Warped Tour, Austin Jones, and Mob Justice.


UPDATE: It looks like Austin Jones was guilty of Child Porn Production.

Mob justice – the new Puritans –  strike the Warped Tour in the same way peasant “enlightenment” mobs lopped off heads of denounced enemies of the Republic via the guillotine in the French Revolution.  The accused, Austin Jones, has not even been offered a sham mob justice trial, but has been ushered toward the execution platform.

Tumbrlettes, let’s hold off for a moment on the mob justice and the drivel that is permeating comment sections on this firestorm that are throwing young girls into the “defenseless victims” category and dropping  “gender studies” like buzzwords like victim blaming.   This is the real world, so let’s have a real conversation.  You can surely stave off your Twitter destruction of Austin till the facts come out, unlike the courtesy you showed Joss Whedon.

I’ll say this bluntly; I’m not sure that fan girls – despite their age – “twerking” in videos for Austin Jones necessarily constitutes sexual harassment or anything close to Pedophilia which some people have been throwing out like they do words such as “racism.”    Labels – especially ones like “Pedophile”  that carry as much social weight/burned at the stake consequences as the word “heretic” did during the Middle Ages – should be carefully considered before attached to someone’s name.

In fact, shame on some out the “Journalistic” outlets in our music scene that have already done the labeling and helped further this mob action.  I’m looking at you and your podcast Pupfresh. Let’s try to at least have some cool heads and flush out the facts – you know like real journalists do.  We don’t all have to pull a Rolling Stone.

Also I dub this entire firestorm #TwerkGate

Is it raunchy and inappropriate because of the age variation?  The current socially acceptable answer in this point in Western history would be, “Yes.”  I make that point because of how “relative” everything is in our culture – including the nature of law. Post-modernism has it’s price you know.   Note, I’ll go with “Yes” as well.

To some extent, the twerking video requests do constitute taking advantage.  This however, is not even close to the same level of asking for nudes that the fellow from Front Porch did.  However, would the reaction and disdain for this be different if he was 17 or 18 at the time of these twerking requests?

Depends on who you ask, but the change.org petition is up and they are demanding all kinds of blood and entrails from what is probably going to be the corpse of Austin’s career, especially if this guy has anything to say about it.

Somehow, I don’t think that’s get this beta orbiter laid with these girls that are “so much stronger” than him.   Maybe he can lure some of Austin’s fans into his own quarters.   (Wait for the rant video of his that is later featured in this post.  It’s full of some quality anger and frustration.)

Austin has already been labeled a pedophile and a host of other nasty labels without any real pause to consider how serious said labels are.   The line between what is or is not “pedophilia” on a legal basis can be thin;  in Illinois the legal age of consent is 17 – exception for those over 18 in a position of trust and/or authority.)   In most states its 18.  That one year makes a big difference.

It also assumes actual sexual encounters of someone kind.  Is twerking and some of the “dancing” Austin requested really something we can throw into that category?


Dancing At The Warped Tour

If you’ve actually ever been to the Warped Tour – which I have multiple times and its clear some of this mob hasn’t – it’s a rather large mix of kids who are about to start highschool, already are in highschool,  have just graduated, or are in their early 20s.   You don’t actually know anyone’s age, but its safe to assume a good 50% are in highschool or younger.

I wish Milwaukee's Main Stage didn't suck.
I wish Milwaukee’s Main Stage didn’t suck.

There are many different tents and “booths” set up where people dance – regardless of age.  I managed to win a t-shirt at one “booth” in which I danced with and against multiple people.  The lady with the loudspeaker organizing encouraged us to dance the best we could to eliminate the other competition.  (I won.)

Does this mean she was preying upon the younger kids when she encouraged us all to dance because some of the kids dancing were below 18?

Was it therefore inappropriate?

How about the Trojan condom tent that was giving away freebies to all comers regardless of age? Was that somehow encouraging “inappropriate” activity based on the mixed ages who attend the Warped Tour?

In fact, what about hardcore dancing? Maybe that’s inappropriate depending as well – or some how “sexual”.  (I could make that happen actually.) 

Seriously, who can we all throw under the bus?

A  recent show in  Philly involved some guy ditched all of his clothes and started hate moshing everyone in sight.  At least he waited for the breakdown to behave like a moody insane deviant, but what about all the people around who had to see his bare ass and drooping ballsack?  I guarantee not all of them are 18 – not at these shows.

Should he asked every one there  what their age was and killed the shock surprise factor in the process?   (Note the guy hitting people with a chair is the reason we can’t have nice shows anymore – or rather that most venues won’t allow anything that utters the words, “metal” or “hardcore” in the title on the fliers.


In case I’m a terrible communicator, or you are just very daft, the point is that none of this is every clear-cut where it plays out like a math problem where 1+1 = 2.    Chances are that despite how memorable and legendary this hate-moshing was – he could get nailed for indecent exposure and “to a minor” could be tacked on.    On a side-note, what if he was under 18? Does that mean everyone there that saw him and was moshing as well are guilty of viewing child porn?   (Does that mean this video counts as such? Let’s hope not.

Details Yet To Surface

Some of our enlightened and well-educated friends have already passed judgement in order to be seen as supportive against exploiters and warriors of justice and “deuchebags” in the scene.   Let it be known that it’s rather easy to get thrown under the bus by adoring fans, haters, and Tumblr SJW’s alike.   Kevin Lyman in a surprising change of pace from his usual social justice tenant adherence isn’t ready to join with the above crowd yet.

“The word ‘pedophile’ is a strong, strong term,” Lyman tells AltPress. “While the world can be screwed-up at times, there is a criteria for things. In the court of the internet, people’s lives are being dragged out in front of the world with no due process. People throw very strong words out onto the internet and when it is old news to them, it leaves a trail of destruction in other people’s lives. This country was built on the concept of ‘innocent until proven guilty.’ Are we going to go back to this Salem witch hunt mentality? Communication needs to happen. I am actively encouraging that If women and girls feel they are being victimized, tell your parents, go to the police, talk to counsellors.”

No shit right?

Unlike some,  Lyman actually understands the importance of not rushing to judgement or lightly throwing out labels like “pedophile” in a situation that involves twerking.   Yes, this country was built on innocent before proven guilty, but that can be ignored if you desire to prove your loyalty  to the “Im a good person” club to prove to your fellow highschool mob members – notice the comments on the Change.org petition, Youtube, and Twitter; they all wreak of people who have something to prove.

In fact, it’s not enough for you to denounce him, other popular figures in the scene need to do the same or feel bad/made to feel their wrath.  Take some of the people trying to bully comedian Jarrod Alonge  into taking a certain stance:

To everyone that’s been concerned, YES, I’m still on Vans Warped Tour this summer. I’m not actually a “Warped YouTuber,”…

Posted by Jarrod Alonge on Monday, May 11, 2015


On a humorous side note of irony, you’ll notice that the same people who denounce the terrible puritans for the Salem Witch trials gladly encourage and participate in the exact same behavior – except it’s okay when they do it.   Anyone remember their lynching of Sam Pepper?

Lyman is standing very strong in concern to caving into those trying to bully him and tour’s image into dishing out justice before all the details have come out:

When asked if he felt this stance would jeopardize attendance at this year’s tour, Lyman responds, “If you’re not going to go to Warped Tour because of some perceived mob-mentality injustice, you should maybe volunteer at a non-profit that day.”

He put it rather nicely, but this is a rebuke for those people who swear they won’t attend the Tour unless their demands are met.  Note the below video or “podcast” that attacks everything from Austin’s character to if he is funny, entertaining, ect.    I guess ad-hominems determine the truth of allegations.  Here is some SJW commentary in which this fellow seems to rant about “empowering women” and him being on a power trip, abusing his attention, and about how his apology wasn’t good enough.  Not as much on the actual situation. 


