The Hilarious Perils of Online Dating: Men’s Side of the Story

Hot Date

Which gender is worse when it comes to this? The conservatives would say it’s women, the liberals would insist it’s men, but I say it’s BOTH! Ha ha!

I love the College Humor site! It’s funny and gives you good insights into everyday aspects of life that we’ve all noticed and lived through. It’s an entertaining alternative to dry scholarly examinations of how people behave in our present day consumerist society that are penned by psychologists and sociologists. The article lists that use sequential art-based scenarios to provide side-splitting examples of the topic at hand are among the best of what this site’s content scribed by wryly observant authors has to offer.

Recently as of this writing, we got a nice little gem entitled “Pros and Cons: Online Dating” by Amelia B and Paul Westover. Really great and hilariously informative stuff, especially this part:

Online Dating from College HumorOnline Dating - Pros and Cons02

LMFAO!!! Yes, all ladies who have frequented dating sites or apps have dealt with the typical sleazebag, one-track-mind type of guy with deceptive advertising on sites like OKCupid, Tinder, etc. No argument there.


“Geez, it sure doesn’t help my image to share a nom du guerre  with guys like that!”

So what is the “problem” with the above, if any? Well, just a minor little one: the total lack of balance. Yes, heterosexual women go through lots of shit with the “creepers” from these sites who advertise themselves as stand-up guys, but turn out to be… well, something different. But what we don’t see here, or in too many other places in our PC-conscious world, is the type of female creeps that heterosexual men routinely meet on such dating sites/apps. These female “creepettes” (did I just coin some new slang here? Go me!) also have their atrocious share of issues and one-track-mindedness, albeit most often in different or opposite directions to those of their male counterparts.

Let’s add some balance to the “social atrocity” scale by giving some typical message responses heterosexual men all too often get from the creepettes when they contact women who advertise themselves on these dating sites:

1. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Hey babe! Would you like to watch me get busy with myself on cam? Only $30.00 for 30 minutes, and I’ll do some rilly rilly naughty shit for you!

2. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Will u plz rate my pics? Go to Plz give me 5 rating and share with ur friends!

3. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: WTF!!?? I don’t know you, asshole! Are you some sorta creeper?!

4. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: *Sigh* That is sooooo unoriginal! Fuk offf!

5. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Hi.

Man: It’s nice to meet you. Can you tell me a bit about yourself?

Creepette response: [no further response, even if she initiated the conversation]

6. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Can you plz do me a favor? Can you send me 1 thou amerikan dollars so I can gett a plain ride out of my kountry and can come and meet you? I look so forward to meeting u are such my knight!

[Yes, some of the above swindlers are men pretending to be women, but some have proven to be women by actually encouraging their male victims to travel to meet them first, or actually showing up in this country if they successfully bilk some naive lonely fool schmuck, and then continue to bilk him in a faux “relationship” until they get their green card. On other occasions, such common false advertising on dating sites that target lonely heterosexual men are the work of a man and woman working together — a lethal creeper and creepette team-up!]

7. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Um… fine? Can I help you?

8. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: Just so you know, I’m only looking for friends here.

Man: Alright, nothing wrong with just wanting friends, but if that’s what you’re looking for, then why put up a profile on the Dating section of the site instead of the Just Friends section that is specifically designed for people looking for something platonic rather than romantic?

Creepette response #1: Oh, I see, so you’re only looking for a girlfriend! You can’t accept just a friend! No wonder you don’t have anyone, you’re a self-centered dick!

Creepette response #2: Fuk off, asshole! No one uses any section of this site to look for more than just friends cause yer a total loser if you need a website to find romance and can’t do it in person!

Man: As opposed to needing a website like this to find platonic friends in the era of Facebook, Twitter, Google Groups, Tumblr, Reddit, etc., etc.?

Creepette response: Shut up and fuk off!! [ends conversation]

9. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: No, I don’t want to cyber with u asshole!

Man: I wasn’t looking for cyber, I was looking for romance, and I’m trying to meet someone and get to know them since this is, you know, a Dating site?

Creepette response: Bullshit no man ever messages for anything other than 2 cyber ur obvously a creeper fukk off and die!!

10. Man: Hi, I’m Chris, how are you doing?

Creepette response: That makes you sound like a misogynist who is trying to disempower me! And don’t try to mansplain your way out of it, it’s obvious you’re an oppressive beneficiary of the patriarchy!

female Joker

“Message me… I DARE you! *evil Joker laugh*”

Yup, guys have quite the experience on these dating sites and apps too. I just wish I was exaggerating the above! You just gotta love the mutually competitive, as opposed to reciprocally conciliatory,  nature of the genders under a system that encourages competition and one-upmanship in all aspects of life, huh?


