Month: June 2024

bookmark_borderFour years ago today…

Posted on by Marissa

Four years ago today, three historical monuments were removed from the North Carolina state capitol grounds in Raleigh. One honored Confederate soldiers, another honored the Women of the Confederacy, and the third honored Henry Lawson Wyatt, the first Confederate soldier from North Carolina to be killed in the war.

“Monuments to white supremacy don’t belong in places of allegiance, and it’s past time that these painful memorials be moved in a legal, safe way,” stated Gov. Roy Cooper.

Even four years later, reading these words makes me sick to my stomach.

These were not monuments to white supremacy; they were monuments to the idea of being different, thinking for oneself, and resisting authority. They were monuments signifying the right of people who are different from the norm to be accepted and included.

These memorials were not painful. Rather the removal of these memorials was painful. The removal of these memorials – along with countless others like them across the country and world – was not only painful but was the most painful thing, by far, that has ever happened to me. I believe that it was the most painful thing that has ever happened to any person.

Because I am a person who is different from the norm, these memorials were necessary in order for me to have a life worth living. And Roy Cooper chose to take them away, on purpose. This action was so completely lacking in empathy that it defies comprehension. And Cooper’s words, in which he characterizes the memorials that he removed as somehow “painful” – while completely failing to acknowledge the excruciating, indescribable, and unbearable pain that he inflicted by removing them – are even more lacking in empathy.

In other words, not only does Cooper falsely condemn statues as “painful” and “white supremacist” when they are nothing of the sort, but he simultaneously fails to acknowledge the pain inflicted by his own actions.

Four years later, I am still grieving. I am still in pain from Roy Cooper’s actions and words, and the dozens upon dozens of similarly horrible actions and words of bigots and bullies across the country and world. To some degree, I always will be.

It is reprehensible for bullies like Roy Cooper to describe the statues that they obliterated from existence as somehow painful, when in reality it is the statues’ removals that are not merely painful, but excruciatingly, indescribably, and unbearably so. The words and actions of these bigots demonstrate a complete lack of empathy, complete intolerance for people who are different from them, and complete disregard for our feelings and thoughts.

Confederate memorials are not painful.

Removal of Confederate memorials is painful.

And not just painful, but the most painful thing that has ever happened, and the most painful thing imaginable.

Period. Full stop. No exceptions.

bookmark_borderThe idiocy of Martin Heinrich

Posted on by Marissa

“There’s no law enforcement application for a bump stock. There’s no military application for a bump stock. There’s no self-defense application for a bump stock. These devices are tailor-made for mass shootings. Ban them.” – Sen. Martin Heinrich

It is exasperating and exhausting to keep seeing statements like this. 

The non-aggression principle, the rule that determines objective right and wrong, states that people have the right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. This means that, unless owning a bump stock violates the rights of someone else, each person has the right to own a bump stock. 

Does owning a bump stock violate anyone’s rights? No, it does not.

Does owning a bump stock, in and of itself, hurt anyone? No, it does not. 

Therefore, each person has the right to own a bump stock. It really is as simple as that. 

Why does Heinrich care about the fact that bump stocks (allegedly) have no law enforcement, military, or self-defense applications? Why does he think this fact is relevant to the question of whether or not bump stocks should be banned?

It isn’t.

There is no moral rule stating that if something has no application, then it should be banned. There is no requirement that something have an application in order to be allowed to exist. The only requirement is that the thing not violate the rights of others. Bump stocks meet that requirement. Therefore, people have a right to own them. They cannot be banned. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people are not required to prove to him that their possessions have an application in order to be allowed to own those possessions. 

Contrary to what Martin Heinrich is claiming, people do not have a right to do only those things that he has deemed useful or necessary. 

People have a right to do anything they wish, as long as it does not violate the rights of anyone else. That includes owning bump stocks. 

bookmark_border“I don’t care how you were raised, unlearn that shit”

Posted on by Marissa

So said an idiotic Instagram post that I had the misfortune of encountering.

“Being from another generation or culture isn’t an excuse for prejudice,” the self-righteous person pontificated in the caption.

My question is: why are other people’s opinions, viewpoints, and perspectives considered “shit” in the eyes of this intolerant and self-righteous person?

How ironic that in the very same post that this person condemns prejudice, they call other people’s perspectives “shit.”

Not realizing that considering other people’s perspectives to be “shit” is the epitome of prejudice.

In reality, the person who made this post is the one who needs to unlearn shit, because they are the one expressing intolerance of, and contempt for, other people.

If this person actually cared about combatting prejudice, the best way to start doing so would be by looking in the mirror.

If this person actually cared about combatting prejudice, they would be making an effort to understand and have empathy for others’ perspectives, rather than contemptuously dismissing those perspectives as “shit” that needs to be “unlearned.”

bookmark_borderVictory for Ian Smith

Posted on by Marissa

I’m a bit late with this update, but Ian Smith, the brave gym owner in New Jersey who defied the oppressive stay-at-home orders back at the beginning of the Covid pandemic, has won a complete victory in court. All 80+ charges that were filed against him for the “crime” of re-opening his gym – including violation of a governor’s order, public nuisance, disturbing the peace, and operating without a license – were dismissed with prejudice.

Read Ian’s full statement in his Instagram post here and below:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

Gateway Pundit covered the news, and Ian thanked them for accurately quoting him in this Instagram post.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

As you can see, Ian has a unique personality and doesn’t pull any punches in his posts. Some people might criticize him for his combative style, but in my opinion he is 100% right. It is Ian Smith, and not Phil Murphy, who holds the moral high ground in this situation. Phil Murphy presumed that he had the right to dictate for other people what risks they should be allowed to take in their lives. While Ian Smith, on the other hand, stood up for the right of each person to make their own decision.

