bookmark_border“A concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters…”

“In addition to being a major threat to public safety, a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters everywhere and force states to allow people to ignore safety standards,” the Giffords anti-rights organization wrote in a recent social media post.

Wow. To force states to actually… respect people’s fundamental rights. How terrible. Contrary to what the people at Giffords seem to think, forcing states to respect people’s rights is a good thing. Respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation.

Additionally, it’s irrelevant that a concealed carry mandate would overturn the will of voters. Concealed carry is a fundamental right. If the will of voters is for people’s rights to be violated, then the voters are wrong, and they deserve to have their will overturned.

Finally, the claim that a concealed carry mandate would be a major threat to public safety is irrelevant as well. Concealed carry is a fundamental right, and respecting people’s rights is a basic moral obligation, regardless of the consequences for public health.

Individual rights must come first. Always. No matter what. That’s why they’re called rights.

bookmark_borderA reminder from Ron Paul

Source here

This is exactly why democracy, in and of itself, is not something positive. A form of government in which policies are made based on the majority’s preferences, is not a good thing, because the majority could just as easily be wrong in their preferences, as they could be right. If the majority prefers, for example, that a minority’s rights be violated, then the majority would be wrong, and democracy would allow this wrong preference to be implemented as law. This is why the founders (correctly) did not cherish democracy. Individual rights must come first, always.

As the Firearms Policy Coalition correctly points out, individual rights must never be up for a discussion or a vote.

And as an astute commenter pointed out: “This is why libs love democracy so much because they will vote away your rights. We’re a constitutional republic safeguarded by individual liberty.”

bookmark_borderRebutting a pro-natalist tweet by Robert Reich

Robert Reich recently made a social media post that reads:

“So the Republican Party has historically blocked:

-Paid sick leave

-Paid family & medical leave

-Universal childcare

-Universal pre-K

-Expanded Child Tax Credit

-Programs to support reproductive health

And they’re wondering why more people aren’t having children?”

My first thought upon reading this post: And this is somehow supposed to be a bad thing?? How, exactly, is any of this bad?

Paid sick leave: OK, there is nothing wrong with this. It also has nothing to do with having children. People get sick sometimes, and therefore benefit from having paid sick leave, regardless of whether or not they have children.

Paid family and medical leave: Medical leave is OK for the same reasons as sick leave. But family leave is discriminatory against people who do not have children.

Universal childcare: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children.

Universal pre-K: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children.

Expanded Child Tax Credit: This is discriminatory against people who do not have children. Why should people who have children, get to pay less tax money than people who don’t?

Programs to support reproductive health: These are discriminatory against people who do not have sex.

So Mr. Reich, please explain: How, exactly, is it bad for Republicans to have blocked policies and programs that discriminate against people who do not have children?

As a commenter correctly pointed out: “Parents don’t have the right to other people’s resources.”

100% correct.

Discrimination against people who do not have children is morally wrong, and it is to Republicans’ credit that they have blocked it.

bookmark_borderAn excellent response to an anti-statue bully

I came across the following comment on a social media post, and it is an absolutely excellent response to anti-statue bullies: 

“Hate and attack. That’s all you people know. Lack any intelligence to seek knowledge or understanding. Just hate and attack anyone or anything that doesn’t think like me. I am right and you are wrong and nothing can be said to make me think otherwise as my feelings count more than yours! That is the whole of you and those like you as seen by the rest of the world. Awful, hateful, spiteful people….exactly what you think you oppose!”

This comment hits the nail on the head. 100%. Spot-on. Exactly.

bookmark_borderExpressing a positive opinion about something is not “bootlicking”

This blog post falls under the category of “things that shouldn’t need to be stated, but apparently they do.”

The other day I was watching a YouTube video in which a doll collector criticized Mattel for laying off designers and other employees involved with the making of Barbie dolls. This YouTuber ranted at length about people who have defended Mattel, repeatedly characterizing these people’s opinions as “bootlicking.”