Why Both Haters and Supporters of Obama are Shameless Hypocrites






One of the many ridiculous phenomena I see in political arguments–chiefly in the Right vs. Left, Republican vs. Democrat, Christian vs. secular realms–is how people from both sides of the Obama fence willfully ignores the polices  and principles  any given politician stands for, and instead rationalizes atrocious anti-democratic behavior in favor of arbitrary factors such as:


What religion they belong to, or what people suspect their religious beliefs might  be, or whether or not they consider themselves a religious person at all; what political party they happen to belong to; what race, gender, or ethnic background they happen to be, or happen not to be; whether they publicly identify as “Right” or “Left” of the political spectrum; what their public mannerisms happen to be; whether or not they are considered good-looking, or articulate speakers, or whether they come off as someone we imagine we could sit down and share a beer with (or perhaps an orange juice for us teetotalers), etc., et al.


Case in point, but just one of many: The loony hypocrisy I see between many people–including a few personal friends on both the “Right” and “Left” of the political compass–who are either a mindless hater of Obama, or a mindless supporter of him. It’s my profound pleasure to get this rant off my chest and tell both sides why they need to put themselves above this meaningless nonsense and support principles and policies that actually matter  to our lives, and to the fate of the world.




George W. Bush Library Dedication

Obama: *clap clap!* “Hurrah for American global hegemony! Right, Mr. Bush?”

Bush: “You got it, blo!”

Obama: “Um, I think you meant bro,  Mr. Bush… and that was rather racist.”

Bush: “Whoops! My apologies, Mr. President. I assure you, some of my favorite housekeepers were black!”

Obama: “Um, no doubt. Anyway, Mr. Bush, at least we’re down for capitalist dominance of the people, and American dominance of the world, right?”

Bush: “I like what I’m hearing, bro!”

Obama: “Um, hee hee, you know it! And God bless American Empire, right?”

Bush: “Yeppers! I knew there was a good Christian somewhere inside ya there, Mr. President!”

Bush supporters, in unison: “Fuck Obama! He’s the Anti-Christ! And-and… a Muslim! And he’s pro-gay!”

Obama supporters, in unison: “Fuck Bush! He’s not a Democrat! And-and… he’s a Republican! And he’s anti-gay!”






 I. Is There Really Any Major Difference Between Politicians Like George W. Bush and Barack Obama?


I’m glad I asked that question!


There are no fundamental differences between the policies of Barack Obama and his hanger-on Joe Biden, and those enacted by the immediate predecessor administration of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney. None. Whatsoever!



Both sets of men are dyed-in-the-wool supporters of the corporate hegemony of the 1%, the tiny handful of people in America–and by extension, the world–who benefit from this top-down, dog-eat-dog, ruthlessly competitive economic system that impoverishes huge segments of the working class, and is rapidly shrinking the size of the so-called “middle class” (i.e., the segment of the working class who make decent enough wages to lead a relatively comfortable life… until, of course, they are hit by unexpected expenses like huge medical bills, an expensive necessity like the furnace or a vehicle going on the fritz, being laid off or terminated from work due to downsizing or offshoring, etc.).  Both of them support a global order based on massive inequality and the building of a vast global empire that operates on the basis of imperialism, perpetual war, oppression of any group of people who may make the best scapegoat at any given time, monopoly control over all media and information outlets; all of which are the essence of capitalism,  the private ownership of all the industries and services every human being on this planet requires for basic survival, comfort, and access to information.



Let’s start with good old Dubya, which is always fun.


Bush took full advantage of the 9/11 attacks on America, using the incident to initiate draconian domestic policies like the USA Patriot Act and the establishment of the Dept. of Homeland Security, which served to enact and rationalize a vast amount of systematic spying on millions of Americans, as well as the governments of several of their foreign allies (including those in the European Union), sans any requirement of a warrant and no serious oversight.


He justified the flagrant lying to the general public about WMDs (that’s an acronym for Weapons of Mass Destruction to the many politically illiterate out there) being present in Iraq to justify a brutal assault and prolonged war on that small, nearly defenseless nation that killed or seriously injured thousands of innocent people, a large chunk of that number being children; those children who weren’t killed or maimed were so infuriated over seeing their neighborhoods blown to bits and family members killed before their very eyes that they became easy recruits for the next wave of anti-American terrorists, who are spawned by the endless imperialist policies which the global capitalist system–led by America and its closest allies in the G-8 nations–thrives upon.


Bush also launched a rampant suppression of whistle-blowers and any media outlet who may have presented criticism of his policies (remember what happened to the Dixie Chicks?).  He made the infamous and ominous “you’re either with us or against us” announcement to the world. He further led the way for polices that blatantly broadened the definition of “terrorist” and “terrorism” to cover just about any person, group, or actions that opposed U.S. policies. This included nationalist insurgents in Iraq who limited their assaults to military targets, and simply wanted the U.S. forces out of their country because they viewed them as an occupation force, not a “liberation” force; as well as certain American dissidents by labeling them “enemy combatants.”


