Category: media

bookmark_borderStatues are what Selena Gomez should be crying about

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw this Instagram post from Benny Johnson about the video of Selena Gomez crying about the Trump administration’s deportations of illegal immigrants. Johnson, and various other right-leaning people whom he quotes in his post, argue that Gomez should instead be crying about all of the people killed by fentanyl overdoses, the people murdered and/or raped by illegal immigrants, and the 300,000 migrant children who have gone missing.

While I don’t agree with the sexist stereotypes in the post regarding which ages and genders of people tend to be the victims of which types of crimes (people of either gender and any age can be raped, and people of either gender can overdose on fentanyl), nor do I agree with the characterization of Gomez’s video as a “meltdown” (that’s insulting to autistic people because a meltdown is a term used to describe an autistic person’s involuntary reaction to a sensorily or otherwise overwhelming situation), I do think that the post makes some valid points. 

Riley Gaines, one of the people quoted in Johnson’s post, points out: “Laken Riley was one of many. Selena Gomez did not cry for her.”

This is true. And it reminded me of another thing that Selena Gomez did not cry about: the statues that were brutally and viciously destroyed at the hands of the BLM movement and “woke” ideology. Selena Gomez did not cry for the soldier statues whose heads were smashed to pieces with sledgehammers in Portsmouth, Virginia as people cheered and a brass band played. She did not cry for the statues hung with nooses from traffic lights in a North Carolina town. She did not cry for Christopher Columbus, lynched on the steps of the Minnesota state capitol as his murderers raised their hands in triumph and posed for photos with his pitiful, face-down body. She did not cry for Robert E. Lee when his head was sawed from his body and his face sliced off before he was placed into a white-hot furnace and reduced to molten bronze.

I’m going to stop giving examples, because thinking about these atrocities and typing the words to describe them makes me feel sick to my stomach. And these are only a few examples among hundreds. To say that I’ve cried for what happened to these statues is an understatement. Over the past four and a half years, I’ve sobbed uncontrollably on more occasions than I can count, wailed, screamed until my voice was hoarse, punched walls, thrown furniture, and shed enough tears to fill an ocean. I’ve experienced pain so intense, so agonizing, and so excruciating that it is impossible to fully describe. No words can do it justice. What happened to these statues is the most angering, saddening, heartbreaking thing that has ever taken place in the world.

For Selena Gomez to cry for what is happening with illegal immigrants, while ignoring the far worse situation that has happened and that continues to happen with statues, demonstrates a complete lack of both logic and empathy. What happened to these statues – not what is happening with illegal immigrants – is what is actually upsetting. What happened to these statues is what Selena Gomez should be crying for. In fact, what happened to these statues is what everyone should be crying for. The entire population should be unanimously shouting from the rooftops, screaming at the top of their lungs, protesting in the streets, demanding justice, for what happened to these statues. 

But Selena Gomez doesn’t care about the statues, and neither do most people. To cry about immigrants being deported, but not about the statues, demonstrates a lack of empathy on the part of both Selena Gomez and society as a whole. 

bookmark_border“Sunday in the South” – incredible new song and music video

Posted on by Marissa

If you haven’t listened to the new song “Sunday in the South,” or watched the music video, you really should! You can do so on YouTube here.

The song, by Shenandoah, Jason Aldean, and Luke Bryan, contains a verse about the Confederate flag, and the video features a Confederate statue. Since the horrifying events that took place beginning in late spring of 2020, I never thought a mainstream song would mention anything having to do with the Confederacy in a positive or even neutral light. But that is exactly what the three singers do in this song and video. 

“A ragged rebel flag flies high above it all, popping in the wind like an angry cannonball. Now the holes of history are cold and still; they still smell the powder burning and they probably always will.”

What is particularly notable is that in the video, the camera lingers on the dates “1861-1865” on the pedestal of the statue. Making it clear to the viewer that this is, indeed, a Confederate statue, and not just a random, generic statue. Making it clear that the makers of the video know that this is a Confederate statue and chose to feature it in the video with this knowledge.

