On the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle

On National Rreview's semi-official reaction, and the reaction of "official conservatism", to the latest 'Derb' kerfluffle, vis-a-v1s "race realism" --

As with Rush Limbaugh's "tactical mistake" of using the word 'slut' to denote someone whose very own word makes clear is a slut, if you call yourself a 'conservative' and yet you allow the leftists to set the bounds of what may and may not be said in polite company, then you are no conservative. You will, in fact, constantly be training your guns on your supposed allies, rather than on the leftists.

Now, I haven't read Derbyshire's piece, and I have no intention of doing so. I gave up on that man many years ago: in part because his vapid-yet-condescending atheism made it impossible to respect his intellect (and I mean this was a good year or more before he openly came out as an atheist), and in part because, as I said to myself, "this man isn't a conservative, he's just a cranky 'liberal' who doesn't like some of the destinations of present-day liberalism."

edit:
Apparently, NR has now made it official and dumped Derbyshire -- now that he's "offended" the leftists, rather than at any point over the past few years when he has offended reason itself, to say nothing constantly insinuating that Christians are, ipso facto, morons.

AS I KEEP POINTING OUT, unless truth is your priority, you will *always* be a pushover for the enemies of truth.

Kathy Shaidle's translation: "John Derbyshire wrote stuff like this for years, and we got to brag about having a genius on staff. But then one day Other People noticed and gave us 24 hours of virtual grief, so we dumped him."

edit:
In case it's not clear, it irks me almost as much to find myslef defending Derbyshire as it did defending Dawkins over the "elevator incident", when all his "liberal" God-hating friends jumped down his throat over the mere expression of a touch of common sense vis-a-vis "sexual liberation" and the I-get-to-have-it-both-ways-at-whim mind-set of the modern "sexually liberated woman".

edit:
I hadn't intended to read Derbyshire's piece, but I now have. Except for #13, which is cynically mercenary, expressive of moral bankruptcy, and factually false in its prognostication (as see George Zimmerman), I cannot see anything that an honest man can condenm. Sure, these things he said are unwelcome, but most of them are true: call it a set of "inconvenient truths".

Here is the reason

Here is the reason that the GOP and almost all "conservative" pundits cheerfully join the Dems in demonizing anyone so uncouth as to point out that, by definition, as one of his parents was not a US citizen, one Barack Hussein Obama simply cannot be a natural born US citizen, and is thus Constitutionally barred from occupying the office of President of the United States of America -- "... (born May 28, 1971) ... His parents ... had emigrated to the United States in 1956 and were later naturalized as U.S. citizens in 1975."

Did not Someone once point out that those who will not honor the fine points of the Law will not honor the large? As the GOP seems willing *always* to "compromise" with the Dems over the finer points of honoring the US Constitution, who but a fool will ever expect them to stand firm (much less consistently) for honoring the major points?

If they ain't listenin' ...

... the' ain't much point in talkin'

Here is another example of someone, with whom I have broad sympathy, who isn't listening and has no intention of doing so -- Cornelius Hunter: "It seems you don’t understand theism very well, and are projecting your own version of theism onto others. The result is a false dichotomy between your version of theism and atheism, a false history, and a flawed understanding of evolutionary thought."

I hope to put up a fuller post about this, but no promises.

edit:
Oddly enough, I think it is safe to predict that Mr Hunter will not make the same false assertions about Mr Torley that he did of me.

Another Tactical Mistake

Offended by religious group's highway blessing, atheists 'scrub' it away -- by "tactical mistake",I refer, of course, to the prior blessing of the roadway by the "religionists", who thereby "offended" the innocent, unassuming humanists.

Then again, when there are folk who hate the fact that you continue to breathe, then drawing breath, much less exhaling it as speech, is a "tactical mistake."

The magic of euphemism

Isn't it strange how that two words or phrases -- both meaning the same thing -- can elicit such wildly different responses?

For example, calling Sandra Fluke a 'slut' (*) is a big no-no and elicits howls of disapproval all across the land (**), including from so-called conservatives and Christians. However, calling her 'sexually liberated' or 'sexually adventurous', is a “good” thing; it’s a compliment!