This reminded me of a situation a while back, in which a Democrat politician characterized a political opponent as “licking the boot” of Russia, because that political opponent failed to demonstrate sufficient enthusiasm about sending additional money to Ukraine.

Both situations make me angry. Expressing a positive opinion of something does not constitute “bootlicking” or “licking the boot.”

Expressing a positive opinion of Mattel is not “bootlicking.” It is expressing a positive opinion of Mattel.

Expressing support for Russia is not “licking the boot” any more than expressing support for Ukraine is. (Plus, the politician in question didn’t even express support for Russia; he merely questioned sending even more money to Ukraine, making the allegation of “licking the boot” even more preposterous.)

People are allowed to criticize Mattel for its layoffs, and people are allowed to feel that Mattel didn’t do anything wrong. People are allowed to support Ukraine, people are allowed to be neutral on the whole Russia / Ukraine conflict, and people are allowed to support Russia.

Usage of terms like “bootlicking” and “licking the boot” is predicated on the assumption that defending something, or expressing a positive opinion about something, is inherently bad. These terms imply that the very act of expressing a dissenting view is somehow pitiful or cowardly or ridiculous. Using such language is a way of presuming the truth of what you are trying to prove. It is both mean-spirited and intellectually dishonest.

People are allowed to have opinions that differ from yours. This shouldn’t exactly be a revolutionary concept. I’m sick and tired of people using pejorative and insulting language towards those who express dissenting opinions.

bookmark_borderActually, guns *are* cool

The anti-rights organization, Brady: United Against Gun Violence, recently made a social media post which read: “It may seem like a small hand gesture, but when those who have a platform use even an imaginary firearm for celebration, it sends a message that guns are cool and fails to recognize their lethality or that they’re the #1 killer of kids. We can do better.”

My question for Brady: What exactly is wrong with sending the message that guns are cool? In my opinion, guns are cool. And judging by the comments on the post, many other people feel the same way. There is absolutely nothing wrong with thinking that guns are cool. People have a wide variety of different interests. Some people find Disney movies cool, some people find horses cool, some people find rap music cool, and some people find guns cool, to give just a few examples. There is absolutely nothing wrong with any of this. People have a right to like things, to be interested in things, and to find things cool. Guns are no exception to this.

Regarding the claim that using imaginary guns for celebration “fails to recognize their lethality”… I fail to see why this is a problem. First of all, guns arguably do not have any “lethality” at all, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. But even if one accepts the claim that guns possess lethality, this does not create any obligation for people to “recognize” this. As mentioned above, people have a right to like things. People are not obligated to actively recognize every negative aspect of the things that they like, every time those things are mentioned.

Regarding the claim that guns are “the #1 killer of kids”… this strikes me as ageist. If guns were the #1 killer of adults, would this somehow be less bad? Additionally, as mentioned above, one could make the argument that guns are not a killer of anything, because it is the people who use guns who are responsible for any deaths that may occur, rather than the guns themselves. 

In conclusion, it’s Brady that needs to do better. Criticizing people who have done nothing wrong is unacceptable. The people at Brady need to respect the full spectrum of human diversity, rather than criticizing and shaming people who have different likes and dislikes than they do. 

bookmark_borderExcellent post re: religious exemptions from Rep. Clay Higgins

Thank you, Rep. Higgins, for stating this truth so perfectly.

No person should ever need to provide a reason or justification for refraining from receiving a medical procedure.

Refraining from receiving a medical procedure is a fundamental right. Period. Full stop. End of story.

 
 
 
 
 
View this post on Instagram
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

A post shared by @blue.haired.american

Source here

bookmark_borderActivism, new frontiers, and moving goalposts

I’ve been reading various articles about transgender ideology lately, and one thing mentioned in many of these articles is the concept of “social justice” movements and how their “goalposts” (for lack of a better term) are constantly moving. What this means is that activist movements emerge with a particular goal, but then once they achieve this goal, move forward to a more ambitious goal, and then another, and then another, ad infinitum. In this way, successful activist movements cause the “frontier” to keep moving. The movement keeps winning, succeeding, gaining ground, while its opponents continue to lose, fail, and lose ground.