This is remarkable and admirable. The song and video are beautiful, and I love the statement that they make. Listening to this song, and watching this video, makes me feel seen and included after nearly five years of the exact opposite of this. Salute to Shenandoah, Jason Aldean, Luke Bryan, and everyone involved in making this video, for both their talent and their courage. 

bookmark_borderDespicable New York Times “fact check” re: RFK

Posted on by Marissa

The New York Times wrote the following ridiculous paragraph in an article about Robert F. Kennedy: 

“Mr. Kennedy has singled out Froot Loops as an example of a product with too many artificial ingredients, questioning why the Canadian version has fewer than the U.S. version. But he was wrong. The ingredient list is roughly the same, although Canada’s has natural colorings made from blueberries and carrots while the U.S. product contains red dye 40, yellow 5 and blue 1 as well as Butylated hydroxytoluene, or BHT, a lab-made chemical that is used ‘for freshness,’ according to the ingredient label.”

The Times claims that the ingredient list is roughly the same, while in the very same sentence listing four substantial differences in the ingredient list. 

It’s like Mary Lincoln telling someone that she mostly enjoyed watching “Our American Cousin,” except for the minor detail of her husband being shot in the head by John Wilkes Booth. 

How can the Times not see that it is directly contradicting itself in a single sentence? 

“But he was wrong,” the Times pompously boasts. Not seeing the fact that they are proving Kennedy right with their very next sentence, in which they list the artificial ingredients in Froot Loops.

As Brad Cohn points out: “As you see, the ingredient list is just completely identical, except the US product contains formaldehyde, cyanide, and nearly undetectable levels of saxitoxin.” 

The New York Times is pathetic, both for their contemptuous tone and for their complete lack of logic.

Source: DC Draino / Being Libertarian

bookmark_borderAn example of the bias of Yahoo News

Posted on by Marissa

While checking my email the other day, I came across this infuriating set of headlines on Yahoo:

I can almost hear the awe and admiration in the author’s voice when reading the headline about Harris’s “historic speech” as the “first Black woman and first person of South Asian descent to accept a major party’s presidential nomination.”

Meanwhile, Trump’s reason for doubting election results is sneeringly dismissed as “baseless.” 

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: News articles and headlines are required to be neutral. This is the entire purpose of the news media. News articles, and their headlines, must contain information only, without opinions or value judgments.

Despite this, Yahoo, as well as other media outlets, has a pattern of consistently portraying one party’s politicians in glowing terms while criticizing, condemning, shaming, attacking, and calling attention to every possible negative thing about, political figures of the other party. Because the things that have been going on in this country over the past few years are so triggering to me, I almost never read news articles. Yahoo’s disdain for people whose political views differ from those of the establishment is so blatant that its existence is obvious merely from looking at headlines. Given that the entire purpose of the news media is to present facts only, and to abstain entirely from voicing opinions, this situation is completely unacceptable.

To characterize something as “baseless” is an insult, not a piece of information. Therefore, it is unacceptable for a news headline to contain this word. (Unless it is part of a quote by a person whom the article is quoting… but that is not the case here. “Baseless” is the headline writer’s own word.)

It is mentally exhausting to be made to feel shamed, insulted, and attacked day in and day out for having political beliefs that are different from the majority. Shame on Yahoo for their repeated use of bigoted, biased, pejorative, and sneering headlines.

bookmark_border“Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted”

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across an article titled, “Anti-Trump Burnout: The Resistance Says It’s Exhausted.”

This headline confuses me, because people who are anti-Trump are the opposite of the resistance. They are the authority. They are the establishment. They are the people who run the institutions of our society, who hold the power. They are, as hippies would say, the “man.”

This headline is a contradiction in terms, because in reality, Trump and his supporters are the resistance. 

That’s why people were arrested en masse for protesting at the Capitol building in support of him on January 6, 2021.

That’s why one of those protesters was killed by a police officer, and why society almost unanimously reacted to her death by viciously insulting, condemning, ridiculing, and shaming her as opposed to the police officer who killed her. 

That’s why Trump was banned from all of the major social media networks.

That’s why he has been charged in four different criminal cases.

That’s why states have removed his name from their ballots.

That’s why the term “MAGA Republicans” – an abbreviation for Trump’s campaign slogan “Make America Great Again” – is used as an insult. 

That’s why it is considered socially unacceptable to say that you support Trump, or that you voted for him. 

