Advanced troll fighting: knowing when to be wrong

Think of a mouse.  Not a cutesy little cartoon mouse with big cute ears and glasses and a little mouse family who sings Christmas carols with him, but a real live piece of disease and flea-ridden vermin, skulking and chittering about a kitchen uninvited, looking for the next convenient place to burrow or defecate or otherwise ruin.  Now picture something has that tiny little infestation’s attention, something it cannot resist, a piece of fragrant, aromatic cheese left unprotected out in the open.  The rodent’s microbrain identifies what it knows to be tasty food, and the mouse slinks up to the little pedestal it rests upon tentatively but determinedly.  It cannot resist.  It smells the morsel and its already simplistic mind goes full primal.  It lunges.  It sinks its teeth into the hunk of food with the closest thing to glee its brain can mimic.  It hardly even hears the snap as the trap springs and the world goes dark.

Bait.  The secret lies in using the right bait.  Whether you’re trying to catch a mouse, trying to catch a fish, or trying to humiliate a troll, the right bait can make all the difference.  And one thing that almost no one can ignore, especially not arrogant self-important lefty trolls, is when someone is wrong.

I remember seeing a webcomic about an online game where a new player was asking for help from people in the same general area, to no avail.  Nobody could be bothered to respond to the newbie’s simple questions until a veteran player stopped and showed the newbie how to get responses.  He then proceeded to answer all of the new player’s questions WRONG.  This prompted a slew of replies together with attendant “lol what an idiot” and other insults.  The point he was trying to make is that while people can’t be bothered to stop and help, they’ll go out of their way to make fun of someone for being wrong.

This is a tool you can use to your advantage.  In a sense, this is something that James O’Keefe and Project Veritas tried to do in the context of their latest sting, this time against the Washington Post, where they sent someone in posing as another Roy Moore accuser.  Somehow the WaPo got wise to the ruse, which led to the laughable circumstance where the Washington Post actually fact-checking a story for once became a big story, and instead of getting his Hail Mary O’Keefe just got a lot of publicity for his latest expose.  But it wasn’t a bad bet to make with bait like that.  You just have to roll something out that you know your target won’t be able to pass up.

How do you use this in fighting trolls?  Very often, trolls will attempt to take the moral and/or intellectual high ground.  They’ll insult your intelligence and your principles, usually through the use of tired zingers (though plenty of uncreative dullards will just do the “durr yer just a stoopid redneck” completely unironically).  Always keep in mind the two basic principles of troll fighting: one, you already won the argument by being right, so you only play as long as you want to; and two, you’re not trying to convince the troll, you’re trying to make him look as bad as you can to bystanders.  Trolls also like to make non-sequitur points if not go entirely off-topic, especially when their moral footing starts to look a bit shaky.  Finally, trolls tend to believe their own bullcrap.  If you know how the troll is going to respond to a certain comment, you can bait her into showing her true sick colors even while she’s trying to virtue signal and look like the reasonable side, and one very effective way to do that is to roll something out that you know she’ll pounce on.  Specifically, a factual error.

This does take a little bit of finesse and foresight, and of course knowledge of your troll.  You really don’t want to leave your bait on the field past when other commenters are likely to come by and watch the fireworks.  You also don’t want to concede any points accidentally or inelegantly.  Let me illustrate with an example: the night of the Steinle verdict I went a few rounds with a particularly sick troll who was clear from the outset she was there to bask in the “conservative tears” (and in case you’re wondering, crying was not what was going on).  After the usual spread of “you just care because it was a brown guy killing a white woman” and “hahaha you lost get over it,” this troll thought it would be fun to zing me with a “be sure to take your moral outrage and go vote for child molester Roy Moore!”  Now, I’ve talked about Roy Moore more than I’d like to, and I know the charges against him are bogus because I have half a brain and can see that an election thirty days out makes all the difference.  But I am very familiar with the fairy tales being told about Judge Moore.  I had already been hitting the troll on her utter disregard for someone getting killed, which is what prompted the Moore retort, so I made a tactical move–I opened the door wide for the troll to pretend to care about Kate Steinle being shot dead, and rolled out the bait saying Moore hadn’t been accused of child abuse.  I knew it was incorrect.  I knew that the vermin would pounce on it.  She did.  Snap.  Didn’t even try to hit back on the Steinle assertion, just jumped on the Moore assertion.