This, of course, isn’t a bad thing in and of itself. Movements can have ideologies and goals that are either good or bad. The proponents of a movement might be in the right, or their opponents might be in the right. That depends entirely on what the movement is all about and what its goals are. 

What is a bad thing is when a movement, throughout this entire process, denies that it has gained any ground at all. Despite winning victory after victory, and gaining more and more ground, the movement claims that things are “as bad as ever.” I’ve noticed this phenomenon happening a lot regarding several movements with which I disagree. And quite frankly, it’s a form of gaslighting towards the opponents of the movement. Opponents, who lose more ground every year and are thwarted in their goals time and time again, are portrayed as always getting their way, and therefore having nothing to be upset about. The members of activist movements claim that they (or the people they claim to champion) are the only ones who have a right to be upset. In reality, nothing could be further from the truth. 

An example of this is the gay rights movement, which began by advocating merely that being gay be legalized. The goal of this movement was for gay people to be able to live their lives without fear of being arrested and/or jailed. Once this goal was achieved, the gay rights movement pushed for increasing levels of social acceptance, and then for legal protections that were the same as what would be given to straight couples. It was demanded that gay couples be allowed to adopt children, to form civil unions, and eventually to marry. As the infamous Masterpiece Cake Shop case illustrates, the gay rights movement demanded that businesses be legally required to serve gay couples just as they would straight couples. As queer people have gained nearly universal social acceptance, and same-sex marriage has been federally legalized, the focus has turned to trans rights. Today, LGBTQ+ advocacy centers around not only increasing social acceptance of trans people, but also increasing the availability of trans-related medical procedures for people of all ages. Gay rights organizations, their goals having been realized, have, well, transitioned (no pun intended) to trans issues as their next frontier.

Race-based movements have followed a similar trajectory. What began as a movement to abolish slavery turned into efforts to secure voting rights, citizenship, and equal treatment under the law for black people. In the 1960s, protesters were marching in the streets for equal access to public accommodations such as buses, restaurants, schools, and water fountains. At some point in this process, demands for equality of opportunity transformed into demands for equality of outcomes. Demands for protection from discrimination turned into demands for discrimination against others. Equality became “equity,” affirmative action became the norm in schools and workplaces, and political correctness silenced dissenting views. All while activists claimed that the current state of things was merely “the new Jim Crow” and that no meaningful improvements had been made for black people. Now, among the goals of “anti-racist” movements is the obliteration of all statues, memorials, holidays, place names, and monuments honoring historical figures who had anything to do with anti-black racism in any way. This is an issue that is very important to me, because I’m an autistic person who happens to be white, and whose special interest is history and statues. Race-based movements started out with goals that no one in their right mind would disagree with. But after achieving these goals, they gradually morphed into mean-spirited campaigns to invalidate the struggles of others and to actively inflict harm on people who are truly oppressed and disadvantaged, such as myself.

Logically, it makes sense that a movement would do this, because if a movement admits to having achieved all of its goals, then it would be admitting that it no longer has any need to exist. This would understandably be a difficult pill to swallow for people who have built their identity around advocacy for a particular movement, as well as for organizations that have offices, employees, fundraising apparatus, and infrastructure dedicated to their advocacy work. But to enjoy success while pretending otherwise, is not fair to a movement’s opponents. Getting your way while claiming to be as oppressed as ever is inexcusable gaslighting of those who think differently than you do. Too often, movements for social justice transform into movements for injustice, demands for equality turn into demands for preferential treatment, advocacy for inclusion becomes advocacy for exclusion, and protests against oppression and discrimination morph into demands for oppression and discrimination against others.