He established Guantanamo Bay and other “black” prisons that denied inmates the important Constitutional protections of due process and habeus corpus  (how many Americans do not know what these things mean, or even care?); and allowed for the use of torture under the euphemism “enhanced interrogation,” along with extraordinary rendition to put prisoners in the hands of governments that never ascribed to the Geneva Conventions in the first place (how many Americans know what extraordinary rendition means, or simply don’t care? Or the Geneva Conventions, for that matter?).


He strongly supported the dismantling of Medicare, hoping to transform it into a private investment fund where workers would be encouraged to risk their life savings the same way they would if they played the stock market. This would guarantee that many elderly retired workers would lose everything in bad investments, thus receiving less than the pittance they currently receive under the government tax-supported system… only worse,  since they would now be responsible for paying the government back for funds advanced to them for the investment purpose.  Bush wanted to de-regulate every business and privatize virtually everything, including the Armed Forces to at least a certain extent by hiring numerous mercenaries trained by the private corporation Blackwater (since renamed Academi), as well as technicians from various firms, to replace government-paid and accountable soldiers and technical specialists. So much for supporting the troops, huh?


Now we come to our esteemed President Obama, who is also fun to throw a bit of truth at.


Obama came into office by manipulating the hopes of many progressives and other Left-of-Center participants in politics, including those who foolishly believed his race somehow made him immune to the corruption that can befall any human being placed in such a position of power, or supported him simply for the novelty of getting America’s first black president into office, without really caring too much what his policies or loyalties were. From the get-go Obama’s supporters were willing to ignore plenty of evidence that he supported most of the same general policies that the Bush/Cheney administration did, including the fact that he likewise accepted vast amounts of private funds from lobbyists representing the 1% (euphemistically referred to as “special interests” by the press) and appointed numerous well known Wall Street fat cats to helm his various fiscal-oriented departments (yanno, so they could run the government like a business and support the continuation of the de-regulation craze).



One of his most pernicious distracting lies was his alleged, much-ballyhooed support for the establishment of a “government option” to supplement our wasteful for-profit health care system, whose eventual outcome made it quite clear he never intended anything other than a hefty giveaway to the big health insurance and pharma corporations who have nearly every high-ranking politician in their pockets, and the American health care system itself by the proverbial balls.



After his election, Obama continued almost all of the Bush/Cheney assaults on the foundation of democracy, including the policy of perpetual war in Iraq and Afghanistan, escalating the very same foreign policies that result in worldwide hatred of America, and ultimately led to the horrific 9/11 attack. For that, he hedged his bet on his numerous blind followers conveniently ignoring the fact that destructive attacks of this nature occur almost daily in the Middle East by  the American government, rather than against  it.  After all, it should only matter to Americans if other Americans are getting attacked, especially on American soil, right?



Along those lines, Obama’s use of drone assaults and targeted assassinations of even American citizens now living abroad with no requirement of trial or due process have been particularly baneful. His suppression of whistle-blowers and invocation of the “natural security” excuse to rationalize this has surpassed its invocation by all other past presidents combined. Let’s not forget his current antics going on in the Ukraine, which is provoking Russia and allying with Neo-Nazi “anti-communist” elements to establish a pro-Western coup in that nation; all of which is gearing for a mad war with Russia and China that Bush, Cheney, and their “Project for a New American Century” empire-building cronies have been hoping for all along so as to establish one ruling class as the dominant one on the planet (guess which ruling class that is?). And of course, the Blackwater/Academi mercenaries have been utilized as faithfully by Obama as by Bush, as 400 of them have recently been reported on the ground in Kiev, with evidence of this backed up via video uploads to YouTube.



Yet… many Republicans and other right-wingers–including the Christian Right–continue to hate Obama, despite the fact that he has given them 98% of what they want!



Equally ridiculous are the many left-wingers who continue to support Obama, despite the fact that he has continued and even in some cases escalated the very policies their principles stand against, and the very things they vehemently criticized the Bush/Cheney administration for carrying out!  WTF, you might be asking?



 II. What is Up With This Mass Hypocrisy?



Here’s the thing which I believe explains this phenomenon: Americans are conditioned over the first 18 years of their life in what passes for our standardized education system to not  develop any critical thinking skills, and to limit their creative faculties to a few very narrow directions. Because they are forced to endure this situation during their most formative years–when they lack the civil rights to resist–by the time they reach the age of universal granting of legal adulthood, they have already been intellectually “zombified,” completely complacent with the current system, and used to limiting the parameters of their incessant debating to arbitrary and “wedge” issues that in no way challenge the very system they live under itself, or the basic and major economic laws it compels the entire world to operate under.



The majority of people who do fight for change tend to be those who have natural critical thinking skills, and were thus less likely to have had these faculties successfully suppressed; or individuals who were later able to develop them against many odds. This is why all revolutions have started with a handful of agitators, with the great masses only adopting a willingness to consider fundamental change when material circumstances finally get so bad that it forces them collectively out of their system-induced intellectual stupor.  But as history and the present make clear, things often have to get very bad  indeed before the sleeping masses “wake up” en masse.