“Gotcha” was all I needed to shut her up for the rest of the night.

It’s one thing to demonstrate that the troll doesn’t actually care about people getting hurt by leftist nonsense.  It’s another thing entirely to get her to do it for you.


Kate Steinle, the wall, and people who just don’t get it

Let’s get one thing very clear from the outset.  Everyone who is out cheering for the verdict in the Steinle murder case is a racist piece of garbage.  The known evidence is that an illegal alien who had been deported five times discharged a firearm in a public place in San Francisco, killing Kate Steinle.  Whether the bullet ricocheted or not is not relevant.  No, the gun did not go off “wrapped in a shirt.”  The prosecution gave the jury instructions on first degree murder (intentional and premeditated), second degree murder (reckless or heat-of-the-moment), and involuntary manslaughter (negligent accident).  It’s pretty clear that discharging a firearm in a city at a pier with lots of people around is reckless and totally disregarding of human life and safety, but I and many others would have been satisfied with at least manslaughter.  But a San Francisco jury just found him guilty of possession of a firearm…that he apparently didn’t know was in the shirt he picked up.  Yes, a jury may pick and choose what to believe.  It still strains credibility when they choose things that make absolutely no sense.

And no, children, the country does not care about this because it was a brown guy killing a white woman.  People of all colors kill people of all colors on a daily basis.  I’ve been involved in murder cases featuring all the colors of the rainbow, plenty of black folks killed by other black folks, plenty of white folks killed by white folks, plenty of minorities killing white people.  I was actually involved in a case with loosely similar (and really less damning) facts to the Steinle case, in which a couple of black guys and a Hispanic guy shot the lock off a door and unintentionally hit and killed a white woman sleeping inside.  The perpetrators went down for second degree murder, as well they should have.  But you never heard about it on the evening news, unless you lived in the local area where the story took place.  No, this did not make national news because it was a white woman who was killed by a brown dude.  It made national news because the piece of filth playing with the gun should not have been here, but our ineffective border enforcement plus California and San Francisco’s refusal to give any assistance to ICE let him defy that law.

I’m actually okay with all the La Raza supporters and open borders types and amnesty activists going out and gloating about this verdict today.  I’m not really outraged because I’m not surprised.  I hope they keep it up long enough to make an impression on people.  Because the normals are looking at this in horror.  These idiots think they’re impressing people with the “President Trump went after these people because he’s a racist” and in the meantime they’re saying to themselves “this animal got away with killing someone and you’re trying to tell us that it’s racist to be upset about that?!”  They totally do not get that this incident proved a very important point: our failure to secure and enforce our borders is harmful to Americans both as a group and individually.  This piece of trash should have been thrown out permanently years before he picked up the gun he used to kill Kate Steinle.  The fact that not only did he do it, but now has gotten away with it, underscores in bold, bright colors the need and necessity for the wall and for an end to these so-called “sanctuary cities.”

As a side note, if we’re going to have “sanctuary cities” where only certain laws apply, I want to set up a sanctuary city where tax evasion is not a crime, where EPA and OSHA regs are not enforced, and where gun-free zone laws are null and void.  Moving on.

Some of the more heinous ghouls have been out reminding people that the Steinle family, including her father who held her while she died, at least used to support sanctuary cities and illegal invasion.  If this is incorrect then I have no end of sympathy for their loss and for the outrage they must feel.  But if this is correct, and remains correct, then I have as much contempt for them as I do the court that let their daughter’s killer walk.  It’s one thing to be innocently misled.  It’s another to sacrifice your own child on the altar of your retarded “progressive” values and go on like you have learned nothing.  The old saying goes (with regard to attitudes on crime) that a conservative is a liberal who has been mugged.  If being mugged, or having your own child killed, doesn’t wake you up then it really speaks to the depravity in your own soul.  It’s not about seeking revenge for the harm you suffered, it’s about giving a good damn about the next person who will be in your place the next time someone who isn’t supposed to be here decides to play with a gun in a park.  No one has better reason to see the truth than you do, so if you don’t wake the hell up, then you frankly deserve the hell you’ve gone through.