This kid is throwing his “friend” to the curb, but it appears he legitimately believes Austin’s behavior was too inappropriate.  So much for friendship right?   I suspect his career might have something to do with it, but I also suspect the social justice mob pressure plays a part.

If you wish to pass judgement, here is some of the supposed evidence:

Austin needs to weather this storm.

His reputation may never be recovered, but these mobs quickly move on after they get bored of their public executions.  If you end up in a similar predicament in which the mob is burning torches and heading your way, remember to stand strong, and wait for the dissipation usually only days later.

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should save the pedophile label for you know – actual pedophiles.

Rejecting Guilt By Association

Regardless of what mortals you follow, adore, admire, and pay homage you will at some point disagree with them.  Whether it’s most of the time or almost never, no one will ever hold exactly all the viewpoints that you have come to cherish.

A tweet from Milo Yiannapolous prompted the above line of thought in which he voices disagreement with libertarians on the NSA spying incident – color my libertarian tendencies irked.


Obviously, he is mistaken, as his his later tweet about Snowden being a traitor and not a hero.   I’m also above reproach in my conclusion. 

Today, the internet echo-chamber or “communities” as we call them is often bereft of any actual substance in discussion when it comes to disagreement over just about anything.  Dissenters are labeled “concern trolls” or just “trolls” in general.   In fact the word, “troll” has lost it’s meaning because of the abuse of the term.

Throw in “safe-spaces” and this takes on a whole new layer of people who immediately dismiss anything that comes from an opposing side.   If you make the mistake of identifying with a label that is considered “bad” or triggering, everything you say is immediately dismissed – regardless of the validity of what you say.

We need to start judging statements, comments, and opinions based on what they actually are –  the merit and validity of them – instead of who said them.    Whether they come from a radical liberal feminist or a neo-con warhawk, it shouldn’t matter; we need to reject guilt by association.

Encountering the “Other Side”

Take for example Cindy Brandt’s site/blog which I recently came across and her post, “You Don’t Need To Tell Me You Don’t Agree.”   She actually makes alot of good points, despite certain… social justice affiliations.

Well, I don’t agree.   Okay, I couldn’t resist.  Take a look at this specific observation:

“Which one of us agrees on everything with any other single person? No one! Certainly, many of us share similar passions and congregate according to common interests, it’s only human to interact with those who you resonate easily with. But if you dig deeper, or you spend enough time together, it isn’t long before one discovers there are indeed some, if not many points of disagreements with those we are in relationship with.”

As she points out, no one will  ever agree on everything, but with today’s identity politics and culture its often either all or nothing.  If someone doesn’t share enough “similar” passions, interests, and convictions,  chances are that most people won’t give anything they say the time of day.   This is more likely if they know about your “opinions” and affiliations before they evaluate what you’ve actually said.

“If we are honest with ourselves, adding the phrase is a form of social insurance. We want to protect ourselves from the risk of being associated with certain things this person represents. “

It certainly is a form of social insurance, but why?

People seem conditioned to pre-judge and make assumptions based on labels and what they “represent”, so what choice is there but to adjust? Unfortunately, this is the reality of where we are at.  It rather sucks that these qualifiers are needed, but can anyone point to topics of conversation where they aren’t?

The risk of being associated with someone who is deemed a racist, bigot, homophobe, ect or any other culturally deemed demagogues can be cause for your employment to be revoked. Consider Razib Khan who was initially hired by the New York Times, but then let go because of his “association” with right-wing publications who were deemed to be mired in racism.    So much for diversity of opinion right?

Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint...
Whoever was working here must have spilled this paint…

Shockingly, the fact that he isn’t even white was enough to save him from the wrath of social justice warriors who usually excuse certain people from terrible actions, deeds, and statements based purely on their genetics.  Another mighty journalism giant bows before Gawker and SJWs.    Apparently, all you need to do is label someone a racist enough to make them suffer the effects of today’s modern heresy.

For instance, Cindy describes herself as “social justice-y” on the side bar of her site.  GASP!

Someone, pull the alarm.   Danger is near.

  My spidey sense is tingling.

Now a large amount of people will probably dismiss anything she has to say because of the affiliation with social justice.  Don’t make that mistake; don’t fall prey to guilt by association.  I  may fall to this ever constant trap subconsciously, but then force myself to read what is actually state.  Some exceptions are made for Tumblr…

I strongly disagree with almost everything  modern day social justice folks advocate – what normal sane person wouldn’t – but I won’t necessarily dismiss something because of who is advocating it.

“We can dialogue with people as people, other human beings with different personalities, life experiences, and ideas. We can celebrate common ground without erecting walls or drawing boundary lines. We can connect without disclaimers, embracing the whole of our conversation partner along with her ideas. Let’s base our conversations with one another from a place of shared humanity instead of basing it on fear by association. “

Is this really possible? Can we connect without disclaimers? I don’t think we can.

Tales From The Online Crypt

I recently encountered and “argued” with some conservatives on TheRightScoop about the subject of police abuse.   Obviously, they deny this is a real problem.  In order to even get them to look at anything I have to say, I had to utter the following disclaimer, “I’m not a democrat…”

This is of course true, but if I didn’t point this out, said conservatives would assume I’m some sort of liberal because I disagree with one of their viewpoints.

Behold, the current state of online discourse.

If you disagree with someone on an issue you are immediately considered to be a follower of the opposing “side”.   If you disagree with some of the trash on the Huffington Post, you are a right-wing bigot, ect, ect, ect.   If you take issue with something on Breitbart you are left-wing marxist, socialist, ect, ect, ect.    Qualifiers are absolutely necessary.

“The power of association, of tribes, of communities, is so strong that we take extra measures to ensure boundaries are clearly marked, compelling us to insert disclaimers even in casual conversation. We are so fearful of being grouped with the “wrong” crowd as perceived by the person we are speaking with.

I do not think this is a healthy way to dialogue. I think it is a sign of disrespect to curate someone’s ideas, extracting it from their whole selves with all of their complexities and personhood.”

She is right; it’s not a healthy way to dialogue.   Yes, we must consider the context of a person – if that makes sense –  which is necessary to fully understand their ideas and why they have them. However, in today’s charged, “guilt by association” culture, you absolutely have to introduce qualifiers into the conversation or anything you say will be dismissed based on you supposedly are.

The need for safe spaces...
The need for safe spaces…

One popular “Debate” tactic is Godwin’s law.   To sum that up, it means that you equate a certain argument, idea, or even person to Hitler.  This of course invalidates anything they have to say.  Or does it?

Just because Hitler said something, doesn’t qualify it as being incorrect – such as his radical environmentalism, state control of “healthcare”, ect.   In fact, I’m sure almost everyone today holds some positions that Hitler advocated on economics, state control and power, and the environment.

Color me shocked.

This time-held tactic is “guilt by association/wrong by association” and is employed by disingenuous teenagers, tumblrites, and many adults who want to shout down others based on who they are, rather then what they’ve said on extremely important blogs and websites where their comments clearly make a difference.


Don’t be one of “those” people.

People who engage in daily displays on their Facebook feeds in guilt by association tactics usually have something in common;  they are angry, upset, and jaded.

Their life is a never ending stream of  un-fulfilled selfies, self-loathing, and vicious attacks on anyone who looks like they wallowed in depression for weeks upon end.   All of these bitter people online have one goal in mind; if they can’t be happy – neither can you.

Go outside of your bubble and live.

It’s been said that you can’t argue with certain people, and that is true. Argument however shouldn’t be the goal of every interaction.  You don’t need to “win”.    All you need to do is engage, discuss, and see if any new seeds are planted in either your mind or your “opponent.”   In order to any of that, you must reject guilt by association.

Perhaps, you may just develop a relationship with someone where you don’t need qualifiers, but you must take the initiative to do just that.

