An important reminder:
View this post on Instagram
Source here
Category: philosophy
bookmark_borderYou exist…
bookmark_borderA sexual assault survivor’s wise words on vaccine mandates
“Our patience is wearing thin.”
Nearly four years after Joe Biden said these words, they still send a chill down my spine. I recently came across a Substack post from a writer called Holly MathNerd, which does a great job of articulating what was so disturbing about Biden’s speech:
“That speech triggered my PTSD from sexual assault. I sat there, slack-jawed and horrified, listening as the President of the United States — a male authority figure — declared that if I wanted to keep my job, I had to enter a room, remove part of my clothing, and have my body penetrated with a medical instrument of his choosing. My will and my consent were irrelevant.
He was making the rules. My body, his choice.”
You can read the rest here.
Although I myself am not a survivor of sexual assault, these words resonate with me. There is something about being told that you are required to have your body penetrated – and that you don’t have the right to opt out or decline – that is profoundly, enormously, and fundamentally wrong. Sickening. Horrifying. The right to control your own body is the most fundamental right that there is, but this right did not matter at all to Joe Biden and his supporters. In their eyes, my will and my consent were, indeed, irrelevant. For reasons that I will never be able to fully comprehend, Biden and his administration believed that when it comes to my body, what happens should be their choice. There are no words that can adequately explain how completely and utterly messed up that is. But Holly MathNerd’s explanation comes pretty close.
bookmark_borderAnalogy for the Federal Interstate Handgun Sale Ban
bookmark_borderLicensing liberty
“If the State converts a right (liberty) into a privilege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right (liberty) with impunity.”
This is the way it should be, at least.
View this post on Instagram
Good question.
Source here.
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
View this post on Instagram
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.