Keep cheering, lefties.  Keep telling people President Trump is wrong to be outraged and to tell us that Whatshisname’s failure to enforce our borders is hurting innocent people.  Keep telling yourselves that this is all based in “racism” (good God, don’t you people realize that word doesn’t mean a thing coming from you?).  Keep it up.  People are finally listening to you, and not in the way you wanted.  Keep showing them the kind of heartless animals you really are.


Bill Whittle has apparently gotten a little bit pissed off about socialism.  Or I should say, a little more pissed off than usual.

Watch his latest video on the subject, and if you’re not getting pissed off too, then I’m not sure whether you’re utterly depraved or just willfully ignorant.

The tide turns back in unexpected places

Growing up in a church-attending Christian household, “Sunday shopping” was an issue I heard my mother talk about from time to time.  She recalled back when they said “oh it’ll just be voluntary, you won’t have to open/work on Sunday if you don’t want to, that’ll never EVER happen…” but of course that was all bogus.  Sure, you could not come in on Sunday.  You could also forget coming on on Monday too.  Or ever.  Companies like Chik-Fil-A went against the grain and continued to close on Sundays, but they were the rare exceptions.

To be honest I’ve never known a world without (practically) everything open on Sunday so while I understand this I do wonder how the world would function otherwise.  I’m sure we’d figure it out and make it from Saturday evening to Monday morning somehow, but the simple this-is-the-way-it-is-ness of Sunday shopping gives it an inertia that, like a lot of so-called “progress,” makes it look impossible to turn back.

And then Poland does this.  I’m not sure I’d like it if it happened here, but I do like that it is happening somewhere.  I like that it can happen much more than that it has happened, if that makes sense.

This is not the best point to lead with

As the allegations regarding who groped who and who propositioned who and who assaulted what fly back and forth like fifth graders on zip lines, one thing I’ve seen pop up (as it often does) is commenters and pundits and politicians alike all undercutting the points they try to make in what seems to be a very deliberate way.  They make this assertion like they’re revealing a very pertinent fact that should give them credibility, when in reality they’re making an assertion that only reveals their bias.  This might be commendable if they were “pulling the sting” and engaging in some kind of preemptive full disclosure, but in almost all cases they’re making these statements as if they’re part of their curriculum vitae on the subject.  That statement goes something like this: “I’m a woman.”  “I have a daughter.”  “I’m a victim of abuse.”  The clear implication they’re trying to make is “I have a connection to the accuser therefore I’m REALLY mad about this particular subject and that gives me authority to speak about it!”

Actually…no.  It doesn’t.  In reality it means that you’re biased.  It means you are not impartial and cannot look at this subject with anything approaching objective reason and logic unless you acknowledge and deal with your biases.  I’m not just hearing this from insignificant know-nothings on Twitter and Facebook but from very significant know-nothings like Nancy Pelosi and even intelligent experts at argument and debate like Stefan Molyneux.  Not one of them is confronting this as a means of dealing with and adjusting for their own leanings and instead they are all putting this forward like it’s some sort of identity badge conferring jurisdiction upon them to sit in judgment.  In reality, leading off by revealing your own emotional connection to the subject at hand is equivalent to saying “I don’t know what I’m talking about but I sure am angry about it!”

You see, in a criminal court hearing, the judge is supposed to be completely dispassionate and disinterested, and a cardinal rule of evidence is that showing bias is always relevant (and relevant evidence is always admissible).  Because it doesn’t matter what the crime is, to the victim (or “victim”) and those affected by it, it’s the worst thing ever.  I remember when I was in law school I had something of value stolen from me, and while it was an expensive item in itself and that’s entirely why it got ganked, it held a great deal of sentimental value as well for a lot of reasons.  I wasn’t thinking or feeling about the incident in terms of “this would be a reasonable response and penalty for this crime if the thief is ever caught.”  I wanted retribution.  I wanted pain.  I hoped that the thief would return the item and was willing to forgive if he ever did so (he didn’t), but if someone had to go out and find the son of a bitch, then I wanted five minutes in a room alone with him.  Now don’t misinterpret me, I never actually would do something like that, but there’s a wide moral gulf between wanting badly to take a pound of flesh from someone who has wronged you and actually getting out the carving knife.  But the point is, I should not be sitting in judgment of anyone accused of grand larceny for that reason.  I have an emotional and admittedly irrational connection that I’m pretty sure would override even my defense attorney inclinations if I found myself on such a jury (and note, this does not mean I have any problem defending someone accused of grand larceny.  In fact I think it gives me a bit of an edge in dealing with complaining witnesses).

