Category: philosophy

bookmark_borderRestricting guns at polling places is not “good news”

Posted on by Marissa

Somewhat old news by now, but I agree wholeheartedly with this post from the Firearms Policy Coalition:

As FPC correctly points out, violating people’s rights is not “good news.”

Additionally, what is striking about Everytown’s post is that they equate the existence of guns with “armed intimidation.” They do realize that a person can possess a gun without using it to intimidate others, right? It’s almost as if it doesn’t occur to them that a person could just…exist. With a gun. Not using it to intimidate anyone. This shouldn’t be a revolutionary concept, but apparently, it is. Having a gun on your person is not the same thing as “armed intimidation.” Possessing a gun, in itself, does not intimidate anyone.

Furthermore, Everytown’s statement that “armed intimidation has no place in our democracy” is another example of the pompous, self-righteous, stuck-up, and condescending attitude that I discussed in an earlier post. What the heck is “our democracy,” anyway? Democracy is a form of government in which decisions are made based on what the majority of people prefer. There’s nothing positive about this. It allows the majority to violate the rights of unpopular minorities. Yet so many people speak of “our democracy” as if it’s something of supreme importance, something sacrosanct, something whose goodness is so obvious that it doesn’t need to be explained. To me, this is just another way of saying, only people like us matter. Only people who act like us, think like us, and live like us. No one else’s feelings, perspectives, viewpoints, or experiences matter. It’s “our” democracy, and everyone else can go to hell. We don’t like guns; therefore no one should be allowed to have them. Who cares about the fact that possessing a gun has no impact on anyone but yourself, and therefore isn’t anyone else’s business? As usual, the basic moral truth that people have a right to do anything that they want to, as long as it doesn’t harm others, is thrown out the window. To the worshippers of “our democracy,” only the majority’s perspective matters. If they don’t like something, then it should be banned. The rights of unpopular minorities – as well as the entire concept of people having rights, for that matter – are completely disregarded.

Enough about your democracy. Individual rights are what actually matter. And banning guns at polling places violates them. This is the opposite of “good news.”

bookmark_border“Soooo STUPID”

Posted on by Marissa

Defiant L’s captured this horrible tweet back from the times when the federal government was attempting to force all people to undergo a medical procedure:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Defiant L’s (@defiant.ls)

Even now, four years later, this tweet is infuriating.

Yes, protesting against a policy that forces people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is “soooo STUPID.” God forbid that people, you know, stand up for their fundamental rights. God forbid that people fight back against policies that are morally wrong. Can’t have that. Obviously, when something violates people’s rights and is blatantly immoral, people should just accept it and not make any attempt to fight back against it in any way. Obviously, forcing people to undergo a medical procedure against their will is perfectly fine.

Not.

The fact that somebody could think this way is incomprehensible to me. It is admirable and courageous that airline workers put their jobs on the line to stand up for their right to bodily autonomy. To look at this situation and call the airline workers’ actions “soooo STUPID” is despicable, idiotic, and insulting. Any person who thinks this way is truly stupid.

bookmark_borderOur rights don’t come from government

Posted on by Marissa

Another post similar to yesterday’s, but with a message that is always worth repeating:

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by Firearms Policy Coalition (@gunpolicy)

Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong. And this is true regardless of who is in office, regardless of how people voted, and regardless of the thoroughness of the process.

bookmark_borderYour natural rights do not depend on majorities

Posted on by Marissa

The Firearms Policy Coalition reminds us of an important truth that is always worth pointing out:

The fact that an assault weapons ban is backed by a slim majority of U.S. adults is irrelevant. Banning something that does not, in itself, hurt anyone is morally wrong regardless of how many people support it. As FPC points out, rights do not depend on majorities. And as an astute commenter on their post points out, “I don’t recall seeing a ‘popular opinion exception’ clause anywhere in the Constitution.”

bookmark_borderIncome tax is slavery

Posted on by Marissa

An excellent post:

 

View this post on Instagram

 

A post shared by Cam Higby (@camhigby)

This post perfectly explains why income taxes are morally wrong, while tariffs are not. Income tax by its very nature involves taking money directly from people. Tariffs do not. It really is that simple.