That’s why, when hundreds of people personally attacked me on social media for expressing my support for statues, one such person noted the fact that I had once retweeted a pro-Trump post and summarily classified me as “human garbage.”

Nothing could be more twisted, or more wrong, than to call the people who control society and use their power to harm and oppress others, the resistance.

It’s also completely lacking in empathy that the so-called “resistance” – which in reality is the anti-resistance – would characterize itself as “exhausted.” There is nothing exhausting about holding all of the power in society and using it to harm and oppress other people. Trump and his supporters are the ones being harmed and oppressed. We are the ones with no power. We, and not the people harming us, have reason to be exhausted. The anti-resistance has nothing to complain about: if harming and oppressing others is so exhausting to you, then stop doing it.

bookmark_borderJimmy Kimmel, not Aaron Rodgers, is the real a**hole

Posted on by Marissa

A little while ago, Jimmy Kimmel posted the following tweet: 

In reality, Jimmy Kimmel, and not Aaron Rodgers, is the a**hole in this situation. 

It doesn’t matter whether Kimmel had any contact with Jeffrey Epstein, or whether his name appears on any Epstein-related list. Regardless of whether or not he is guilty of what Rodgers accused him of, Kimmel is wrong to issue such a pompous, stuck-up, and self-righteous statement. 

“Soft-brained wackos”? Really? 

“Nonsense” that Rodgers “can’t seem to distinguish from reality”? Really?

“Reckless words” that “put my family in danger?” Really?

Apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, anyone who disagrees with him is “soft-brained” and a “wacko.” 

Apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, any idea with which he disagrees is “nonsense.”

And apparently, in Kimmel’s eyes, any person with ideas that differ from his own is unable to distinguish “nonsense” from “reality.”

The fact that Kimmel would speak and write this way about people with whom he disagrees is a far more important issue than whether or not Kimmel had anything to do with Jeffrey Epstein. Regardless of whether or not Rodgers’s allegations are factually correct, it’s unacceptable for anyone to speak or write this way about people with whom they disagree. Doing so is the very essence of bigotry and intolerance. Doing so demonstrates a person to be a pompous, stuck-up, and self-righteous bully.

Honestly, it is completely lacking in empathy for Kimmel to be so angry and upset at Rodgers’s accusations, regardless of whether they are true or false. Did Kimmel speak out against government policies requiring people to undergo medical procedures against their will? Did he stand up for the historical figures who have been murdered en masse over the past three and a half years? Did he stand up for the autistic people who have had to witness public spaces across the country being redesigned in order to ensure that we cannot feel included?

No?

Then, quite frankly, he has no right to be upset about anything. 

For these are the things that are actually upsetting. These are the things that should cause Kimmel to be filled with pompous, self-righteous anger, not comments by Aaron Rodgers.

This is why Jimmy Kimmel, and not Aaron Rodgers, is a true a**hole.

bookmark_borderRebutting biased Yahoo News article about Jason Aldean

Posted on by Marissa

I recently came across an article from Yahoo News about Jason Aldean’s song, “Try That In a Small Town.” Both the article and the people quoted in it display the intolerant, authoritarian bias that is infuriatingly common in the media today, which I will explain and rebut below:

The article quotes Aldean’s response to his critics: “In the past 24 hours I have been accused of releasing a pro-lynching song (a song that has been out since May) and was subject to the comparison that I (direct quote) was not too pleased with the nationwide BLM protests.”

Well, yes. It’s kind of understandable that a person wouldn’t be too pleased with the nationwide BLM protests, given that these protests are racist and have the goal of destroying everything that makes life worth living. I’m not sure why being displeased with the BLM protests would be considered a bad thing.

“The country star — who witnessed the worst gun massacre in U.S. history at the 2017 Route 91 Harvest music festival in Las Vegas — had already caught flak for the song’s seemingly pro-gun lyrics… In a tweet, Moms Demand Action for Gun Sense in America founder Shannon Watts pointed out the hypocrisy of an artist ‘who was onstage during the mass shooting… that killed 60 people and wounded over 400 more’ recording a song ‘about how he and his friends will shoot you if you try to take their guns.'”