So when you go out and say “I’m a father of a young woman” or “I think rape is every bit as bad as murder” (which is asinine and actually trivializes rape) or “Every woman deserves to be heard and believed,” you’re not establishing your credentials.  You need to follow that up with a reason why anyone should think you can be objective and honest about your perspective on the subject at hand, or else you might as well just stop talking, because you’ve just admitted you’re tainted.  You’re not impartial, you’re not looking at things reasonably and logically, and you are either so arrogant or so ignorant that you’re holding that out as a qualification.  Now, if you come out and say “I have this particular bias regarding this situation, BUT I still think this is bogus,” then it gives you credibility.  To go back to my own example, if I was to make a statement regarding thievery that was sympathetic to the reasons and situation of the thief, that ought to be given equal or even possibly greater credence than a statement from someone who had never been a victim.  As the old Vulcan proverb says, “only Nixon could go to China.”

So when you hear someone say “I’m extra special interested in this issue!” then you need to be listening for the followup reason why they can still be objective.  Otherwise all they’ve succeeded in doing is handing you the lens through which you should view everything else they say, and that glass is pretty dim.


Hope everyone’s had a good Thanksgiving and that Uncle Fred is carving another notch in his end of the dinner table after ventilating Pajama Boy and his attempts to ruin Thanksgiving dinner.  I’m sure yours was probably better than Al Franken’s or John Conyers’.

I did want to pop in to explain something that a lot of the twits on the left just don’t seem to get.  You would think double standards would be something they’d understand on at least a conceptual level, but even then, what’s going on really is not a double standard.  As the Weinstein wildfire rages out of their control, the left has started to dig in and defend their embattled politicians with arguments that sound more or less exactly like the mirror of defenses we deployed for President Trump and Judge Moore.  The accusers are lying, this is a witch hunt, there’s no substantiation to these allegations, and on and on.  Let’s put aside for a moment the conveniently forgotten fact that neither John Conyers nor Al Franken are facing an election for some time, more than enough to rehabilitate their images and let their accusers fade into distant memory.  Let’s also set aside the fact that at least Al Franken has admitted to the behavior, as have most of the accused in Hollywood (and as a side note, to everyone who is saying “so what if Moore denies the allegations, isn’t that what we expect a guilty person to do?”, no retards, we expect someone who knows he is guilty to try to mitigate damage and apologize, but we expect someone who knows he is innocent to fight back, and for proof look no further than the rest of the ongoing wildfire).

The point I want to explain here is that it’s entirely fair, reasonable, and consistent to apply one standard to people like President Trump and Judge Moore, and another to people like Al Franken and Harvey Weinstein.  I’ve said for a long time, I don’t believe any such allegations on the accusation alone, and for the overwhelming majority of these supposed “assaults” I don’t consider the behavior serious, at all.  I’m saying this as someone who has been shy and uptight around women pretty much my whole adult life, which means I have been able to observe what guys who are not shy and uptight around women often do and say, and women’s reaction to that.  I’ve had more than a few “…you can DO that?” moments watching the players with the pretty women.  None of the behavior I ever saw was outrageous, but I saw plenty of stuff that I would consider to be on the over-familiar side, yet I almost never saw any of it responded to with anything but a smile, a giggle, and body language that communicated that the behavior was welcome.  My point in saying this is that most of this behavior is considered on both sides to be normal and acceptable.  We’re not talking about rape, we’re not talking about “sleep with me or you’re fired” harassment.  If you get touched and you don’t like it, the proper response is to slap the guy and walk away from him, not hold it in your back pocket for years or decades until it might be useful to you or harmful to him.  Nobody, men or women, wants a world where this stuff is prohibited by law.  Yet the left wants to redefine “assault” to mean whatever a woman doesn’t want to happen, and to do it retroactively, at least whenever they can weaponize such an accusation politically.