Additionally, the point about income tax being slavery is both true and relevant to the statue genocide. The perpetrators of this genocide demand the obliteration of any historical figure who participated in slavery in any way, without realizing that many policies that they themselves actively support also constitute slavery. Slavery does not just mean black people in the South working on plantations. It means forced labor in all its forms, and if you condemn the former without condemning all other forms of slavery just as strongly, that makes you both racist and a hypocrite.

A commentor on the post astutely points out: “When your earnings are taxed, effectively confiscating the fruits of four months’ worth of your hard work, it equates to depriving you of four months of your life. Taxation, under any reasonable definition, can be likened to forced labor.”

bookmark_borderPhotos of the aftermath of the statue genocide

Posted on by Marissa

Judy Smith recently posted some photos of a drive down Monument Avenue in Richmond, Virginia. These photos are heartbreaking. The one thought that echoes in my mind when looking at images like these is: How could people possibly think that this is a good thing?

Where there once were beautiful statues, there is now nothingness. Where there once was a celebration of history, there is now meaninglessness, purposelessness, and emptiness. Where people who are different from the norm were once accepted, now we are shamed, condemned, attacked, viciously hurt, excluded. Where life was once worth living, now it is not.

“We hate you,” the city of Richmond says to me, as well as to all people who are different.

The city of Richmond, like so many other cities across the United States, was completely ruined. Deliberately. On purpose. People actually thought that this was a good thing to do. How? How could they think this? It is completely incomprehensible to me.

These images depict the sickening result of the statue genocide. Statues of Jefferson Davis, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Jeb Stuart, and Matthew Fontaine Maury are supposed to stand on this street, where now there are only vacant expanses of dirt. I will feel rage and grief at what happened to these statues for the rest of my life. I will never fully heal, as long as these hideous wounds remain in the landscape of our country. What happened to these statues was wrong. These statues, these historical figures, and the fact that what happened to them was wrong, must never be forgotten.

bookmark_borderYou know what’s “pure hell,” Tim Walz?

Posted on by Marissa

According to Fox News, Minnesota governor and vice-presidential candidate Tim Walz described he and Kamala Harris’s loss as “pure hell” and said that Democrats are “fatigued.”

You know what’s pure hell? Watching the man that you love be lynched. Seeing the noose tightening around his neck, and the mob of angry bigots pulling on the rope. Hearing the sickening thud as his massive bronze body falls to the ground. Watching his murderers celebrate their “accomplishment.” Watching them stand on the pedestal where the man you love stood just seconds ago, their hands raised in sickening triumph. Watching them pose for pictures with their knees on his neck as he lies, pitifully, face down on the pavement.

Seeing police officers lined up, off to the side, watching this horrifying scene unfold, doing nothing to intervene because they were instructed not to. Hearing this atrocity – a demonstration of pure hatred for you because you are different from the majority – characterized as “understandable” and an act of “civil disobedience.” Hearing that the main perpetrator was released with no punishment, and that the other perpetrators weren’t arrested or charged to begin with.

Having to somehow continue existing, year after year, in a society that considers the above scenario to be completely acceptable. A society that doesn’t care about your pain, that doesn’t care about your feelings, that doesn’t care about your viewpoint, that doesn’t care about your perspective.

This is pure hell, Tim Walz. This is what I’ve experienced. And you caused it.

bookmark_border“There are only two genders. LOL no.”

Posted on by Marissa

I recently saw a social media post that stated the above, presumably referring to President Trump’s executive order stating that the federal government will only recognize two genders.

To me, this post demonstrates the hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of trans / LGBTQ activists. To use the words “LOL no” when discussing a political, ideological, or moral issue is to treat the entire issue as a big joke. After all, “LOL” literally means “laughing out loud” or “lots of laughs.” Anyone who would make a post like this is not suffering, not upset, not hurt, not angered or sad or outraged. They’re laughing. They’re having a perfectly good time. They’re joking around. A person who was actually being harmed by a policy – a person who was actually being oppressed and whose rights were actually being violated – wouldn’t be treating it this way.