I encourage all to go out and have face-to-face conversations with people you know you disagree with. You will be surprised at what happens when both of you or others involved have a conversation that isn’t based on “convincing” anyone of a particular point, but is focused on the exchange of ideas and worldviews.

This is how you grow and become a more rounded individual.

 It is one of the first steps in today’s vicious culture in becoming a renaissance man.

Reject guilt by association.

Weight Loss and Caring About Your Friends

How much do you care about your friends?
How much do you care about your friends?

A friend of mine has been struggling in the dating market – to put it simply.  She wants a guy that is attracted to her, and she wants to share in that same reciprocity.   We will call her Liz.  A Facebook status about it went up.

(Disclosure: Liz had a crush on me for a long time.  Her weight was the main reason I didn’t share the same feelings.  You can’t force attraction. ) 

Now Liz isn’t exactly the most attractive girl, and the fact that she is overweight doesn’t make it any easier for her to improve this.   Most of her friends posted things like, “Oh you are sooooo pretty,” and “Guys will and/or should like you for your personality.”

I decided to be more honest, though I made sure to cushion it, “It wouldn’t hurt to lose some weight.”

Sensible advice right? Weight loss is one of the most effective ways to make yourself more attractive, assuming you are overweight.  Your 20s are a time when you should be making the most out of your looks – regardless of how limited they may be.   It is when you are at your physical prime.


Getting to a normal healthy weight?

Damnable fat shaming, body hate social media heresy.

One response involved something like, “Those people are shallow anyway, they should like you for who you are, and they wouldn’t be worth it if they don’t like you now.”

That’s flattering and to some extent is true, but it doesn’t nullify the fact that the potential dating pool of nice guys who may be interested in Liz for her personality and who she is are far and few between.   Then then throw in the percentage of “those”  nice guys who Liz is actually attracted to and the prospects are rather grim.

It is in fact a comfortable lie, but it ignores a fundamental truth; People are shallow. I’m shallow. Even those people who are not are very unlikely to give her a chance to reveal her inner beauty.

Instead of telling Liz the truth like real friends would, they continue to lie and tell her things she knows isn’t true.

As Andrew from TheRulesRevisited pointed out, in regards to a guy and his girlfriend,

“When you do these things, you are letting your girlfriend wallow in her mediocrity. If you tell your friend that she looks good when she doesn’t, she isn’t going to make an effort to look better next time”

You can boost her ego, but that won’t help her situation get any better. It also won’t promote REAL confidence.

Liz’s situation isn’t unique. It’s far more common then we realize and it means that there is a large group of people all seeking romance, but doing it with what is essentially a paper bag on their heads when compared to the more in shape parts of the population.

Basically there is an abundance of overweight people who don’t want fellow overweight people, but the slimmer more attractive folks they see in TV shows and film.   We all want a mate of the opposite sex who is more attractive then us.  (Excluding the 5% or lower of “other” sexual attractions.)

Don’t believe me?

A Large Nation-Wide Problem


Obesity and curse of being overweight have struck our society hard. Romance – or at least the possibility of finding it – is made even more difficult for a rather large percentage of the population:

  • Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are obese: 35.1% (2011-2012)
  • Percent of adults age 20 years and over who are overweight, including obesity: 69.0% (2011-2012)

Let’s not pull punches.  Being overweight and obesity has killed members on my dad’s side of the family because of things like heart disease, diabetes, and sleep apnea.   Thing is they already know about this and about how bad it is, but it’s so hard for them to lose the weight and there is a rather scary reason for it.

If we are perfectly honest, if you were overweight as a kid, it’s much harder to lose weight as an adult than it would be if you at a normal weight as a kid.

“The number of fat cells a person has is determined by late adolescence; although overweight and obese children can lose weight, they do not lose the extra fat”

What can we do with inconvenient truth?   Well, I could encourage her to “accept her body” and hope things get better.  Natural confidence right?  It won’t change the situation and it isn’t going to magically attract any “good-looking guys” to her,  but it should make her feel happy and proud about her body.

According to the body and fat acceptance crowd at Identities.Mic it will.

“The intersectional issues of size, health and weight loss are far more complicated than we’ve been led to believe, and this lack of understanding has led to weight-based discrimination becoming a serious problem across the world. Widespread anti-fat prejudice typically stems from misconceptions about health, weight and body positivity, and negatively affects millions of people every day.

People are allowed to make their own decisions regarding their own bodies, but we need to start treating people of all sizes with respect.”

Somehow, I don’t see how this is going to help these overweight people find the storybook romance they so desperately seek instead of the in-game WOW partner we are encouraging them to quest with.  Nor will it deal with the vicious health problems that will occur once you hit your 30s and later.  Note some damage is irreversible, and when that becomes the kind of body power/acceptance doesn’t seem very “feminist” to me.

Now, your life doesn’t exactly stop when you are overweight – nor should it,  but will you actually get the romance and love life you desire from the people you are attracted to?  The crew at RandolphRiot definitely seem to think so.

“Fat Fashion is all about women feeling comfortable in their own bodies no matter how big they are! This form of feminism is helping women feel empowered by their own bodies no matter how small or big the woman might be, and I believe that is an amazing accomplishment. This gives me hope!”

Hope.  It’s a big deal – for anyone. In fact without it, people have loss the will to live.  It can motivate you, but is the self-backlash worse if you realize the hope is false and/or misplaced?

“…Do you think this form of feminism can lead to the elimination of the perfect body image?”


Because people are visual creatures, and because some kind of “preferrable” standard will always exist.   We can eliminate all the current media driven standards on beauty and any words used to describe them, but culture will simply form new ones.    Why?

People are shallow.

I’m shallow.

However, most people aren’t going to wade through the unattractive waters to see if anything desirable lies beneath. Liz won’t be given the chance.  Perhaps those guys who don’t give her the chance aren’t worth it, but the guys who will?   Chances are, she isn’t going to be attracted to any of them.   I’ve seen it happen many times already.   Is there still a chance for the magical and mystical quest that is Romance?  Some fat-acceptance advocates on Psychology Today seem to think so:

“Love, sex and romance did not stop for close to a hundred million people! Let’s face it—we live in a culture that shames fat. An entire diet industry is built around that shame

We also live in a culture that shame cigarette smokers, but I suppose that doesn’t count. Well, is it shameful to encourage people to be healthier?

“The message that is being delivered in great big heaping doses is pretty simple: if you lose the weight—you will find love, romance and sex. Thin equals happy and entitlement. Fat equals broken and not worthy. What they don’t tell you is that there are plenty of unhappy thin people too. Thin is simply not the magic bullet”

She actually is right, but it will greatly increase your chances. People might actually give you a second look on Tinder before they swipe.  They might be more likely to help you out in the store – happens to me alot.  Guys might actually look directly at you for a while before looking at your friends next to you.

Is this mean?

At this point in the social justice epidemic, I can’t be bothered to care anymore if I want to continue merely drawing breath; thanks Tumblr and feminist fat acceptance screeds.   However, boosting their self-esteem by lying to them isn’t going to land them any more success in the dating market.   It doesn’t mean that they should give up and stop trying, but things could be much easier.

In case you don’t know, I’m actually a hopeless romantic.

Deep down, I want everyone to find someone to live that idea Notebook life with – that includes social justice warriors and ardent radical feminists.  I want them to experience love, romance, and that good old life that I myself desire.

Something else the manosphere has got wrong is its reaction to the fat acceptance movement and this whole “fat shaming” theory that is raging in the feminist blogosphere.   I’m not shocked that overweight obese feminists want to abort beauty standards, “cultural norms” of what is attractive, and the ideal body weight.  You would too if the men you were interested in were getting snagged by more attractive and fitter competition.

However, Fat Shaming” isn’t the answer.    If I’m brutally honest, I found ROK’s #fatshamingweek to be hysterical with some of their tweets.  Yes, I still find dark morbid jokes that deal with obesity to be funny.  (All or nothing when it comes to my take on comedy and what the limits are.)