The dangers and absurdity of allowing the definition of “sexual assault” to continue to broaden (and with them the definition of rape) are a topic for another time.  For today I’m focusing on the idea that the mere allegation of such misconduct ought to be enough to derail a campaign or unseat a sitting politician, and it is entirely consistent to apply one standard to President Trump, Judge Moore, and other (though sadly not even close to all) Republicans while at the same time applying a different one to Al Franken, John Conyers, Billy Jeff Clinton, and the Democrats.  You see, the correct standard to apply as a default is that anyone can make an allegation and the accusation itself proves absolutely nothing.  In both the instances of Trump and Moore, the mere timing of the allegations relative to when the supposed actions occurred versus the imminence of an election is sufficient to rebut and render these allegations bogus, but even if that were not the plain and obvious case, the default is the appropriate standard to apply to both these men because neither has ever applied a different standard to anyone else.  Neither ever called for a disqualification or a resignation based solely on unproven allegations.  Neither has said that the allegation alone is enough to consider a person unqualified.  They should enjoy the benefit of the doubt.

As for Franken, Conyers, and the rest of the Democrats, I still don’t rightly care about most of their alleged misbehavior.  I still don’t give a good damn that Franken touched a woman or three.  Were it not for the standards they insist ought to apply, I’d blow off the accusations against them like I blow off the accusations against Bill Cosby.  However, these clowns and the rest of their party believe and insist that the accusation is enough to condemn a man, because they claim (with a straight face no less) that “women don’t lie” about this stuff.  I don’t need to get into how deep the horsecrap in that assertion is.  It really doesn’t matter to this analysis, because what does matter is that that is the standard that Franken and the Democrats have used.  Pointing out the left’s hypocrisy does practically no good, but holding them to their own backward standards, now we might get somewhere.  They’re being forced to play by their own rules, which is a tactic right out of the Saul Alinsky playbook, and it ain’t so much fun.

It is entirely consistent to say you hold Republicans to one standard and Democrats to another, because you’re just making the Democrats live up to their own opportunistic definitions.  Their reaction to being made to abide by the rules they have tried to write ought to tell you that, like all the other grievance groups they claim to represent, they don’t actually care about this stuff any more than they can use it to attack Republicans.  As for the Republicans, we never claimed (and in fact many of us expressly oppose the idea) that accusers are entitled to be believed.  Because they aren’t.

I really don’t want to keep talking about this…

I caught a story about the new ad being run by Doug Jones in Alabama.  I don’t think it’s the knockout punch that CFNN seems to believe, but I will admit it’s hitting me below the belt.  Just not for reasons that the Jones campaign was probably hoping.

The ad leads off with a quote from Ivanka Trump about how there’s a “special place in hell for those who prey on children.”  It would be nice if she could have directed that language at, say, Cecile Richards, but we’re talking about a vapid cutie who sells purses.  This frame was followed by quotes from Ivanka, from Alabama’s other senator Richard Shelby, and…Jeff Sessions.  All three of whom are quoted (and I don’t know the context) as saying “I believe the accusers.”  Et tu, Jeff?

Look folks, it’s real damned simple.  The accusations against Roy Moore are obviously bogus to anyone with a brain, and the more we learn about them, the more apparent that becomes.  The yearbook signature, the details that Stefan Molyneux so expertly highlighted, the fact that hey, there’s an election with pivotal national implications in a month, the cluster of “accusers” pulled together to make it look like there was a chain of incidents only to find that only one of the accusations even approaches bad behavior, followed by a plainly-scripted sob story as the expected finishing blow, and top it all off with the little fact that this behavior, even if it’s all 100% true (and it’s NOT), was from forty goddamned years ago.  If Moore was a “predator” there’d be a line of victims miles long.  We’d have heard about this way back when he put the Ten Commandments outside his court.  I’m not going to go any more into how the accusations against Moore are utterly unbelievable, I’ve done that several times already and if you’re still on that train there’s frankly no hope for you.  I’ll give you another shot, sure, but I’m not holding on for a happy ending there.

This is where the problem lies.  Republicans all up and down the spectrum leapt right past the “well if it’s true he ought to step down” to “I believe the accusers” after Mitch McConnell (god damn it Mitch, I wanted to believe) made the first step.  Ben Shapiro, who has been walking a fine line between Zombie NeverTrumper and the reason and sanity that demolished Piers Morgan, took a headfirst dive down the ZNT side on an appearance with Steven Crowder where he not only called the accusations “very credible” but then he ripped President Trump for his very wise decision not to say anything more about this matter.  Bye Ben, have a good life and remember, the facts don’t care that you feel like Roy Moore is guilty until proven innocent.  I don’t know if the Republicans in general are just trying to engage in preemptive fireproofing against the Weinstein wildfire but for God’s sake they ought to know better.  They’re taking a knee to the “listen and believe” types and sacrificing one of our finest in the hopes of scoring points that don’t matter.