Additionally, the use of the words “LOL no” demonstrates a sense of contempt for those who think differently. The person who made this post is literally laughing at Trump’s executive order. They are treating an executive order that they disagree with as something to ridicule, something to laugh at, something to make fun of. This person’s response to an (allegedly) objectionable policy is not hurt, anger, or sadness. It’s contempt and ridicule. And that speaks volumes. Responding to others’ ideas with the words “LOL no” means that you consider yourself superior to other people. It is a way of expressing that those who think differently from you are beneath you. 

Trans / LGBTQ activists claim to be oppressed, when the fact that they make posts like this demonstrates that they are not. A person who was actually being harmed by Trump’s executive order would not be treating the order as something to ridicule, something to laugh at, something to make fun of. They would be expressing anger and pain, not laughter. Trans / LGBTQ activists claim to be motivated by the ideals of inclusion and equal treatment, when in reality they are motivated by a sense of superiority and looking down on others. A person advocating for equality would not make posts expressing contempt for those who are different from themselves. Devotees of progressive ideology frequently call Trump a bully, and claim themselves to be standing up for those who are excluded and marginalized, but posts like this demonstrate that they are the true bullies.

bookmark_borderThe people who championed lockdowns…

Posted on by Marissa

“The people who championed lockdowns are now very sincerely concerned about ‘concentrated power,'” points out Dave Smith in this Instagram post.

He makes an astute point. And I also feel the need to point out that, even worse than lockdowns, these very same people also championed requiring people to undergo vaccines and medical testing. Their hypocrisy would be humorous if it weren’t so infuriating.

bookmark_borderDear complete and utter loser…

Posted on by Marissa

“You’re human [trash can emoji] and your entire lineage is [poop emoji]. And you’re incredibly physically unattractive. Quite possibly one of the fugliest combinations of human genetics.”

This is literally a comment that I came across the other day when looking at pictures of the Lee-Jackson Day parade. The fact that someone would visit another person’s Instagram page and leave this comment is almost beyond belief. As is the fact that a person* would choose to “like” this comment.**

Unfortunately, that is exactly what happened. So, in order to ensure that such comments and “likes” do not go unanswered, I feel the need to respond. 

My first response to this comment is: …. says the person whose profile is set to private and whose profile picture is what looks like an obscene drawing of a man with grotesquely protruding private parts. What the hell right do you have to call another person “fugly” or physically unattractive, let alone “incredibly” so, when you have chosen such a hideous image to represent yourself, and when you are hiding your own physical appearance from any possibility of evaluation? 

My second response to this comment is: Why on earth would someone choose to visit another person’s Instagram page and leave such a comment? Just, why? I don’t get it. Why on earth, when I’m just trying to look at photos of parades and ceremonies honoring historical figures, do I have to keep coming across these types of comments, thereby ruining my day? I don’t deserve this, and neither do the people who make the posts on which comments like these get left. We aren’t doing anything wrong, we aren’t hurting anyone, we’ve already suffered unimaginable and indescribable pain due to a years-long, society-wide attempt to obliterate everything that makes our lives worth living, and yet you insist on hurting us further by leaving these types of comments. What could possibly be the benefit of doing this, for you or for anyone? There simply is none. We don’t deserve to be treated this way.

My third response to this comment is: Interesting, considering that you chose to visit someone’s Instagram page and leave such a comment. That’s kind of the definition of human trash, is it not? 

* A person whose own account has precisely zero posts, indicating that they have created an Instagram account solely for the purpose of inflicting harm and pain by reacting cruelly to other people’s posts, rather than actually creating meaningful content of their own. Which is about as messed up as it sounds.

** But I guess, given the state of the world that we live in, and given the atrocities that people have committed over the past five years with complete impunity, neither of these things should be surprising.