As Mike has later realized, this does nothing to actually help, besides generating outrage, which it did very successfully.  None of that however is going to convince people to lose weight.  They already know they are overweight, and they know it is affecting them.    The hope you can provide support to the people you value in continuing to help them lose weight, exercise, and even diet.

What Can You Do?

If you really care about someone, you present them the cold harsh truth, but you are supportive in how you do it.  You are essentially giving a friendly critique, rather then a trolling criticism designed to make them feel more shitty.

Here’s a personal story that relates to my family:

My dad who was about 5 foot 7 inches and weighed over 360 pounds struggled to be able to do any exercise.   He started to rapidly gain weight when he hit about 23 and the weight just kept adding up.   Around 48, he started experiencing nausea, dizziness, feeling light-headed, and he was drinking an excess of water as he felt constantly thirsty.  He was was exhausted and never felt rested; his sleep apnea made this even worse.

A similar weight, lack of exercise, and bad diet had killed my dad’s father at only 54.  I was worried about his weight and so were my mom’s parents in particular.

What woke my dad up was finding out that he had the signs of type two diabetes.   From this point, he did everything he could to try to improve and change his diet.  He started to eat only whole foods, and avoided processed foods.  When he ate meat, it was grass-fed.  He would switch to actual raw milk.

Upon reading “Forks Over Knives” and doing a lot of his own research, he would become a Vegan for dietary reasons.  Fast forward just about two years and my dad has lost over 120 pounds.  He reversed the type 2 diabetes, has lower blood pressure than me, and has no signs of heart disease.

Just over a year into his Veganism, he started to be able to finally exercise, play floor hockey, and feel refreshed and full of energy.   (Note, I’m not a Vegan.)

That support is key.   Once you hit a certain threshold, it becomes VERY difficult to lose weight, like it was for my dad.  Often people’s jobs actively hinder exercise and our American time centered culture usually entails to many people frequently eating terribly on the run.

Often, I see many people in the fat acceptance movement promote the same kinds of lifestyles that killed my Grandpa so early as something to be embraced. It is isn’t and it rather angers and disturbs me that the movement is lying to people in the way it is.

However, that won’t blind me from the fact that it really is hard to lose weight, my dad being the anecdotal evidence.   My dad’s life didn’t come to a stop just because of his weight issues, but they were a profound barrier and hindrance to him living well, active, and actually enjoying each day.

People in the Fat Acceptance/Body Acceptance movement will stand by it, but sometimes it’s critics – myself included – overlook the efforts they put in to trying to live healthy lifestyle, being active, exercising,  losing weight, and trying to get healthier. (Diet may be the easiest approach at first.)  Instead of trashing them, we should be encouraging them.

Take for example a somewhat better known fat acceptance advocate by the name of Ragen Chastain who runs the advocacy site, “Dances With Fat”.   While we may facetiously chuckle at the title, Ragen is on the frontlines fighting the fat fight – but doing at least some of it in a healthy way.   She teaches a dance class, does some dancing herself, as well as from what I can tell some form of exercising.

Dancing is very good exercise.

She of course is a social justice advocate, member of the “fatosphere”, an ardent feminist, and she brings awareness to tumblrisms like, “Thin privilege,” in her fight against “cultural beauty norms”.  It perturbs and saddens me.  She lists more about her ideas:

As a plus-sized professional athlete, I practice Health at Every Size and as a human being I am an unwavering advocate for Size Acceptance – the civil rights truth that every body deserves respect and that the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable, not contingent on size, health, or dis/ability.

Wait what?

The civil rights truth that everyone deserves respect…  Well,  with ideological opponents, you often have to agree to disagree.

She also promotes health at every size.   What exactly is that?  Well according to her it is:


  1. Accepting and respecting the diversity of body shapes and sizes

  2. Recognizing that health and well-being are multi-dimensional and that they include physical, social, spiritual, occupational, emotional, and intellectual aspects

  3. Promoting all aspects of health and well-being for people of all sizes

  4. Promoting eating in a manner which balances individual nutritional needs, hunger, satiety, appetite, and pleasure

  5. Promoting individually appropriate, enjoyable, life-enhancing physical activity, rather than exercise that is focused on a goal of weight loss

Well there is plenty there that I and others would point out is wrong, but instead let’s focus on what she said that she get’s right which I’ve underlined and bolded.   At least she is trying to do better and get others who struggle with weight to engage in things like, “Life-enhancing activity.”    In fact, she does actually have some decent diet and activity ideas worth checking out.

(She actually finished a 26 mile marathon in Seattle about two years ago.  For her size and weight, that’s pretty damn impressive. I haven’t even attempted a marathon that long.) 

Good for her.

Hopefully, she lives a well-fulfilled life and enjoys every moment of it to the max.  I do however suspect that if she lost some weight, her beauty wouldn’t be as obscured.  Like it or not, people are more respectful, are friendlier, and more partial to those they regard as beautiful.

Insisting that everyone is “beautiful” at every size isn’t going to magically make it so.     Reducing the word so that it means essentially nothing won’t change that either.   It will just be replaced by words like, “preference”.

That is the point.  

If you want to widen your net to include more attractive dating partners, you will have to make an effort to do the same.   This may be shallow, but it’s something that will never change – regardless of how many times social justice warriors insist that it just merely another cultural norm that must be eliminated.

Encourage your friends to widen their nets by losing weight.  Yes, you can be happy and still be overweight, but you could be so much more.

Speak up.  


Don’t be afraid.


Tell the truth.


Support them. 


#RaceTogether And Have Your Reputation Destroyed

Prepare Your Smartphones For War

#RaceTogether is a minefield filled with short-tempered caffeine deprived customers who consider the concept of patience to be hate-speech rather then a virtue.   Then throw in some barbed wired and machine gun nests known as the smart-phone.

Every one has a smart phone these days that can record any conversation – a blessing and a curse.   It’s a foregone conclusion that any actual honest dialogue can take place between groups of extremely racially sensitive people.   Your words are a tweet away from being broadcast to the dark corners of tumblr dwelling other-kins and SJWs who haven’t forget that people with dissenting opinions are actual humans.   Davis Aurini makes a good point about this:

That is just the obvious hindrance.  The actual primary problem is that people view this entire idea as less of a conversation and more of a, “I’m mad at your kind of people for these reasons,” lecture.   Actual dialogue on a subject so controversial can’t take place in any public setting as you could lose your job.

In fact, it doesn’t actually matter if you are what society considers to be a “racist” or any one of the “ists” these days.   Once accused in the public eye – or rather the social media feed – you are guilty until proven innocent which means you are forever guilty on a basic Google search.

Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.
Caffeine Deprived Intruders Are On Their Way.

The Poor Baristas…

Let’s think about the Baristas for just a second.  Not only does #RaceTogether fulfill that old joke about SJWs at liberal arts colleges becoming Baristas, it adds a particular new explosive compound for angry uptight customers to get free beverages and add further misery to the idea of “customer service.”

Perhaps Schultz has been preparing his guinea pigs for these kinds of experiments all along and actually intends to scare off some of his already well-off liberal white types who spend 3k+ on Starbucks a year.  After all, how many flak barrages intended to induce white self-loathing can these types endure?

Schultz’s idea will create friendly fire situations and the casualties will be his own fellow ideologues.   Think about it, how many of the intended targets – backwater redneck conservative stereotypes – actually frequent Starbucks who aren’t actively boycotting it?  That was a rhetorical question.

Despite the backlash and drubbing coming from various sides of the spectrum , some of the mainstream media consider this a great idea. Time Magazine actually proclaimed #RaceTogether as a “brilliant” and “bold move” rather then a kamikaze mission in which allies will have their eco friendly cars sunk.   No, this doesn’t make me happy, it makes me sad.