Why would “pro-gun” lyrics be something that a person would catch flak for? I’m not sure why being in favor of people’s fundamental rights being respected would be considered a bad thing.

Also, I don’t understand Shannon Watts’ allegation of hypocrisy (let alone Yahoo‘s decision to take this false and nonsensical allegation as a fact by using the words “pointed out”). Aldean witnessed and survived a crime. And he does not believe that every person in the country ought to be punished for the crime. I am not sure why this is considered hypocritical. I am not sure why Watts, and Yahoo, believe that logical consistency requires the belief that whenever a crime occurs, the correct response is to punish all people by violating their rights.

“In another viral tweet, police reform activist Brittany Packnett Cunningham pointed out: ‘Uvalde? Small town. VA Tech? Small college town. Newtown? Small New England town. Parkland? Small town that had just been voted Florida’s *safest* town. Most mass shootings occur in *small towns*. Your listeners are dying.'”

I am not sure what the locations of mass shootings have to do with anything. It is morally unacceptable to respond to mass shootings by violating people’s rights, regardless of the locations in which the shootings take place. As for the claim that Aldean’s listeners are dying… well, yes. Of course they are. Every person dies eventually, regardless of whether or not they listen to Aldean’s music. Perhaps Cunningham is trying to point out that Aldean’s listeners have died in mass shootings. I don’t see the point of that observation, either. Mass shootings, just like any other type of tragedy, happen from time to time. Given this, it makes sense that some victims would be Aldean listeners and some wouldn’t, because one would expect the victims of tragedies to represent more or less a cross-section of the population. Again, I don’t really get the point of this observation. It is morally unacceptable to respond to mass shootings by violating people’s rights, regardless of whether or not the victims are Aldean’s listeners.

The article quotes Mississippi Free Press news editor Ashton Pittman, who tweeted: “Jason Aldean shot this at the site where a white lynch mob strung Henry Choate up at the Maury County Courthouse in Columbia, Tenn., after dragging his body through the streets with a car in 1927.”

And this is relevant how? Also, I think Pittman meant to say, “a lynch mob,” as opposed to “a white lynch mob.” There is no reason to mention the race of the members of the mob, other than to be blatantly racist, and presumably the editor of a newspaper does not intend to be blatantly racist.

The article also quotes reporter Matthew Chapman, who said that the song “absolutely captures everything about the American Right, from the paranoid threats of violence, to the irrational fetishization of communities where everyone acts and thinks the same, to the fact that the singer in fact grew up in a city.”

First of all, Chapman’s use of the term “American Right” is somewhat bigoted, because it paints an entire nationality in a negative and pejorative light. Why wouldn’t he just say, “the Right”? Also, I am not sure what aspects of Aldean’s song Chapman considers to be “paranoid.” I am also unsure why liking something would be considered “fetishization” or “irrational.” I’d be interested in hearing Chapman explain what factors make an affinity for something “irrational” and constituting “fetishization,” as opposed to normal and rational. Also, I’m confused as to why Chapman characterizes the types of communities Aldean likes as “communities where everyone acts and thinks the same.” The types of communities that Aldean sings about are actually communities where everyone acts and thinks differently from the norm. Those who subscribe to the ideology of political correctness, as Chapman and Aldean’s critics do, actually form a community where everyone acts and thinks the same. That is why those who subscribe to this ideology have been so eager for the removal of statues honoring the Confederacy and Christopher Columbus – because those statues symbolize the idea of being different and thinking differently from the majority. By having the courage to challenge this ideology of mindless conformity, Aldean and the communities about which he sings are doing the exact opposite of everyone acting and thinking the same. And of course, Chapman chooses to condemn Aldean and the “American Right” for… acting and thinking differently than he does. He characterizes as “irrational fetishization” the fact that someone likes something different from what he likes. In reality, it is Chapman, and not Aldean, who irrationally fetishizes communities where everyone acts and thinks the same. Chapman has the whole “acting and thinking the same” thing completely backward and is a complete hypocrite. Chapman’s contemptuous, self-righteous, and idiotic comment captures everything about the ideology of mindless conformity that is commonly referred to as the left. 

