Tag Archives: morality

Sexism Blocking Free Speech

Posted on by
Reply

Now it’s Twitter that’s engaging in toxic (non)-speech, not the speech in the tweets themselves.

A Canadian blogger is having to sue Twitter over the latter’s blatant censorship of free speech because, apparently, she isn’t toeing the Twitter (or me also “movement”) sexual politics line.

Meghan Murphy, the founder of the blog Feminist Current, was locked out of her account last year when the company asked her to delete a tweet that said, “Men aren’t women,” CNET reported, citing the lawsuit. A second tweet said, “How are transwomen not men?” according to the suit.

This is evil?

There’s Bigotry

Posted on by
Reply

…and there’s bigotry.  Keep in mind that the Virginia Attorney General, yet another Progressive-Democrat in the Virginia government—and third in line for succession to the governorship behind Northam (D) and Lieutenant Governor (another Progressive-Democrat and accused of rape, which he is poo-pooing) confessed last week to doing blackface decades ago.

The hue and cry over all of this from the virtue-signalers and determined nay-sayers of all sides is loud.

What’s missing from two of these cases (the alleged rape was much more recent, and it still wants serious investigation, with the Lieutenant Governor in jail or the accusers liable for damages and possibly jail, depending on the investigation’s outcome) is any sense of forgiveness and any recognition of the ability of a man to be rehabilitated, even to rehabilitate himself.

Also missing is any sense that this sort of thing is not unique to Virginia or to Party.  Ignorant, racially stupid, and bigoted behaviors were widespread in those days, and they’re still too widespread today.

There are two aspects to apparently bigoted behavior, though.  One is seemingly bigoted behavior by those who simply don’t know any better, but on learning, correct their behavior.  Yes, it is possible that folks even as recently as 35 years ago, as the civil rights movement was getting firmly under way, didn’t understand what they were doing or were simply indifferent to the negative implications of their actions—hence the need for that movement.  Such persons especially should be given the benefit of the doubt, and they should receive forgiveness.

The other aspect is that seemingly bigoted behavior actually is the result of bigotry.  That aspect is exemplified by the then-Democratic Party’s Jim Crow laws and their Ku Klux Klan, and by today’s antifa and neo-Nazi gangs, among others.  Such persons should be given the benefit of the boot from public life.

There might seem to be a third aspect, behaving in apparently bigoted ways in order to “go along.” I lump those, however, with the actual bigots via those of the go along crowd’s abject cowardice.

Welfare Cages

Posted on by
Reply

Now Progressive-Democrats want to give cash payments, ostensibly without strings attached, directly to low income folks in addition to the many welfare payments they already receive.

The latest effort is more far-reaching and aims to move supplemental cash directly into the hands of low-income Americans.

Which they’ll lose were they to move up the economic ladder, thereby cynically trapping those Americans in the Progressive-Democrats’ welfare cage.

Virtue Bullying

Posted on by
1

As I think about it, I begin more and more to support Virginia Governor Ralph Northam’s refusal to resign over a blackface incident(s) and/or a radio interview in which he discussed Virginia’s then-proposed (since rejected) law that would have allowed abortions up to and including the pregnant woman dilating (according to the bill’s primary sponsor, Delegate Kathy Tran (D), and who now in the face of the hue and cry, says she “misspoke.”)

The blackface yearbook image and the Michael Jackson blackface dance affairs occurred 35 years ago.  Stipulate that Northam knew what he was doing at the time that what he was doing was despicable, and that he knew that, also. I’m a firm believer in the power of rehabilitation and of the ability of a man to be rehabilitated, even to rehabilitate himself.  It’s entirely believable to me that Northam (whom I do not know, so I am speculating, but with the benefit of the doubt) has rehabilitated himself, that he’s corrected his underlying ethos and concept of morality, and that as a result, the man he is today is far different from and far better than the man he was 35 years ago.  Whether Northam can prove that while staying in office, though, or he must resign and make that proof in private life is a matter solely for the citizens of Virginia to decide; it’s not for outsiders, however sincere, to demand.