And he made a great observation in this post:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Ian Smith (@iansmithfitness)

“The victory is for all of us. It’s a victory for sanity in an insane world. So as happy you are for us, celebrate for yourselves as well. The more of these small victories we get, the better the bigger picture gets for all of us.”

Truer words have never been said.

In my opinion, Ian Smith is nothing short of a hero. 

bookmark_borderOveranalyzing the pro-Palestine posters in Malden

Posted on by Marissa

Lately, I have been seeing various pro-Palestine posters and stickers taped to stop signs and streetlights around my town. One such example is the below poster, which was displayed at the pond near my house:

The first thing that stood out to me upon reading the poster was that the pro-Palestine groups or individuals who put this up poster chose, in arguing against using tax dollars to fund Israel’s weapons, to list different expenses that the tax dollars could be spent on instead, rather than arguing that the tax dollars simply be returned to the people from whom they were taken.

I guess there is nothing wrong with providing households with public housing or solar electricity, as long as the selection process is fair. Same with elementary school teachers and N95 masks.

But I’m puzzled that the flyer mentions specifically that 326 children could be provided with healthcare. Why isn’t providing adults with health services considered a worthy goal? Health services are something that apply to all ages equally, after all.

And advocating that tax money be used to cancel the student loan debt of 24 people is even more problematic. Canceling student loan debt is discriminatory and unfair. People made sacrifices to save up for college under the assumption that if they didn’t, they would have to take out loans and pay the money back. When loan debt is canceled, people who saved up are stuck having paid for college, while those who chose not to save are rewarded by having college made free. You simply cannot make a product free after some people have already paid for it, because that makes the product free for some people and not others. I would much rather see tax money spent on weapons for Israel, or almost anything for that matter, than this. 

As I alluded to earlier, the best argument against spending $939,024 on Israel’s weapons is the fact that the government could instead simply return this money to taxpayers, or even better, not collect it in the first place. This solution is the simplest and fairest one. Allowing people to keep more of their own money benefits everyone, not just politically favored demographic categories. Why doesn’t the poster advocate for this instead?

Probably because benefiting politically favored demographic categories is exactly what the left values. 

To end this post on a somewhat happy note, it seems that another Malden resident isn’t a fan of the pro-Palestine posters either. This is what happened to an identical poster on a nearby light post:

bookmark_borderApril Ajoy is a bully

Posted on by Marissa

I came across the below Instagram post which, to put it bluntly, really pisses me off:

I am not sure what Ajoy means by “temper tantrums.” It does not constitute a “temper tantrum” for people to express a view that differs from her own. Evangelicals may be opposed to pride month, and may indeed be expressing that opposition. They may even be expressing their opposition in a vehement and passionate manner. But expressing opposition to something, no matter how vehemently or passionately, does not constitute a “temper tantrum.”

It’s ironic that Ajoy ends her post by writing, “You’re just a bully,” because in reality, it is Ajoy who is the bully. It is the epitome of bullying to characterize beliefs that differ from one’s own as “temper tantrums.”

If Ajoy disagrees with the views of evangelicals regarding pride month, then she needs to actually argue against those views, rather than insulting, ridiculing, and dismissing those views as “temper tantrums.”

A differing perspective is a differing perspective, not a “temper tantrum.”

Making things even worse, the comments on Ajoy’s post anger me as much as the post itself.

“They eat pork and then hate on LGBT people,” writes a stuck-up, contemptuous jerk called downtoearthqueen. “They literally pick and choose which OT laws they believe Jesus fulfilled.”

Well, excuse me for breathing. I absolutely despise this contemptuous use of the word “they,” which is ubiquitous in posts and comments from people on the left-hand side of the political spectrum. This usage indicates that the person views people who are different from them as “less-than,” as things to gossip about and analyze, as opposed to actual people with thoughts and feelings. It is infuriating and enraging.

A commentator named Sandi Joy repeats the same infuriating use of the word “they” when she asks “that they stop using Veterans as a pawn in their bigotry.” And then she ridicules people whose views differ from hers with the infantile “OuR vEtErANs OnLy GeT oNe DaY” and “trooooops.”

What is so incredibly infuriating about Ajoy’s post and the comments on it, is not the views themselves (although these are certainly wrong), but rather the way in which Ajoy and the commentators express their views. Instead of simply expressing their perspectives, they express contempt towards those who feel differently. Instead of making counterarguments, they mock and ridicule. Enough already. This behavior hurtful and mean. And then, making things even worse, these very same people, in the same breath that they express contempt towards people who are different from them, claim that the targets of their contempt are bullies. Not realizing that the truth is the exact opposite. Not realizing that in reality, the bullies are themselves.

In conclusion:

If you characterize other people’s perspectives as “temper tantrums,” you are a bully.

If you treat other people as objects to gossip about and analyze – “they” do this, “they” do that – you are a bully.

If you caricature other people’s opinions with the puerile alternation between capital and lowercase letters and deliberate misspellings of words, you are a bully.

No, April. Evangelicals are not bullies. It is you and your mindless, sycophantic followers who are bullies.

P.S. I have no idea what you are “tired” about, given that your beliefs are shared by the entire political establishment, media establishment, and all major sports teams, companies, and brands. It is posts like yours that make me exasperated, demoralized, mentally exhausted, and, yes, tired. You have nothing to be tired about. I do.