Reports from Alabama waver between Moore’s still got this to it could go either way, and I still maintain that if the Democrats take this seat following their (realistically insignificant) wins in Virginia and other blue states, then it’s all over for us in 2018.  The Trump revolution will stop, the establishment will sit on its hands and wait for their Democrat overlords to reclaim Congress, and the combination of the (meaningless) wins in the blue states plus the upset victory in Alabama plus this “come to Jesus” moment wherein all these Democratic politicians and backers are outed for their supposedly-sordid pasts will snowball into a resurgence of Dr. Pantsuit-backed woman-pandering Democratic enthusiasm.  GOP voters, on the other hand, will see they’ve gotten nothing for their efforts and faith, and many will remember that the establishment types and even some of our supposed conservative superstars got on board with the witch hunt against Judge Moore, and they’ll ask the time-old Republican question, what’s the difference between these two parties again?  Now don’t get me wrong, a win for Moore is not going to mean 2018 will be smooth sailing and sunshine, but it will energize the base in the same way President Trump does, because frankly most people can see that this story is the same old bulls**t that the Democrats always pull, and the base loves the hell out of politicians who fight back.  That’s why we love President Trump so much.

I continue to believe that the fate of the Republican Party hinges on this election.  Watching the responses from even men whom I have praised to the rafters to these patently obvious lies against Roy Moore, I am forced to conclude that if we lose this race, then the Republican Party deserves to die.  If we betray one of our own, not just a soldier but a champion, in order to try to win some favor or friendship from baby-murdering Gaia-worshiping gun-grabbing fascist harpies who wouldn’t dump a bucket of icewater on us if we were on fire, then we deserve extinction.  I kept my faith in my party through eight long and difficult years under the last president, watching my side bow and yield and surrender and refuse to even try to fight back and stop the destruction he wrought.  I am rapidly losing that faith now.

I will remember.  Forgiveness will not come easily.  I am not alone.  There comes a point where “what choice do you have” ceases to be a persuasive reason to vote Republican, even for those of us who know it’s a binary choice.

UPDATE: It appears President Trump has broken his silence and come out in support of Judge Moore, saying he denies the allegations and that’s that.  That’s all I need to hear.  Thank you Mr. President.

Whose character is it anyway?

The ongoing media circus over allegations flying left and right (but seemingly much more left) continues apace and continues to be a lot of hyperventilation about trivial matters.  I stand by my earlier assertion that for the vast majority of these accusations, I would not give a good damn about the alleged behavior except for the fact that the perpetrators of said behavior are the guys out demanding that just the allegation be considered enough to derail someone’s career.  If you haven’t been spewing that nonsense when it was politically advantageous for you to do so, then you get full reasonable doubt treatment.  If you have, then get comfy on that petard pal, ’cause you’re fixin’ to get hoist.

So I was listening to Rush Limbaugh today and a kid from Florida called in and led off with “I’m more concerned about the culture war” to basically suggest that Roy Moore is dragging the party down with him and we ought to wash our hands of him even if it costs us the Senate seat.  This kid proceeded to equivocate on whether he believes Moore’s (lying) accusers and outright state he does NOT believe the one who claimed she was underage when whatever alleged behavior supposedly occurred (which is the only accusation that, you know, remotely approaches criminal behavior–and is still 40 years old at that).  I have to give Rush a lot of credit for politely and gently making an analogy to the left’s treatment and savagery of Sarah Palin and explaining without outright saying so that the kid doesn’t know what he’s talking about.  Which he doesn’t.  The caller seemed to think that throwing Roy Moore under the bus would confer upon the Republicans some kind of moral high ground and give us “credibility,” all in the context of us being the party of “virtue” and “character.”

Wrong on all points, kid.  Could not be more wrong (including on his “what does one Senate seat matter at this point?” which is oblivious to the fact that Moore would be voting with the Republican agenda, not obstructing it).  Let’s put aside for a moment that “character” does not mean “throwing a friend and ally to the wolves the moment it becomes expedient to do so.”  Let’s forget that, media and NeverTrumper and establishment GOP nonsense to the contrary (Ben Shapiro, I’m looking right at you), the allegations against Roy Moore are plainly politically motivated bullcrap (that this kid does not even believe).  Let’s take all else as even here and just focus on the caller’s point that distancing ourselves from Roy Moore gives us the ethical high ground and will win us some kind of credit on the issue of “sexual harassment.”  And let’s talk about why that’s not only wrongheaded, but painfully incorrect.