The above, I think, explains a lot, including the particular phenomenon described in this blog. Specifically, it appears that the majority of people in any given era who live under a class-dominated system are willing to adopt a group mentality within the overall worldview. That is, they basically accept the major aspects of the world order that keep their era’s equivalent of the 1% in power over the vast majority of the world while limiting their energy and bickering to arbitrary issues that do not challenge the actual system itself. In fact, these distracting arguments only serve to play into the hands of the ruling class on many levels, foremost among these being the manner in which it keeps large swaths of the working class divided against each other into separate camps fighting over meaningless nonsense and secondary “beside the point” issues instead of standing united as a class like the capitalists generally are (save for the odd rogue or progressive maverick capitalist here and there).



This groupthink is all about brand loyalty, and has nothing whatsoever to do with the principles and policies of any given politician. It’s a form of tribalism carried out on a civilized playing field. It represents a self-defeating and outright defeatist  attitude that has workers beating each other over the heads to compete for whatever crumbs the ruling class is willing to throw on our plate, while accepting their “right” to enjoy the entire banquet amongst the few of them. Americans even go so far as to worship these parasites as readily as the religious fundies do their conception of God, looking up to them them with awe and reverence while looking down at the poorest members of their own class with the same contempt the capitalists do.



Or, if they do not revere the handful of wolves in charge of the multitude of sheep, they more or less worship the conception of the market economy itself, either proposing its expansion free of any government restraint (as do the libertarians); or at least trying to tame it and curb its excesses instead of eliminating and replacing it altogether by a more socially advanced, egalitarian, and humane economic system which modern technology makes possible (i.e., the “tame capitalism” mentality of the mainstream liberals who comprise the “social democratic” school of thought).



III. Gotta Love That Bush…



“Here’s to war… er, America! Heh heh…”



The mindless Obama haters are against him, but likely love Bush, because Obama is not a Christian, and many believe he might (gasp!) be a Muslim! They rationalize everything Bush did–which was much the same as everything Obama currently does and stands behind–because they believe his faith makes him a “man of God,” so everything he did must have been with God’s approval and blessings, right? If not, well, at least he did everything in the interests of making America a “Christian nation,” right? You can’t fault even the most extreme lunatic for such noble intentions, huh? (Cue the many enlightened young women out there to shout in unison: “ikr”!)



Of course, some of these right-wingers are motivated by the old-fashioned Southern tradition of racism (this goes along with their traditions for hospitality–to fellow white people, that is–and good fried chicken that black people are stereotypically fingered for liking). As such, they hold the arbitrary factor of Obama’s race against him, without even caring how hard he tries to placate his corporate sponsors (or that he’s actually half-white, for that matter).



As far as all of the above is concerned, every atrocious thing Bush did was motivated by “good intentions,” or that 9/11 forced him to ignore democratic precepts and resort to extremes, etc.  “No president ever had to contend with an attack on American soil like Bush did!” his supporters will bellow forth in justification for his anti-democratic, war-mongering actions. Of course, this conveniently ignores the sad fact (noted above) that for many decades prior to 9/11, innumerable innocent people living in foreign Third World nations have had to deal with practically every neighborhood in their vicinity turned into brutal war zones thanks to the imperialist policies of America and its various First World allies (*cough* Britain *cough*; *cough* Israel *hack*); or by terrorist organizations armed and sponsored by the governments of the U.S. and some of its close allies: Hmmm, remember the Contras? Or the fact that the U.S. bolstered and armed both Saddam Hussien’s regime and the Taliban back when they served American business interests like, yanno, the Saudi government currently does?



But just like Bush’s proven lies to justify a perpetual war so his partners in the petroleum and war-profiteering (*cough* Raytheon *cough*; *cough* Halliburton *gag*) industries can make a killing in these small nations–yanno, both fiscally and literally–they try not to think about any of these inconvenient facts (it’s harder to be a hypocrite when you face reality, after all). The innocent people who live in these small countries whose governments do not cater to American business interests are labeled “rogue nations,” and every single citizen living within their borders instantly become written off as “collateral damage” (that’s military-speak for innocent people and essential support services like hospitals or schools being blown to bits by ordinance).  Of course, the American government and military wouldn’t be able to write these innocent victims off so easily if so many of the American people didn’t either cruelly cheer them on or apathetically ignore it because it wasn’t happening to them and their neighborhoods personally. After all, a chauvinistic lack of empathy for anyone who doesn’t live within the borders of America has been as much a pastime of American culture as apple pie, baseball, fetishistic consumerism, fake wrestling, and reality TV shows.





“Well, how can you possibly expect me, of all people, to get the Vulcan peace symbol correct?”



