers the autistic neckbearded insanity of many acolytes of the NAP and Saint Rothbard. You could misspend several hours cataloging Libertarian misadventures on the subject of legal age of consent, child abandonment or who meets the criteria for moral personhood. In general though, the Libertarian position does have a few things going for it compared to the typical American political non-options.
Today’s article comes to us from the SWPL favorite SJW blog Black Girl Dangerous. Rent-seeking intersectionality double-dipper Mia McKenzie has penned this handy guide for white people on how they can just shut up and give minority pressure groups whatever the fuck they demand. She has organized her
ransom note “ways to push back against your privilege” into four convenient talking points, perhaps with the subconscious anticipation that it would prompt a cisheteronormative white male to mansplain a rebuttal. Without further ado, let us voyage into the sloppy, contradictory thinking of a pampered negress.
I’ve long held a certain suspicion that during the “Civil Rights Struggle” white folk looked on with a sense of inflamed jealousy and bitter resentment while figures such as Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King stole the national spotlight. After all, at best the pale skinned progressives and lily white liberals were just the colored man’s patronizing sidekicks, forever doomed to stand in the shadow of a Genuinely Oppressed Minority while the Noble Negro recreated scenes from “Braveheart” and fought his valiant struggle for freedom and acceptance.
Meanwhile whitey skulked in his lair nursing his wounded pride and yearning for the day he too could be the underdog in his own heroic narrative against vile oppressors trying to crush him under their evil bootheels. Luckily, the most ironic opportunity for revenge was about to present itself. Gay Acceptance was to become whitey’s rallying cry, a call to arms to fight against the “homophobes” and “religious bigots” everywhere. The best part? In a social justice repeat of the “cultural expropriation” of rock and roll, whites were gonna steal this minority issue from the blacks themselves. True enough, they had already tried to stir up an underdog social justice campaign with feminism, but the shrill voices of so many screeching harpies grated harshly on the public’s ear. The word “feminist” itself would eventually come to represent a loud, obnoxious person who doesn’t shave her armpits, of similar status in the American public lexicon as the term “communist,” and equally distasteful.
While the Gay Acceptance Bandwagon has gotten a full head of steam lately in the mainstream, many bored social justice hipsters are already looking for the next new and exotic Civil Right’s Struggle. Enter “Transgender Acceptance,” the brand new scene where you can demonstrate your total free thinking acceptance of subcultures you are only vaguely familiar with.
You might wanna sit down and call your cardiologist before reading further, but I have a big confession to make: I’m a huge science fiction nerd. See I was born in the early 1980s and during those tender formative years of youth my brain was exposed to Patrick Stewart ordering the bridge crew of the Enterprise to “Engage!” on a course boldly where no one has gone before at unreasonably high warp speeds. In the 1990s television was virtually saturated with three different Star Trek shows, Farscape, Lexx, Stargate SG-1, The New Outer Limits, and dozens of short lived sci-fi shows like Space Above and Beyond. This was before the lens of the camera turned from the abstract what-if scenarios and imaginative exploration of the universe and focused instead on boring, insipid reality television. (If only I could build a time machine and go back and fire a quantum torpedo at everyone involved with Survivor.)
Today of course science fiction has virtually disappeared from popular media, mostly replaced by narcissistic reality television shows where you can watch the daily lives of spoiled New Jersey douchebags or see people buy shit at pawn shops. I’ve heard there’s even a show where you get to follow around a couple of guys while they BUY ANTIQUES! Fiction itself has dwindled on television, outside of the occasionally exceptional shows following the “HBO series” format. Curiously though, when science fiction, particularly Star Trek does make an appearance, certain modern commentators have THIS to say:
“But there’s one particular area of social justice that the franchise has failed to live up to its standards on, and it remains a blight on the series in my estimation. I’m talking about the fact that there has never, despite years of promises and false starts, been an openly gay or lesbian character in the canon Star Trek universe.”