What about the dialogue?

An honest conversation about race will only occur (1) between friends & family with liquor involved and the smartphones put away and (2) when people stop seeing every last damn thing through a racial lens – namely SJWs and many on the left who base their entire identity off race rather then the actual person.

Remember, vast generalizations and labels of people based on their race, ethnicity, and gender are perfectly acceptable as long as it’s the right people.    Being judged based on who you are is just too tiresome and isn’t convenient for being a part of the continual victim club.

The Necessity Of Compassion – Vacationing From The Internet Battlefield

Internet Burnout From too much Politics


Necesitamos compasión.   Necesito mas compasión

As much as I despise and revile modern day feminists – specifically the radical ones, I feel sorry for them.  I’ve noticed a cruel streak that not only infects opposing political ideologies – namely conservative vs liberal, but also in the ideologies that I am particularly interested in – the manosphere and feminism. The hatred I see from them both angers me, as I do have a pair of testicles, but saddens me as well.   To add more fuel to the fire, the  vitriol that  is usually returned upon them by many in the manosphere and this plagues any actual honest attempt at online discourse.  In fact, it’s not possible on twitter – don’t even try.

All indications point to the internet as being the catalyst to kick this inner rage into twitter cyber lynch mobs.  While these mobs can’t kill you or put you in prison like a king could, they can make your life a living a hell – like getting you fired for starters.  Even feminists are starting to worry about it.

I recall that piece which blew up on the internet in January by Scott Aaronson, the MIT professor, who had the worst kind of “nerd” nightmare that one can imagine growing up. It was so bad – as was the effect of feminism on him, that he contemplated chemical castration and suicide because he was terrified of oppressing and harassing women through any kind of conversation with them.   Despite all this, he states that he is still 97%  on board with feminism.  That is some devotion right there, though I wonder how long that will last.

Some feminists showed some mercy, as well as pointed pointed out that he had a flawed understanding of feminism, while of course pointing out that he still had cis white male privilege.   Some however dismissed the plight of nerds as very low on the agenda table – such as fellow self-loathing male feminist nerd Arthur Chu. Others showed absolutely no mercy – with Amanda Marcotte again leading the charge for the nasty side of feminism.

After reading, Marcottes column, I was initially stunned. This was a male feminist ally who she had ripped a new asshole. The bullied nerd had been trounced unconscious with internet fervor and foment of some of the nastiest that online feminism had to offer.  Marcotte of course would be there to deliver the coup de grace curbstomp.  (Maybe she is just a really terrible person.)

When I finished reading her article, it finally hit me; we are all losing our compassion and our ability to show empathy.


Retaining Your Compassion


I also sometimes worry that I could become like them; so filled with hate for the terrible things said and done in the name of feminism, that it engulfs me and turns me into a nasty and bitter person.  Could I literally lose my identity to an ideology that is supposed to free me – name The Red Pill?

Let’s say I knew someone was a feminist and a particularly nasty one.  Imagine it was Lindy West, Anna Merlan, or even Jessica Valenti – “shudders” – and they were broke, alone, homeless, stranded, ect – would I be compassionate?  I really hope I would.  Sure karma is a revenge best served cold, but everyone deserves at least some measure of mercy.

I will admit, I enjoy jokes made at their expense, the fun that should be poked at them, and the moderate ridicule that should be made of some of the things they say and positions they hold.

However, everyone – hopefully – has a base moral compass that is aware of the importance of compassion. Forget the gender of someone in need, would you help them if it didn’t directly benefit you? (Yes,  I’m aware of the friendzoned beta male white knights who end up becoming emotional tampons without the kind of reciprocation they most desire – sexual reciprocation.)

Still, shouldn’t we bother to help the downtrodden when we see them, regardless of whether they have had it coming or not?  While women like Valenti who “bathe in male” tears both yet again anger and sadden me, do I really want to bathe in “female” tears?  I imagine Valenti is just being as snarky as the rest of us – myself included – are when we want to let loose.

Look at women like Valenti, Merlan, and especially Marcotte.  Take a close look at the nastier voices of feminism and what it has turned them into.  I don’t believe they actually like their lives or the lives of others around them – specifically people who are happy. Misery does love it’s company.  Their only satisfaction and enjoyment in life seems to be reduced to hating and beating on men, both on the clock and off of it.  That’s a shallow purpose and identity which will have consequences later in life.

The question I must always ask myself as I critique and dismiss the particular virulent parts of feminism is, “Do I really want to become the reverse of them?”


Getting Back Into The Real World


Internet burnout picture
Seriously, take a break. Talk to actual people.

In the online world – specifically social media – we often forget we are conversing with other REAL people.  Yes, we will meet some deliberate trolls,  but the vast amount of our opponents are not trolls, but sincere meaning people.  Yes, I said that about feminists.  Too often there is this ultimate  boogeyman concept that we slap onto all of our ideological opponents.  Yes, the internet has gotten more polarized and full of vitriol, but that only goes to prove that you need to get off social media, the manosphere, ect and actually converse with real people.

Take the opportunity to talk to self-identified feminist in a non-digital environment and you will notice a distinct difference in the conversation that takes place – something even some feminists have noticed.   Megan Murphy from Feminist Current pointed this out in an article about the problems with twitter feminism:

“But, for the most part, I haven’t found Twitter to be a positive experience. And I’m not just talking about harassment from misogynists, I’m talking about the internal shit. The mean girls-style popularity contest so many of those on feminist Twitter engage in. The take-downs, the bullying, the mocking, the defamation, the snide remarks, and the absolutely endless stream of hate.”

Never forget that you are talking to REAL people and not digital monstrous constructs behind a smartphone have forgotten that real life is quite different from the internet battlefields in which the corpses keep piling up.

“And sure, you might say, people behave like that in the “real world.” But the funny thing is that, in the real world, I’m happy. I generally enjoy my life, despite common challenges like rent-paying, work-finding, relationship-maintenance, etc. I don’t feel or see an inordinate amount of hatred among the feminists I know and work with on a human-to-human level. It happens, sure, but not daily. Not constantly. And the vitriol is decidedly muted.”

She is quite right.   In the real world, I’ve been able to converse with feminists in when engaging in conversation in real life and avoid engaging in the kind of vitriol that occurs online and in social media.  I find it puzzling, because while I try to “live” online in the way I do my every day actual life, my “I don’t care if this offends you,” anger comes out.

However, I control how my anger and frustration is expressed in the conversations I have. Personally, I’ve long strived to make sure that I don’t exist in an echo-chamber.  Because of this, I often engage in conversation with people whose views I find scary, dangerous, detestable, ect.  This is a lot easier and more productive however when done in person.


How could anyone actually hold the opinions they do? It’s frightening!


Then again, I suppose they are thinking the exact same thing.  Disagreement is inevitable.

Expressing your anger in a vicious, atrocious, and appalling manner is not.

Never forget you are a human being, just remember to act like one – even in the face of some of the nastiest ideologues of our time. Don’t become like so many feminists and social justice warriors who can’t handle disagreement to the point that they are willing to silence said disagreement by attaching labels like “harassment” to dissenting voices and opinions.  In fact, they have even gone so far as to label “oppressive language” – which they of course define – as actually limiting free speech.  The Orwellian descent of tolerance continues to deepen.



Don’t get me wrong, expressing your anger is a necessary part of life.  Injustice should deeply bother and anger you. However, the way you go about expressing that anger however will say alot about who you are and what you are becoming.

Make no mistake though, don’t back down from what you believe. Don’t allow yourself to be bullied and shamed, *cough Scott Aaronson* something that ironically has become so intrinsic to modern day feminism.  Sometimes, you may need to let some of that rage out.  Just pick how and where and consider whether it will be constructive – like at the gym or blowing things up on Call of Duty – or negative like exploding at a barista at Starbucks.