Or, the Obama-haters-but-Bush-lovers (I didn’t intend an innuendo here, guys!) resort to the tired old excuse that Bush’s attempts to transform America into a theocracy based on fundamentalist (read: right-wing extremist) Christian precepts is totally okay because they believe the Constitution was based on Christian rules, and that America has supposedly always been a “Christian nation.”  In actuality, the Founding Fathers of America were of diverse religious beliefs, including some who were deists and Unitarian. While Christianity did indeed influence all of their thinking (how could it not, considering the era?),  none of them were akin to the evangelical Christians of today, nor did any of them believe that Biblical scripture should be writ into government policy in the manner in which sharia law is written into both ancient and modern Muslim theocracies like Saudi Arabia.



[Btw, let me remind everyone yet again, since I don’t it can possibly be overstated:  The despotic nation of Saudi Arabia is one of America’s most staunch allies in the Middle East–perhaps second only to Israel in this regard–and the majority of the 9/11 terrorists, including their ringleader Osama bin Laden, were Saudis. In contrast, Saddam Hussein, as much of a dictator as he certainly was, happened to be highly secular in the way he ran Iraqi law; none of the 9/11 terrorists were Iraqi; and Hussein and Bin Laden were not  allies or in any way on good terms, let alone in cahoots over 9/11.  But how many Americans on the Right actually care about any of this, or even have the courage to openly acknowledge these inconvenient facts, assuming they even know about them in the first place?]




“Psssst, Mr. President… that’s Weapons of Mass Destruction, not  Weapons of Mass ‘Derision’…” 

“Whoops! Fruitian slip, I guess!”

“Um, that’s Freudian,  Mr. President…” 




IV. … or If You Hate Bush, You Gotta Love the Bush-Lite (er, Obama)



In contrast, the mindless Obama supporters rationalize everything he does simply because he’s a Democrat, or they identify him as a progressive, or even worse, because they love the novelty of a black president without caring overly much about any other factor.



As a relevant aside:  We can, of course, expect these same adherents of political correctness to similarly support Hillary Clinton in office for 2016 no matter what policies she happens to espouse simply because she’s a woman, and for no other reason. The mind-addled purveyors of PC will argue that it’s so important to have the first woman president in the Oval Office that it really makes no difference whether this woman happens to be Hillary Clinton or Cynthia McKinney–the latter of whom is both a woman and black, and who I would have been honored to support–because, they will insist, at least Hillary will “open the doors” for other women becoming president, blah blah blah and yadda yadda yadda…



I even had one respected friend actually tell me that he believes Obama is a great humanitarian who is really concerned about the welfare of all humanity. Yes, really!



And when I mentioned how the False Left-Wing Messiah is running things precisely the way Bush/Cheney did, he stepped back and gave me the following disclaimer-cum-excuse: “Well, I never said Obama was perfect.” He then announced that he didn’t want to argue with me about the subject. Mmm-hmm.



And yes, Obama even won the Nobel Peace Prize, as crazy as that is! Maybe Benjamin Netanyahu will win one next!  If the standards for whichever committee is responsible for awarding that exalted international prize allow for Obama to win it, then why not good old Bibi, the Prez’s honorable Israeli ruling class equivalent and treasured ally?




Two peeps in a pod. Birds of a feather. Partners-in-crime. You get the gist.



After all, considering how much a beloved personage like Sean Hannity likes Prime Minister Netanyahu, well, one can’t possibly ask for a better endorsement for a Nobel Peace Prize winner than that, right?  And of course, Obama is as firm and strong a supporter for Israel as any and all conservative politicians and pundits have ever been, correct?




“Pssst, Mr. Prime Minister, I just wanna tell you… you’re totally my idol!”

“Aw Shucks, Mr. Hannity, I was about to tell you the same thing! Please call me Bibi, all my friends do.”

“Meaning, every politician in America who actually wants to get elected, eh?”

“Ha ha, yup!”





“Go ahead and kiss him, Mr. President. You know you want to!”

“But-but… the conservatives will lambaste me for coming off as gay if I do! Bad enough in their eyes that I’m black!”

“Yeah, yeah, no doubt, but the PC liberals will love you even more! And it’s about time you actually started throwing a few bones to your base of supporters, don’t ya think?”

 And of course, another popular excuse for Obama’s behavior and policies by his supporters–this one was also popularly used to rationalize Bill Clinton’s anti-democratic policies that set the stage for both the Bush and Obama administrations–is that unlike Bush, he didn’t actually want  to do the things he did (yanno, like about 99% of everything he did and continues to do), but he simply  had to do them because he was subject to overwhelming pressure from a Republican-controlled Congress (even during the time the Democrats controlled it, I suppose) and conservative Southern voter and “swing voter” constituents whom he had  to appease if he wanted to be elected, or to get any small measure of progressive policies enacted while in office, etc. And then there’s the justification that we have no choice but to support Obama–and any other Democrat in office–because they are invariably the lesser of two evils. Mmm-hmmm.