This whole misandric miasma recently reminds me of my favorite improv “game” show, Whose Line Is It Anyway (from the Drew Carey days anyway), the show where “the games are made up and the points don’t matter.”  The games here ARE entirely made up.  As I have said before, this would have happened right on schedule (possibly even earlier) if Luther Strange had won the Alabama primary–there were rumors and murmurings of all kinds going back to when Big Luther first got appointed to Jeff Sessions’ vacant seat.  No, I am not saying there IS anything in Strange’s past, I am saying it does not matter to these people.  They’re not above making stuff up out of whole cloth.  They do it all the goddamned time.  But more importantly than even that, the “points” that this caller seemed to think we could score by sacrificing Moore to the harpies do not matter.  We have had the moral high ground on these things for decades and it has gotten us precisely nowhere, and it’s equivocators and compromisers like this kid who put us in that position to begin with.  This is the kind of attitude that scoffs at the idea of slippery slopes and mocks resistance to legislative and cultural shifts away from traditional values.  To the extent this is in any way related to the “culture war,” we lost that battle a long time ago.

I am perplexed and troubled by this young man’s assertion that it is somehow in “bad character” for Roy Moore to express interest in young (legal) women, especially in light of the fact that he expressly states he doesn’t believe there’s any credibility to the allegations regarding an underage woman, and yet truthfulness and loyalty don’t seem to enter into the “character” calculus at the same time.  So let’s get one thing very clear: this is all made up, and giving up on Judge Moore will not win us one shred of credibility or one point of moral superiority with these people–and even if it would, look at the monsters you’re trying to curry favor with for God’s sake.  These are the people who enabled Billy Jeff Clinton, looked the other way for Teddy Kennedy, and would have put Dr. Pantsuit into the presidency knowing just how horrible she is.  You want to raise your capital with them?  Don’t you even dare tell me about “character” after that, kid.

And on the subject of “well, the GOP hasn’t done anything with 52 seats, it won’t hurt us to lose one.”  Well then, Mr. Shortsighted, what happens in 2018 when we manage to get up to 59 GOP Senators not counting John McCain, Susan Collins, and Lisa Murkowski, and we STILL can’t get anything done because of them AND because Doug Jones is defiling Jeff Sessions’ old seat?  Or the more likely outcome, what happens in 2018 when there ends up being 49 Republicans and 51 Democrats, counting Jones?  For pity’s sake kid, you have to hold the ground you gain if you want to keep advancing.  We are so damned close and that’s why the Democrats are pulling out all the stops.  Seriously, they are making more and more noise every day about throwing Billy Jeff himself on the pyre to keep the Weinstein wildfire burning hot enough to catch the GOP and President Trump in the conflagration.  And you want to throw the party and with it the entire country on a sword of pretend virtue to appease outraged feminists in some bizarre appeal to “character?”  Listening and believing uncritically is not character, child.  Giving up your own allies to your sworn enemies at the first sign of trouble is not character.  Sticking by proven friends when the road gets rocky, that’s character.

Stay the course.  Let’s show these animals just how powerful “thoughts and prayers” really are.

Words that leftists should not use, chapter 18

It was a bit of a busy week along Wanderer’s Way, not that the news was quiet in the slightest.  My thanks go to Stefan Molyneux this week for putting out a couple of knock-it-out-of-the-park videos (as he often does) encapsulating and unloading on the issues du jour practically flawlessly.  My thanks also go to Ben Shapiro, Mitch McConnell, NeverTrump Online (formerly known as National Review Online) and every other supposed “conservative” who was not content to say “well if it’s true then Moore ought to step aside” (which is obscenely ridiculous in itself) but instead went full-on “I believe the accusations and they’re credible.”  You guys all just added yourselves to a list of people I no longer have to waste time and energy listening to, sticking up for, or defending.  Or giving a good damn about either.  Some of you were there already, some of you were right up to that line and just crossed it, and some of you I tried very hard to give the benefit of the doubt, hoped and held to the belief that there was yet good in you, but when the time came to stand you knifed everything you claim to believe in the back to score points with people who still hate you.  But I’m getting off topic here.