The Yahoo article also quotes Rev. Jacqui Lewis, who said: “There is no non-racialized way to write a song about lynching.” This statement is false. The concept of lynching has nothing to do with race. People of any race can lynch someone of any race. There is also the fact that Aldean’s song is not about lynching, so I am not sure why Lewis chose to mention lynching at all.

And the article quotes someone named Leigh Love, who wrote: “It’s like he forgot about the January 6 insurrection.” This statement really confuses me. I am not sure what the protest that took place on January 6 has to do with Aldean’s song, or what it is about Aldean’s song that indicates that he forgot about that protest. I’m also not sure why Love considers resistance to an unjust and tyrannical authority to be bad. Love almost seems to be implying that because people resisted authority, everything associated with those people and their ideology is bad and should never be praised or spoken of positively ever again. If this is, indeed, what Love is implying, then her statement is one of the most appalling instances of bigotry, intolerance, cruelty, moral bankruptcy, and aggressive, mindless conformity that I have ever seen in my life. If this is, indeed, what Love is implying, then she is an absolutely terrible person whose despicable views should not be amplified or platformed in any way.

“However, a representative for the video’s production company, TackleBox, told Yahoo Entertainment that ‘Try That in a Small Town’ was shot at a ‘popular filming location outside of Nashville’ and claimed several other projects have been filmed there over the years.”

The use of the word “claimed” implies that the author of the article doubts the veracity of the representative’s statement. The author should have used a more neutral word such as “said.”

“Responding to the growing backlash Tuesday, Aldean continued to deny that his song and video have any racist or pro-gun connotations.”

Similarly, the use of the word “deny” demonstrates bias because it implies that the author doubts what Aldean is saying. Also, I’m not sure if Aldean is denying that his song has pro-gun connotations or merely stating that there is nothing bad about having such connotations. He certainly would be 100% correct if he was doing the latter because, as I explained above, there is nothing bad about being in favor of people’s fundamental rights being respected.

“He and his wife, influencer Brittany Aldean, have posted anti-Joe Biden, anti-vaccine and pro-Trump statements online and they caught flak for spending New Year’s Eve 2021 weekend with Donald Trump.”

I am not sure why someone would catch flak for spending a New Year’s Eve weekend with Donald Trump. Trump is simply a person, with good and bad attributes, just like any other person. Would Yahoo characterize someone as having “caught flak” if that person had spent a weekend with Joe Biden? Also, I am not sure whether the Aldeans have actually posted anti-vaccine statements online, or whether they have merely posted statements expressing opposition to vaccine mandates. Being opposed to forcing people to do something against their will is not the same as being opposed to the thing itself. I am not sure why this is such a difficult concept for Yahoo to grasp.

“In September 2022, the singer parted ways with his publicity company of 17 years, GreenRoom, after Brittany drew the ire of liberal country stars like Maren Morris and Cassadee Pope with what many considered to be transphobic remarks.”

It’s interesting that the article mentions Brittany Aldean’s remarks and what some people consider to be objectionable about them, while completely omitting any mention of Morris’s remarks in response, which were vastly more intolerant, insulting, hurtful, problematic, offensive, and deserving of criticism.

bookmark_borderJack White’s disgusting statement on Trump

Posted on by Marissa

Earlier this month, musician Jack White posted the following statement on social media: 

Anybody who “normalizes” or treats this disgusting fascist, racist, con man, disgusting piece of shit Trump with any level of respect is ALSO disgusting in my book. That’s you Joe Rogan, you Mel Gibson, you Mark Wahlberg, you Guy Fieri. This is a statement from me, not a discussion/debate. -Jack White III

Well, despite White’s claim that “this is… not a discussion/debate,” he has no right to tell people that they are not allowed to respond to his statement. He has no right to tell people that they are not allowed to discuss and debate what he said. So I am going to do just that.

My response to White’s statement is, to put it bluntly, fuck you. 

The vicious, cruel, nasty, and aggressively intolerant tone of this statement is appalling.

I am beyond sick and tired of people again and again acting in a such vicious, cruel, and nasty manner towards those who are different from themselves. 

I am beyond sick and tired of people so self-righteously and so aggressively expressing their intolerance and their mindless conformity, as if they think these qualities are somehow positive. 