V. The Main Point…



This shameful and useless back-and-forth hypocrisy has fueled the debate between too many individuals on both sides of the Obama Fence, despite the fact that both camps tend to either criticize or support mostly the  exact same policies depending upon what politician happens to be espousing them, which is predicated upon all of the above-described arbitrary factors. In other words, these policies are only to be criticized if someone who is or isn’t a Christian is enacting them; or if the politician enacting them happens to be a Republican or a Democrat; or if they believe this or that about abortion, gay marriage, public prayer, whether or not they accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior, whether we should say “Merry Christmas” or “Happy Holidays” during the holiday season, their opinions on the use of contraception (all legal matters aside), etc.



Totally absent from these debates from everyone save those on the “fringe” of politics (yanno, including socialists like myself, who are considered too “loony” to listen to, let alone elect to office) are discussions about starting a third political party that is not funded by private corporations; which is comprised of, controlled by, and truly represents the interests of the vast majority of the 99%, not run by a handful of politicians beholden to the canyon-deep pockets of the 1% (as are the Democrats as much as the Republicans); and supports fundamental democratic and egalitarian principles that are above petty little wedge issues, or any arbitrary factors that do nothing to address the core of the problem. That core problem is the current economic world order, which is based on an unsustainable economic dictatorship that is completely archaic in light of the abundance that modern industry and productive capacity can readily supply to every human being on this planet in exchange for a modest share of the useful work; an economic framework that would be a moneyless, classless, and stateless system based on cooperation and abundance for all, not ruthless competition that rewards only a tiny few at the expense of all the rest.




Two other peeps in a pod. The Capitalist Empire Pod, that is. (That’s why their respective supporters hate the other so much! No one likes a rival!)




Three  peeps in a pod this time. They sure look  like enemies, don’t they?

Straight female Bill Clinton lovers, in unison: “Well, at least Bill is nice-looking! Say what ya want about his policies and personal conduct, but you can’t take that  away from him!

“Bill Clinton for president again! Or Hillary! If we can’t have Bill in office, at least we can have the lady he sleeps with! Boo-yah!”





 VI. Were the Founding Fathers of America Intent on Creating a Christian Nation, or Were They Die Hard Secularists?



In light how much this question comes up in the debates between the mindless Obama haters and the mindless Obama supporters, I think it’s a relevant matter to tackle here in this particular blog.


The fact is, both die hard evangelical Christians and die hard “radical” secularists and atheists have extreme positions on this issue that are equally wrong. As historical theologian Gregg Frazer, author of the new book  The Religious Beliefs of America’s Founders: Reason, Revelation and Revolution, noted in this interview:



Obviously one side are the Christian America advocates who argue that the founders were largely Christians and that they intended to create a Christian nation, and that the founding documents, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, were constructed on the basis of biblical principles, and that they wanted to establish a Christian nation. And then that obviously has important consequences for today. On the other side are the secularists, the ACLU-types and so forth, who argue for a strict separation, wall of separation, between church and state. They argued that the founders were rank secularists or deists, and that they intended to separate religion from public life, and they have constructed this sort of wall of separation notion, which, by the way, I would argue, is not what the founders believe. And I would argue that both of those sides are wrong; that, in fact, the [truth] is somewhere in the middle.


The key founders that I write about were raised in this generally or nominally Christian culture and so they knew Christianity, they knew the language, they knew the terminology, and then they were educated in Enlightenment thought and rationalism. And then they were politicians, like politicians today, who know how to speak to an audience, they know how to speak publicly to appeal to their audience, just as politicians today do. And so they were able to couch things in terminology that would keep them popular with the people, but when they talk to one another—and this is the focus of my research[,] on their private writings, on their personal correspondence with one another, their letters, and their diary entries, and personal memoranda, and I believe that’s when you really get at what someone believes is what they say in private that they don’t think others are going to see. And there we can see what they really believed as opposed to the public pronouncements or just, for example, denominational affiliations that some people focus on.



Based on his incisive studies of these extensive personal statements and records made by the key Founders of America, Frazer notes that they seem to adhere to a school of thought that he identifies as theistic rationalism.  He describes it thusly:



Theistic rationalism was a hybrid belief system, as I call it, mixing elements of natural religion, or deism, Christianity, and rationalism, with rationalism as the predominant element. And rationalism here I define as the idea that fundamental truth can be gained through reason basically. And so, the adherents of theistic rationalism believed that these three elements of Christianity, natural religion and rationalism would generally complement one another, would generally take you to the same place, but, on occasion, when there’s conflict between them and you can’t ignore or resolve the conflict, then reason was to play the decisive role. So rationalism then is the noun and theistic is the describer, the descriptor.



The above is a far cry from the Biblical literalist, “end times” evoking evangelical Christian fundies like Bush, on the one hand; and equally a far cry from the die hard ideological materialists and secularists who operate under the mantle of “radical atheists” today. Both are fundamentalists of the opposite stripe, and as author Win Scott Eckert has poignantly reminded others in the past, fundamentalists of any  form or creed cannot be reasoned with, because they are absolutist in their thinking and will not consider any evidence for a more nuanced perspective.