We all want to be heard and one way to do that is to state everything in the angriest possible way – going viral to get the necessary attention for your subject matter.  The blogosphere has become a competition these days to go viral – and being constantly and consistently angry and enraged is a good way to stir up controversy to try and do just that.  It’s also a good way to let your “online” persona start to bleed into your real life character.

The Red Pill and many of the resources in the manosphere can greatly help you become a man and embrace your masculinity in light of the ever present assault on it.  There must be to becoming a man and to life than bitching about feminism.

This is fundamentally what the Red Pill is about when it talks about self-improvement consuming your time and turning you into a better person. You pick yourself up and you keep going.  If you start to lose all of your friends, close relationships, and a dire misanthropic attitude toward mankind – which I understand with bad days at work – you might want to examine how you are letting the TRP effect you and if it is altering your identity into what inspired you to take TRP in the first place.

So take a break from online and social media. Mingle. Meet people. Talk with them.  Even feminists acknowledge they need a break too.

Is it Cultural Appropriation? Or Perpetual Fake Outrage?

Wait, You Still Are Racist!

Nothing can destroy your career, cost you Facebook friends, and present many other life-enduring difficulties such as people believing that you are racist or have done something racist.  Being declared as a racist is almost like being labeled a heretic in the 14th century, except you might not be burned at the stake… yet.

“Cultural appropriation” is just the newest frontier in the fight against racism – a struggle that looks like it will never be overcome, not even in the most luscious of utopias.  It is also a cleverly designed tactic by certain folks to not only stop “racism”, but to make sure that it continues to endure and spread.    You can shout cultural appropriation when a member of a different race, culture, ethnicity, ect does something similar to your own.   Once they stop, you can then shout, “Non-inclusive environments and ingrained structural racism is preventing them from appreciating the unique aspects of our culture in society!”   It’s a brilliant Catch-22 and a way to always have something “ethno-centric and racial-centric” to criticize.   Page views over controversial headlines anyone?

Now,  I’m half-white and I can play the “genocide” card, so luckily when I enter into specific left-wing conversations and “internet spaces”, nothing I do can be racist because there is no such thing as reverse racism, members of the oppressing class can’t be oppressed ect.    Sweeping labels and generalizations really are a wondrous thing.

I came across this article on XoJane by Dianca London,  “UNPOPULAR OPINION: I Can’t Love Taylor Swift Anymore Because Yes, “Shake It Off” Is Still Racist”.    Quite a claim.   So how was it and Taylor Swift being racist?

“I felt nothing but frustration and anger watching Swift’s quirky twerk and even more anger as I watched her crawl on her knees beneath a line of twerking bodies. The coy look on her face as she stared at the bodies above her made me sick. It wasn’t just problematic. It was racist.”

She ends this article with a stern warning about the effects of  cultural appropriation.

“Cultural appropriation might be a current hot topic for bloggers and those who consider themselves to be allies of women of color, but for women of color like me, it’s another reminder of all the ways in which my identity is constantly being devalued, mocked, and trivialized by the media and its stars. “

So how does one go about determining what exactly is culture appropriation?

Well damn.

Remember the white girl who donned some lengthy braids a few weeks back? She was eviscerated on social media, because apparently people of African descent own braids.   Apparently, there are many styles, foods, ideas, ect owned by certain cultures and those of us not in those particular cultures are left in stark and utter confusion as to whether we can make their food, listen to their music, or become Hindus.   At this point, we might as well throw Eminem to the dogs because “rap” is clearly owned by black folks.

I sense a disturbance in the Force.

But Multiculturalism?!?!

There seems to be this fine line between “appropriating minority culture” and embracing someone’s cultural ideas, styles, ect.  Can it happen in the reverse? Is all of history simply “cultural appropriation”?   Tumblr of course tells us that cultural appropriation can only happen one way, specifically when concerned with “White supremacy, white privilege, entitlement, colonialism, ect.”   There is a GIGANTIC elephant in the “cultural appropriation” room. It’s called multiculturalism – a deeply held value by many of those who also hold onto the idea of “cultural appropriation

It is very disturbing that in one breath people can rage about about society not being “inclusive” and then in the next use phrases like cultural appropriation?   The entire idea of cultural appropriation seems to be a direct contradiction in the embracing of the values of multiculturalism.   Or we can embrace the segregation of cultures with concepts like, “cultural appropriation” and then rage as to why racism and cultural conflict is “still” on the never-ending rise.

Wherever this “line” is, I’m still not sure.

A sneaking suspicion arises in my mind.  Those who claim “cultural appropriation” and offense from are desperate to find something to label, “racist”, so that people will pay attention to them.  Rising to the number one slot in the “Oppression Olympics” is far more important than real racism, because in order for the country to supposedly conquer racism, there must always be perpetual outrage concerning the subject, even if no racism is witnessed in one’s daily life.

Simply put, if you can’t find racism in someone’s actions or words, find something new to insinuate as “racist”.  I am however starting to not care about claims of cultural appropriation, whether someone else commits them or I do.

If you do want to call out and maintain a consistent platform that prohibits “Cultural Appropriation”, here are some great places to think about and start!

“1. Eating at Chinese restaurants by white Americans and other majority non-Chinese should be looked down upon, as it entails the physical ingestion of Chinese culture.

2. Anyone who suffers a serious but non-permanent physically debilitating injury shouldn’t be allowed the use of a wheelchair, as this is an ableist appropriation of differently abled culture.

3. Members of the privileged and oppressive white majority should never, under any circumstances, expose themselves to black entertainment or express an appreciation for it. Jay Z is for black men and women only and the producers of 12 Years a Slave should give back the film’s Best Picture Oscar in the name of making a direct statement against appropriation. The same goes for Latino entertainment. Production on Machete Kills in Space by Open Road Films should be halted immediately.

4. Under no circumstances should members of the privileged class give their children ethnic names without the express written consent of a majority of that culture or a dual ruling from the staff of Salon.com and that woman who runs Shakesville. Anglo Americans specifically should be required to research proposed names for their children to ensure that the meaning of each name has no ethnic connotation going back at least four generations. Also, no Biblical names unless one is Jewish or otherwise related by blood to the cultures of the Middle East and holy land.

5. Heterosexuals or members of the heteronormative patriarchy may not, during karaoke, perform the version of Willkommen made famous by Alan Cumming in the 1998 Broadway revival of Cabaret, as that would be an immeasurable appropriation of gay and bisexual culture. Likewise, no one outside of the LGBT, specifically the trans, community should be allowed to watch and enjoy RuPaul’s Drag Race.”

Doubting The Faith, But Demanding A Purpose

For those of you who don’t know, I was raised as a Christian.  In fact, I still retain many elements of a Christian worldview.  However, it would be disingenuous to call myself one considering I am not practicing nor embracing key parts of the faith.  I am still highly sympathetic to the overall Christian community

To be honest, I’m not completely sure what I believe.   Most of those who leave the faith usually do for reasons of outright rebellion. It is fair to say that I am in a rebellion of sorts, but I still don’t see it as a enough of a reason to completely throw out my worldview.

My “deviation” from the faith has taken place within the last year or so and has been for mostly carnal reasons – engaging in pre-marital sex and a kind of enjoyable narcissism – yet I remain very conflicted.    I enjoy my current life of sinful pleasure, to the point of willful rebellion, but I am fully aware of it.

My father raised me with a Christian worldview, specifically one that deals.  heavily with presuppositional thinking – something that I filter every idea through.   It has caused me to become somewhat of a philosopher at heart.   I’ve looked for alternatives to the faith, but I have not found any viable ones.  I know I am not alone in this predicament.

Most of my friends who became Atheists, Agnostics, or whatever else did so for the reason as to be absolved of responsibility to a specific moral authority.   They are essentially advocates of a moral relativism that allows them to do whatever they wish at this particular time.   I see why they do this and it is an easy route.  I however feel that is shallow.