I am even more sick and tired of people who, apparently unaware of the irony, while doing the above-mentioned things, call those who are different from themselves, “fascists.”

Donald Trump is not disgusting. He is not a fascist. He is not racist. He is not a con man. He is not a piece of shit. 

In reality, Jack White is a piece of shit for saying these things.

In reality, Jack White is disgusting for saying these things.

In reality, Jack White is a fascist for characterizing a person with different beliefs than his own in this way. 

Statements like White’s are what truly should not be normalized in our society. 

With this statement, White is going out of his way to spew viciousness, cruelty, and nastiness, going out of his way to demonstrate intolerance and mindless conformity, as if he thinks these qualities are something to be proud of, something to boast about. 

Being vicious, cruel, nasty, mindless, and completely intolerant of people who are different from you is nothing to be proud of. It is nothing to boast about. 

You, Jack White, are a disgusting piece of shit in my book.

You are a disgusting piece of shit for choosing to issue such a vicious, cruel, nasty, and intolerant statement. 

You are a disgusting piece of shit for thinking that viciousness, cruelty, nastiness, intolerance, and mindless conformity give you some sort of claim to the moral high ground. In reality, they do the exact opposite. 

And you are not only a disgusting piece of shit, but also a hypocrite, for actively and aggressively demonstrating such complete intolerance for others while simultaneously calling those others “fascists.”

Jack White, not Donald Trump, is the real fascist. 

Joe Rogan, Mel Gibson, Mark Wahlberg, and Guy Fieri deserve to be praised for having the courage to think differently from the majority and to take an unpopular stand.

Jack White deserves to be condemned for his viciousness, cruelty, nastiness, and intolerance, because these are the most immoral and most disgusting qualities that a person could possibly have.

Jack White deserves to be condemned for his aggressive and mean-spirited advocacy for mindless conformity, because this is the most immoral and most disgusting type of advocacy that a person could possibly engage in.

Or as former congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard put it:

Jack White recently expressed his disdain for anyone who “normalizes” Trump. In the meantime, what he wants us to do is normalize those in power abusing that power to go after political opponents, using the strong arm of the law as their goon squad.

bookmark_border“Basic white girls”

Posted on by Marissa

“Basic white girls.”

A little while ago, I watched a YouTube video in which the speaker casually used this term. It was a video about the two newest American Girl dolls, Nicki and Isabel, who are twins from the 1990s. The YouTuber stated that she is not a fan of the twins overall, but praised the fact that American Girl decided to make the sisters half Jewish, so that at least they are not just “basic white girls.”

The more I thought about it, the more this flippant, offhand comment bothered me. 

Why are white girls considered “basic”? Why are white people considered more “basic” than black people or Asian people or Hispanic people or indigenous people? What exactly is it about light skin that makes a person “basic,” while people with darker skin tones are not classified that way? 

To label white girls as “basic” is racist. 

People come in a wide range of skin colors, from dark to light. All skin colors are equal. People with light skin are not “basic,” any more than people with dark skin are.

People come with a wide range of eye colors, hair colors, hair textures, and hair lengths. Nicki happens to have long, brown hair and blue eyes, while Isabel has medium length blond hair and green eyes. These attributes do not make them “basic,” any more than a doll with dark skin, dark brown eyes, and black hair would be “basic.”

There is also the attitude that the only characteristic saving Nicki and Isabel from being completely “basic” is their Jewish ancestry. This, of course, implies that Christian people are “basic.” Therefore, this comment reeks not only of racism but of religious prejudice as well. 

People – both fictional and real – have all different personality traits, backgrounds, life experiences, abilities/disabilities, hobbies, interests, preferences, and views. People have different stories, different struggles, different obstacles to overcome. Yet our society has seemingly decided that some attributes make a person “interesting” and deserving of having their story told, while other attributes make a person boring and “basic.”

Honestly, comments like these hurt. I am tired of seeing and hearing comments like this being thrown around so flippantly and casually, as if they are nothing. Comments like this are not nothing. They are racist. The fact that it is so common for these types of comments to be casually tossed about, and so rare to see them called out as the bigotry that they are, demonstrates the systemic, anti-white racism that pervades our society.

Nicki and Isabel are white girls. But they are not “basic,” and neither am I.