Why I Loathe the Concept of Political Correctness



As a proponent of progressive politics and a devout socialist, some are surprised–or worse, actually disappointed–to hear that I routinely decry the concept of political correctness (or, for all of us lazy typists and acronym-lovers–“PC,” not to be confused with the abbreviation for “personal computer,” a.k.a., any computer not manufactured by Apple, which is most of them, but let’s get back to the subject at hand before I end up going on one of my infamous off-topic tangents). Many seem to believe that the PC attitude is endemic to the progressive or liberal mindset. Many people on the Left, unfortunately, do indeed display PC attitudes and reactions about certain issues that are particularly “close” to them on a personal or experiential level. But is PC truly an inherent aspect of progressive or liberal sentiments? No, it isn’t, and moreover, it shouldn’t be, IMHO.  Why do I famously (or infamously, take your pick, I don’ t care) loathe this concept? Read on, if you have the time and can stomach food for thought.



I. What Is Political Correctness?

   For the record, the PC attitude is defined as fealty or appeal to sentiment over objective fact or almost any possibility of nuance. In other words, it entails thinking with your emotions  rather than using reason, empiricism, or logical and rational thought regarding a given topic… or group of individuals, specific individuals, etc. Such attitudes and reactions are most often attributed to the Left, but the mindset of the Right is quite capable of adopting PC attitudes and reactions to certain topics despite constantly deriding “PC” whenever they perceive it as being spouted by left-leaning folks. For example, the Right’s tendency towards uncritical and heavily emotionally biased reaction when assessing any conceivable action taken by the U.S. government against other nations has been dubbed patriotic correctness, and this is clearly a sub-category of PC. In other words, anybody  can be prone to this tendency if they feel strongly enough about anything in particular.

   In fact, the attitude of patriotic correctness represents the dark side of patriotism and national pride (which is why it’s frequently called nationalism), much as PC as used in a general sense represents the dark side  of liberal and progressive politics and thinking. Yes, liberalism can be taken too far, and you just read me saying this–and too many have actually had to endure hearing  me say this–with not the slightest bit of shame, and a hefty degree of commitment. This is because, for all my manifold faults and foibles (sorry, that’s the price I pay for being human), one thing I can say for myself is that I strongly believe in the principles of justice, equality, and reason on all fronts–political, social, and economic–that are supposed to be cherished parts of the liberal and progressive platforms, and frankly the PC attitude betrays  these principles to an unacceptable degree. It confers the doctrine of exceptionalism  to any individual or organization representing individuals who happen to belong to a group that are considered minorities, and have been heavily oppressed and/or victimized in the past.

   In other words, in contrast to many on the Right, many on the Left can be prone to bequeathing exceptionalism to those who are not  perceived as being in power or in a privileged socio-political-economic position, as opposed to those who are considered to be (justifiably or not) in such a position of advantage. And this doctrine always applies to those belonging to said groups without first considering individual circumstances, or judging by individual merits rather than on the basis of what group  they happen to belong to. The Left and the Right are simply prone to bestow this exceptionalist bias to individuals or orgs at opposite ends of the perceived privilege hierarchy, while deriding each other for venerating the “wrong” side.  Moreover, both sides believe there can be justifiable reasons–or more accurately,  justifications or rationalizations–for conferring the bias of exceptionalism upon people in their preferred direction. With me so far?

II. What Happens to Justice and Equality When the PC Principle is Put Into Common Practice?

   One of the strongest principles inherent to progressive politics that I ascribe to are those which posit that all human beings should have equal rights. This doctrine, to me, should apply regardless of race, gender, age (the latter sadly not yet ascribed to by liberal or progressive politics at large), ethnic background, sexual orientation/preferences, religious beliefs (or lack thereof), or political position on any given issue.

   Of course, not all human beings are born literally equal in a biologically intrinsic sense: Some are stronger than others; some are faster than others; some have great talent in one area or discipline, while others are naturally skilled in distinct areas; some have high ambition, whereas others have more modest dreams and goals; some regularly enjoy good health, while others, unfortunately, do not; the majority of men may be physically stronger than the majority of women, whereas the majority of women may be physically faster and enjoy generally greater longevity and hardiness against disease than the majority of men, etc., et al.  I think you get the gist.

   What I’m talking about here is equality of opportunity, and the right to have full material compensation for whatever service you provide to society, be it of a physical or intellectual nature. These rights  include (but are far from limited to)  freedom of speech; freedom of lifestyle choice; freedom of movement & association; and the right to be judged according to facts and actual individual merit.  The PC attitude, alas, does not favor this notion, no matter how much some of its adherents may claim that it does. This is because it essentially commits the same form of injustice against all people belonging to a certain a group that has traditionally been advantaged in society–even if often not on an individual level–which people on the Right have commonly inflicted upon those in a traditionally disadvantaged or victimized status.