For example, calling a person a ‘whore’ is a big no-no: How dare one use such insulting language! Yet, calling that same person a ‘prostitute’ is mildly complimentary (***).


I wonder, is it a matter so simple as the bluntness of the language employed? Is it a function of the shortness of the words used? Simple, direct, “Anglo-Saxon” words are insulting, but Latinate words or convoluted terms are complimentary?



(*) as she clearly is, by her own word.

(**) unless it's done approvingly, such as if she were the keynote speaker at one of those 'SlutWalks' all the “liberals”, and not a few pseudo-conservatives, were into last year.

(***) myself, I’d have more respect for a whore than for a slut, for a whore at least has the self-respect to demand something-of-value in return for self-abasement, whereas the slut just self-abases.

There is no 'communication' ...

... where there is no 'listening'. And there is neither 'communication' nor 'listening' where there is no intellectual honesty.

And, in fact, trying to 'communicate' with one who is not listening -- including not listening to what he himself has said -- only brings to the fore some degree of intellectual dishonesty and then sets it in stone. On this last, it's just simple psychology: once a person asserts a thing, even a thing he knows to be false (*), he tends to intransigently dig in his heels on the matter, especially if the other person tries to get him to simply admit the truth.

Once that happens, and depending on what one wishes to accomplish, it may be better to drop the matter (or even all matters) until he has come, of his own volition, to his intellectual senses.

(*) for example:
Person A: ""Communication" implies intellectual honesty."

Person B: "Believe it or not, it doesn't."

'Its nonjudgmentalism is a synonym for desertion and cruelty'

TheBestSchools: Belmont: Its nonjudgmentalism is a synonym for desertion and cruelty "... Belmonters might, however, serve on a blue-ribbon government committee for criminalizing Grandma’s (*) views—as part of a widely praised effort to combat prejudice against these “emerging family forms.” But one thing the Belmonters would never do is live that way. Or live among people who do."

(*) Who has the audacity to think "it’s a sin (!) that her never-married daughter has children by three different men".

Learn from my mistake

Learn from my mistake ... don't waste your money on Verizon wireless internet service. As a service, for which one spends actual money, it sucks. And it sucks even worse now that they've pushed the (to hear them talk about it, miraculous) "4G network" into this area.

Get ready to find out ...

All you folk who foolishly rail against free trade, refusing to learn that protectionism is the enemy of everyone's liberty, including of those few souls who materially benefit from it at everyone else's expense; all you folk who foolishly rail against "price gouging", refusing to understand that the "price gougers" are actually serving the interests of everyone (rather than of just the first to get there ... and of the leftists); all you folk who foolishly rail against a decentralized free market, refusing to understand that all central planning/control can *ever* produce is shortages ... well, have I got "good" news for you!

All your dreams are soon to come true -- Get ready to find out in real time (once again!) what happens when those 'educated' beyond their means
eggheads, who manage to get the people who command armies and bureaucracies, and those government timeservers and paper pushers bureaucrats, and who together foolishly imagine they can ever know enough to "properly" allocate resources, make use of those timeservers and paper pushers bureaucrats -- and the implicit, and eventually explicit, threat to unleash those armies on you if you dare to dissent -- to attempt, one more dreary time, to "properly" allocate resources. Including you and your time and effort.


President Obama signs Executive Order allowing for control over all US resources

Executive Order -- National Defense Resources Preparedness

... unfortunately, I and my family also have to live in that unfolding nightmare, and we neither desire nor deserve it, as you do.

Look, she *is* a ...

Look, she *is* a slut ... and if you're "offended" by my blunt and accurate use of the term, well, frankly, My Dear, I don't give a damn.

If you are "offended" by the truth, then you are part of the problem, you are part of the on-going destruction of America and Western Civilization in general.

The "liberals" and libertarians (and pseudo-conservatives) are not actually offended because Rush Limbaugh called a slut a slut -- they do it themselves, in praise! -- no, no, no! they are "offended" because he, compromised in this regard as he happens to be, dared to mock one of the logical end-points of the so-called "Sexual Revolution".