In an apparently damning radio interview, Northam said this, according to what the NLMSM has chosen to publish.

When we talk about third-trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way. And it’s done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that’s non-viable.
So in this particular example [the Tran example of the mother is dilating], if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would be delivered. The infant would be kept comfortable. The infant would be resuscitated if that’s what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. So I think this was really blown out of proportion.

Notice that.  It certainly seems like Northam was supporting the potential for infanticide—but we don’t know because the carefully edited published excerpts omit the rest of Northam’s remarks, so that, in particular, we don’t know what Northam said (or didn’t say) would, should, or could be the outcome of that ensuing discussion.

Whether Northam should go or stay on the basis of his views of abortion is up to the citizens of Virginia; it’s not for outsiders, however sincere, to demand.

Northam, for now, is resisting nothing else than virtue signaler bullying, and that’s to the good.

That the virtue signalers are bullying rather than speaking from principle is made pretty clear from the fact that nearly all of the calls for Northam to go, to resign, to… are coming from folks seeing only to their personal political gain, without any concern whatever for the morality of the situation or the morality of Northam going or staying.

An extended face-off over Mr Northam’s status risks undercutting a key Democratic message as the 2020 race for the White House gets under way, party officials and advocates said.

And this from Anton Gunn, a Progressive-Democratic strategist:

This really does undermine the moral high ground of where the Democratic Party wants to put itself in the 2020 cycle, and it’s a shame that the governor of Virginia doesn’t understand that.

The virtue signaling nature of the calls for Northam’s ouster doesn’t get any clearer than that. These worthies are concerned solely with their personal political gain and with Party political gain.  They care not a whit about moral considerations.

And this from Ken Thomas, the author of the WSJ piece at the link:

The state’s constitution allows for impeachment of the governor for “malfeasance in office, corruption, neglect of duty or other high crime or misdemeanor.” The photograph wasn’t taken while he was in office, and Republicans control the Legislature, which would have to launch such an effort.

A shabby excuse, indeed. As with the Federal Constitution, an impeachable offense is what the State’s legislature says it is—especially regarding the corruption, neglect of duty or other high crime or misdemeanor part. If the virtue signalers were serious, they’d begin the impeachment proceedings, even if they had no expectation of success. Instead, they’re just engaged in cynically virtuous spouting off.

Finally, Northam works for the citizens of Virginia; he has no obligations whatsoever to outsiders, virtue signalers, or porch dog yappers.

Facebook and Trust

Posted on by
2

…seem, increasingly, a contradiction in terms.

See this image, from The Sun via Fox News, below.

The girl pictured has a laryngeal cleft, a hole between her larynx and her esophagus, which means she can’t eat normally; food or drink can pass into her airway.  The tube through her nose passes down her esophagus, bypassing that hole; it’s the only way she can take sustenance.

The girl’s mother tried to post the image on Facebook, not to garner sympathy, but to raise general awareness of the hassles and hazards of laryngeal clefts, and to raise money for her daughter’s necessary surgery.

Facebook barred the image, for the reasons listed in the text to the right of the image.  The text is hard to read; the money rationalization is this: the image

contains shocking, sensational or excessively violent content.  This type of material creates an unexpected experience for users, and goes against our core value of fostering a positive global community.

Because a smiling little girl, albeit with a tube in her nose, is shocking, sensational, or excessively violent.  Because Facebook has such contempt for its users that it considers them such snowflakes that unexpected experiences—surprises—would excessively disturb them.  Because Facebook’s view of positivity overtly excludes attempts to bring those apparent snowflakes’ attention to an uncommon medical condition so that that attention might foster increased medical research into ways of alleviating or correcting such a condition.

The mother successfully appealed the bar, but questions remain: with this sort of ban being Facebook’s kneejerk, initial action, how can Facebook be taken seriously?  How can Facebook’s management be trusted?