This week’s word is one I was hesitant to use because of its emotionally charged and controversial nature.  Yet it is that very aspect of it that makes it a perfect topic for this series, because that nature is what allows the left to take this clearly-defined word and mangle it into a weapon to use against us.  They do this even when (and at times it seems especially when) it really does not apply to the facts at all.  This week’s word that leftists should not use is Rape.  Given the choice between risking my few followers and not so many readers versus giving up the integrity of this blog, I don’t think it’s even a question as to whether I need to include this word, and it’s pretty clear there’s never been a better time.

Rape is a very simple concept of criminal law.  Because it is a crime, the definition and wording varies slightly state to state, but in essence rape does have a very specific meaning, and that is generally the forced penetration of some bodily orifice (typically doesn’t matter which one) by some body part (again, not really important which) of the person doing the forcing, against the will of the person being penetrated, or in the alternative, forcing someone else to penetrate you.  Yes, feminists, women can commit rape against men.  Whether they’ll ever be convicted of it is another matter entirely.  Take away all the hairsplitting and word-lawyering and rape comes down to forced sexual intercourse, no more and no less.  This of course is one of the most serious crimes a person in our sex-obsessed society can commit, and the reasons why are a topic for another time.

But the left knows the power of words.  They know that not only do normals get agitated when people start talking sex crimes, but even conservatives often have a visceral reaction to this word.  And as we have seen on so many occasions, when the left gets hold of a powerful word, they don’t give two craps about whether they’re using it correctly.  They’ll swing that sucker like a hammer and just pray they connect sooner or later.  So they take this word and they apply it to every situation they can shoehorn it into–infamously, the “bake the damned cake” court found against the bakery because the court held that refusal to bake a cake was the equivalent of “mentally raping” the plaintiffs.  Um…you cannot “mentally rape” someone.  Not even Professor X with the power to walk into dreams and mess with your memories can “rape” someone with his mind.

This is the left’s game.  They take every perceived slight and every normal and healthy act of male attention directed towards women that just happens to be unwanted or even just non-reciprocal and they declare it to be “sexual assault,” and then they conflate sexual assault with rape so often and so fluidly that the terms become synonymous in the minds of the ignorant public.  Catcalling is not rape.  Leering at a woman is not rape.  Asking for a woman’s phone number is not rape.  Touching a woman is not rape.  Trying to kiss a woman is not rape.  Most of the Weinstein wildfire (not just against Harvey but against all of them) is not rape–in fact, except for the very few accusations of actual rape that have been leveled against people like Weinstein, Charlie Sheen, and Bill Cosby, this whole crapstorm is not rape.  Also, the Cosby allegations are bogus.  Al Franken, Louis C.K., even Kevin Spacey, none of that is rape (that I am presently aware of anyway).  And nothing that Roy Moore is accused of doing is rape either.  That doesn’t stop the left from taking unwanted attention or even jilted former girlfriends, spinning the stories into some kind of concocted sexual impropriety, and from there merrily skipping to “he’s a rapist.”

Most of what we know Billy Jeff did, by the way, was also not rape.  If he wasn’t the king of “listen and believe” I’d be putting Juanita Broaddrick to a stricter standard, but, you know, he is.  But I’m getting off topic again.

For most words on this list, I maintain leftists should stop using them just for the sake of the integrity of the language and because they make themselves look like idiots (but they seem to be good at that).  This one, however, there’s a much more serious reason why the left really ought to stop using this word, and that’s because this kind of reflexive accusation and utter disregard for the basis hurts actual victims of rape.  Seriously.  Every fake accusation, famous or not, that goes to the police or the media both takes up time and resources that are intended for people (usually women) who have actually been hurt and actually need help, and at the same time, constantly crying wolf makes every real report sound and seem less credible.  People are getting fed up with this crap and are beginning to see through it even when they’re not on the side that gets smeared with this bulls**t as a matter of course.  But the left doesn’t care about victims of rape any more than they care about victims of “gun violence” or “hate crimes,” which is to say, they care about them insofar as they can use them as props to push an agenda.

If I am not flamed into oblivion and kicked off WordPress for this post, there’ll be another word next week.