At my core, I am desperate for a worldview that isn’t dependent on human reason for it’s moral standards, its tenants, and its suggested purpose of life.  Because of this, I find the concept of appealing to human reason through human reason to be circular logic and foolish.

The problem for me is that if I ditch religion, science can’t actually provide me with answers to the major questions of reality, not to mention that science is totally useless on moral questions.  One person pointed this idea out on a comment thread:

“Science, properly defined and understood, explicitly refuses to even get involved in the most important questions. Life, the Universe, Everything. Science stops with a firm thud at the Big Bang, saying nothing at all about what came before or even if that question is even a meaningful one. Science can’t come to grips with Why.

Currently I am at this odd crossroads of depressing philosophical thought:  If there is no absolute truth of any kind – might makes right.  Influence, power, and money make right.  The implication is too scary for me to accept.   Instead I suggest like the X-Files says, “The Truth Is Out There.”  I really hope it is.

I have come to ponder upon the idea that life is short.  I could die tomorrow.  Any of us could.

I am not daft however.

What To Do?

I don’t want to live as a hedonistic narcissist because of this acknowledgment, but I also want to enjoy every last second I have – while still planning and anticipating the future.  Yes, I feel as if I am consumed by cognitive dissonance.

In the Bible, the first chapter of Ecclesiastes covers the concept of vanity, something that has created in me a philosophical mood and outlook that is seriously and worryingly quite pessimistic.

16 I said in my heart, “I have acquired great wisdom, surpassing all who were over Jerusalem before me, and my heart has had great experience of wisdom and knowledge.” 17 And I applied my heart to know wisdom and to know madness and folly. I perceived that this also is but a striving after wind.

18 For in much wisdom is much vexation,
    and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow.

Hate the Bible or not, this is a valid and important point.  The more “knowledge” we acquire, the more despondent and pessimistic we become.    Getting that college degree, large house with a white picket fence, a family and children, ect seems almost useless and vain.  What’s the point? Shouldn’t I just become a complete hedonist and live every moment like it’s my last?

We all die at some point. Nothing can go with us, and we have no idea if there is any kind of afterlife or not.

This disturbs me because the idea of an afterlife is often the only thing that inspires people to be “good” – and I shudder at how relative the idea of what is “good” has become in modern society.   In the modern world, “good” is simply determined by who has the biggest megaphone on social media and who is driving the current accepted cultural narrative of “good.”   That is comforting, and yes, anyone with a brain can see that the assertion I just made is correct.

People mention we are progressing in concern to humanity and what is “good”, but no one seems to have a destination in mind as to exactly where we are progressing.   I.E. -” Like in art when a work is described as ‘significant’ – Significant of what?”  

If good is as relative as everyone these days insist it is – because absolute truth is such a dangerous concept – then what is there to stop us from evil besides the threat of punishment from a government for whatever is accepted as “evil” in our current time?

Quintus Curtius from the manosphere brings up an important point about this:

Man cannot be exhorted to do good by words alone; he must be held in the grip of terror by a religion that promises damnation if he misbehaves. Religion provides the backing to a moral code that rises above man; the myths, fables , and stories of religion are there for a purpose, and that purpose is to impart a moral code that can keep man’s baser instincts in check.

Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 27).

“He also needs myths to sustain him, to console him in his bereavements, to provide a code to anchor his life, and to impart a sense of meaning to this mortal existence. Snatch away his mythos, rob him of his ideal, and you banish his spirit to a rudderless drifting in life’s drama. It is a cruel fate, and one that is far too common. But for some men, the myth is strong. And it is the last thing to die.”

– Curtius, Quintus (2014-09-05). Thirty Seven: Essays On Life, Wisdom, And Masculinity (p. 25).

As the great Christian thinker and philosopher Francis Schaeffer would say, “How then should we live?” Like Shaeffer, I desire an absolute of some kind – in his case the Bible – as to which I can conduct my life and evaluate society.    There is an interesting point about Schaeffer’s interpretation of the moral quandary impacting modern society in his, “How Then Should We Live” series:

“When we base society on humanism, which he defines as “a value system rooted in the belief that man is his own measure, that man is autonomous, totally independent”,[6] all values are relative and we have no way to distinguish right from wrong except for utilitarianism.[7] Because we disagree on what is best for which group, this leads to fragmentation of thought,[8] which has led us to the despair and alienation so prevalent in society today.

I am feeling this despair.  I don’t know honestly know how to solve it, but I fear that the longer I go without an answer, the more worried I become about my future.   I want to retain the Christian faith that I had, but the “faith” part is lacking.

I am eagerly exploring “alternatives”, but there seems to be no worldview out there which doesn’t require a fundamental leap of faith at its core to begin it’s particular journey.   Yes, science can give us facts, but it can’t answer metaphysical issues nor these two questions which pop into my head every day:

What is my purpose in this life? How should I live my life knowing that tomorrow isn’t guaranteed?

In fact, where do I go from here? What do I do?  How should I live?   Is there any conclusion whatsoever that isn’t fallible and based on the assumption of humanity? I have become stuck in a circular spacial vacuum of uncertainty and I don’t like it.

If You Support Abortion Rights, You Should Opposed Forced Vaccinations

Do You Get A Say In What Happens To Your Body?

Today, the question that is captivating the public’s attention is, “Do you alone make the choice’s over your own body, or do others have some say in it?”  You would think that most of the people who insist that only you have a choice over your body – abortion rights namely – would do the same with the debate over vaccination. Apparently not.

Our wise friends at the “The Good Men Project“, a hotbed of consistent bad advice for men lays another gem of wisdom onto us in an OpEd through author Shawn Henfling,

“It is my opinion that the CDC recommended courses of vaccinations become compulsory, not voluntary. Exclusions for personal belief should hold no weight when considering the greater public health. ”

I’ve seen the Daily Beast, The Huffington Post, and several other more liberal publications lambast Chris Christie and Rand Paul for daring to suggest that mandatory vaccinations conflict with parent rights.   I don’t agree with Christie much, but he is right on this.  In fact, it conflicts with both the rights of the parents and the “body” rights of children in general.

Remember, if it is your “body” and the government shouldn’t be able to control what you do with it, that doesn’t only apply to just “abortion” and reproductive rights, it applies to every other issue that concerns your body under the sun – including vaccinations.   Unfortunately,  this rather simple level of consistency is not only rejected by some liberals, but is lambasted as irresponsible.

What’s gets even more bizarre is that condemnation of people who hold “anti-vax” positions aren’t just limited to liberals, but to conservatives as well.   The “anti-vaccination” movement actually started on the left, but then was taken up as well by religious conservatives and now millennial libertarian/liberal types.  This is actually bi-partisan support and opposition on the vaccination debate.


You must accept the needle.

You Don’t Own Your Body

Okay, at some level I see their point when it comes to vaccination of kids about to enter a school.  If a disease would spread unchecked from your kid, because you don’t want to get a vaccination, I could see arguments as to why you shouldn’t be able to send your kids to that school.  In fact, the Supreme Court has ruled that if you wish to put your kid in a public school, they must be vaccinated. (This is all the more reason to homeschool and give your kids an actual education.)

I however reject this totalitarian idea that the parents must comply and then force their kids to get a vaccination.  I can understand if the kids demand one, but they so often don’t.   Leave it up to some of these liberals – and even conservatives as well – to politicize the issue and suggest quasi-fascist like ideas of control upon the populace despite it being our “bodies”.   Conservative leaning The Federalist believes that opponents to vaccination simply don’t understand it:

Calls to jail ‘anti-vax’ parents, for instance, strike me as extreme and disturbing. But vaccination is not about protecting the vaccinated so much as it is about protecting others from disease-carriers. Vaccines are properly understood not on the basis of narrow self-interest but as a defense of the human species.

Speaking of calls to jail people and/or parents who won’t vaccinate their kids, Mr. Alex Berezow in an opinion column for USA Today, appears to be sick to the point of twisted in strong tyrannical state power and the “collective good” in his article entitled: “Jail ‘anti-vax’ parents.”    Yes, he actually said that.  We’ve heard about the dangers of radical individualism upon American culture, but never forget the effect of radical collectivism upon the culture with statements like this, “Put simply, no person has the right to threaten the safety of his community.”

I can’t help but shake my head in dismay at the implications of that statement. Yes, an individual must consider the impact of their actions upon a community, but that doesn’t automatically equate to trumping individual rights.


Employing Common Sense

Unlike some folks, I don’t actually oppose the concept of vaccinations. I do however want to make sure they have been thoroughly tested and I also don’t trust our government in this regards – and no, that doesn’t make me some tinfoil hat conspiracy theorist.   I just firmly believe that “choice” as my liberal friends seem to selectively apply should most certainly apply here.

Rand Paul – love him or hate him –  articulated this point in a CNBC interview about the subject:

“I’m not arguing vaccines are a bad idea,” Paul said. “I think they’re a good thing. But I think the parent should have some input. The state doesn’t own the children. Parents own the children.”

It is here yet again, that I find myself in agreement not only in agreement with Paul, but with the hippies, treehugger, eco-friendly folks, vegans, organic foods people, ect on yet another issue.  I continue to shock myself.  I don’t care if the science is 100% in favor and support of vaccination. Choice on an individual level isn’t sacrificed even if it is.

Mr. Henfling is essentially saying  that the argument of its “your” body only applies to reproductive issues. Good to know there is a principle level of consistency at the core.

I wonder what other things we can force upon people in the name of “social responsibility.” Note that scary word of “compulsory” and how it usually impairs the freedom of others. I guess that doesn’t matter if you can justify it under “social responsibility”.



Why is Catcalling Bad?

We are often told in life that many things are “bad”.     Some are obvious – theft, rape, murder, ect.  Others such as “cat-calling” are not.   I ran into this article on XoJane in which this smoking hot babe was catcalled. Determined to do something about it, she confronted every last one of them.  Either there were only 3 encounters worth mentioning, or she was only catcalled three times – group encounter for one of those – in a week.

Something that kept popping up in my mind: Why actually is catcalling bad? Most men – and I use that concept sparingly – know that it often doesn’t work, hence it usually is employed as more of a “I’m messing with you” kind of interaction.   Well these days, almost any kind of interaction can become undesirable, offensive, and even become capable of being defined as harassment.

Catcalling has been a bullet point for most of today’s modern first-world feminists. We know they don’t like it, but they never have really set up a “doctrinal statement” with all the trimmings as to why catcalling is offensive.   (1) “I’m offended”, is not an actual valid argument.  Why should we care? Just to get the cycle rolling, perhaps we are offended that they are offended.   (2) Just because certain women are offended by it does not actually make it offensive.  (3) Interactions that make you uncomfortable aren’t inherently wrong.

Her main “argument” against catcalling seemed to be that it makes women feel afraid:

How can you explain to a stranger that a compliment makes us feel afraid? That words like gorgeous and beautiful sound like threats when we hear them whispered to us on an empty street late at night? That we feel uneasy, objectified, and uncomfortable when you say this to us while we’re going about our normal routine, not asking to be judged on our appearance out loud? That this thing they do for fun is at the expense of our peace of mind?

So if something makes someone afraid, we shouldn’t say it? Where exactly is the line drawn? So what if it causes fear? What if this women actually causes fear just by the sound of her voice?

That’s not a quick chat you can have with a stranger on a street corner. It needs to be part of a bigger conversation, earlier on, by the people who are in charge of shaping you into a respectable human. When we’re being taught as young women not to respond to this kind of attention, we need to also be teaching our young men not to engage in this behavior in the first place.

Until she and the rest of these radical 3rd wave feminists provide a thorough methodology as well as a strong philosophical foundation for why young men shouldn’t cat call,   we should ignore and dismiss her demands as illogical and irrational.  In fact, I’ve talked to girls who claim they like and enjoy cat-calling.  While it is a somewhat mundane form of validation, why should I encourage others to acquiesce to the demands of this writer vs these other girls I’ve talked to? It’s also not just the ladies I’ve talked to but ladies online, including self-identifying feminists.   Decisions, decisions.

I very much dislike in today’s polarized and vitriolic climate.  I also take issue with the constant refusal and automatic dismissal of people based on what they identify with as well as the labels others give them – yes that includes radical feminists and all other “labels” I disprove of.   We should never become these irate walking narcissists who will only associate with others who think as we do.   However, we must be careful as well.

In the end, if a woman confronts you about “catcalling” its an immediate, glaring, and vibrant red flag that you should ignore her and refuse to converse with her any further. Walk away, and if she refuses to stop following you, threaten to call the police.  The chances are high she could be a radical feminists who has a score to settle with the male half of our species and defining your words as “harassment” is her logical next step.   When you run into the Jezebels of the world, it’s best to avoid them, or face their wrath in which the ends always justify the means.

Happy Conversing.

Is Money In Politics Bad?

This always depends on whose money the “political party” and advocates are receiving. Ultimately, it is it’s own time held tradition of American hypocrisy that can be summed up as, “It’s wrong when you do it, but okay when I do.”

I came across this article in The Washington Post detailing a list for 2014 revealing the donors for the Center for American Progress.  CAP finally decided to do this after taking some criticism for a lack of transparency from fellow progressives as well as conservatives only too eager to point out flaws in their opponents.

Notable top donors include Walmart, financial giant Citigroup, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, and some large biotech and pharma firms.  Walmart is actually particular shocking, considering unions’s attitude toward them and their top-dog status as a progressive punching bag.  This however, is not what what we should apparently be paying attention to.

“We’re proud of our donors,” CAP president Neera Tanden said in an interview. “We’re very diversified. We have a very low percentage of corporate donors. We have a wide panoply of individual and foundation supporters.

In political campaign financing and lobbying, there seems to be this odd disconnect between who you should take money from and why.  Most progressives will insist that money in politics is bad, but won’t hesitate to ask and accept plenty of it in order to win political races and advance certain agenda’s.  It was not too long ago when Michelle Obama decried the influence of money in politics, only to request campaign donations in the same speech only minutes before.

The irony of this hasn’t been lost on those on the left. This was brought up by The Atlantic in an article a few months back, “Is Philanthropy Bad for Democracy?”  in which Gara Lamarche made this point about his fellow progressives:

Why are they are not more concerned about the undemocratic and largely unaccountable nature of philanthropy? Why are we—since I too have failed, for years, to ask these big questions—hypersensitive to the dangers of big money in politics, and the way it perpetuates advantage and inequality, but blind, it seems, to the dangers of big philanthropy in the public sphere?

A prevailing question that continues to remain is as to why money from “corporations” is dangerous, but money from huge political PACs, non-profit organizations, ect are not.   The CAP president emphasized the variety of donors and foundations contributing money as somehow not as “bad” as receiving money from more “acceptable” sources. Why?

The fundamental question we must ask is rather simple: Do the end’s justify the means in regards to where the cash comes from?  There is no gray area.  Either money in politics is bad or it is not.  People with strong political involvements are willing to make all sorts of exceptions about where they get their money from while condemning others for doing the exact same thing.

At some point, there must be some consistency or the whole argument breaks down into what it has become now; decrying others for doing the exact same thing that you are doing.  While you may be right about the destructive influence of “their” money in politics, it doesn’t make your identical actions any less destructive.

Either we get rid of money from politics all-together, or we quit pointing fingers at people getting funding from places, people, and worldviews we don’t like.   This of course brings up another issue: Is money free speech?   That is another debacle with it’s own mess.