  Further, it attempts to justify or rationalize such actions and reactions by doing another thing the Right has been infamous for doing, albeit in the opposite direction: Claiming that not all human beings are inherently equal in a moral  sense, i.e., that some groups of people are inherently more noble, innocent of ill intentions, less capable of committing unscrupulous acts, or deserving of adulation than those from another group… again, irregardless of individual merit or any observable evidence and (sometimes) proven facts.

  This is because, as noted, the PC attitude is based upon people’s emotional connection to a group or what that group may represent to them, and not any type of actual principle or anything related to facts or evidence. This is rationalized with the belief that such an attitude somehow “balances out” previous injustices inflicted upon the oppressed individual or group. In other words, if some group has shown prejudice or hatred against your group, it’s perfectly justifiable to turn around and be prejudiced and hateful back  at them. This, as opposed to rising above   prejudice and hate itself, and fighting any system, policy, or mindset that promotes the types of inequality that fosters prejudice and hatred in the first place.

   Like, yanno, maybe an entire economic system based upon unequal distribution of material goods and opportunities, competition that pits individuals against each other for these material goods and opportunities, and in which power disparities and hierarchies are an established part of its framework (yes, this was a dig against capitalism, in case anyone actually had even the slightest doubt). Or, failing that, at least opposition to any policy or program within such a framework that exacerbates or extenuates prejudices and hatred.

   The PC attitude pushes this “eye for an eye” doctrine while claiming that what it’s actually all about is achieving equality and a fight for justice. But in the immortal words of Buffy the Vampire Slayer, “you can’t fight evil by doing evil.” Or another way of saying this: You cannot fight inequality with inequality, or combat injustice by promoting a different form of injustice. You cannot solve the inequality and injustices that stem from the prevailing hierarchy, or lessen instances of victimization, by simply flipping the power hierarchy upside down, with claims that the oppressed or victimized people would somehow be expected to create a kinder, gentler hierarchical system. This goes back to the PC notion that some races, or one particular gender, or one particular sexual orientation, etc., are inherently less inclined to abuse power and enact unscrupulous behavior when in the same type of privileged position–either as individuals or as a group–than those who were hypothetically replaced in that position.

  As one PC-minded individual once told me in adamant disagreement: “No, it’s not the system that holds women down; men  hold women down!” Mmm-hmm, as if men are just naturally oppressive beasts, and the framework of the system in which we live has no impact upon the way our lives are structured, or the nature of the opportunities available to different groups within.  Such an attitude works well for those who need to mindlessly vent against certain people, but when emotion is replaced with common sense and reason, does this work well for assessing the reality of the situation? The problem is, the PC attitude insists that generalization-heavy attacks on one group do not bear the same moral weight as the same type of attack on another group. This is the crux of the PC attitude, and the very essence of the dreaded doctrine of exceptionalism, no matter what group of people it’s awarded to. Too many people from all groups do not take a pause and consider the implications of such double standard biases.

III. Why is Political Correctness a Form of Injustice Rather Than a Justifiable Reaction To It?

   The answer to the question headlining this section should be a no-brainer, but since we humans are heavily emotional creatures… it’s not. This isn’t saying that emotions are an inherently bad thing, but rather that we need to have them under control, and to never lose reasoned perspective or succumb to the temptation to embrace bias. We, as progressives, must never abandon our principles, nor put sentiment over reason under any circumstances.

   This is not always easy to do, and we all get tempted to “give in” at one time or another. But we must keep in mind that, as is often stated, most often the right thing to do is the hardest available option to actually choose. This is why people so often do the self-serving and expedient thing instead of the right thing, even when the right thing may be obvious (though sometimes the right thing may not be so obvious, of course; introspection is important). Adopting the PC attitude as a means of combating or rectifying injustice is going to be as effective as the notion of achieving peace by fighting endless wars, or curing an allergic reaction to penicillin by injecting the patient with an antibiotic of the same pharmaceutical family as penicillin.

   By not addressing the intrinsic causes of prejudice, hatred, ignorance, and inequality, and instead taking the side of Group/Person X against Group/Person Y based upon which group you personally belong to or which person (or group) you happen to feel sorry for, respectively, you end up eschewing the moral high ground and simply declare war for control over who most “deserves” to enjoy the privileged position. This counter-productive attitude and tactic is favored by the PC-minded over that of going to the root of the problem and opposing the concepts of hatred, inequality, and bigotry themselves… or any policy or system that by its very nature creates and nurtures them.

IV. Does Political Correctness Actually Benefit the Group It’s Directed in Favor Of?

    No, it doesn’t. Not when you put the emotion aside (I know, not easy to do) and actually think about it, and then follow that up with taking a good unbiased look at the actual results. The PC route ultimately benefits no one, and actually corrupts any cause it may be intended to “benefit.” Please bear with me and allow me to provide some real-life, personally experienced examples that illustrate my point.

   About a year ago I came across two individuals having one of the usual heated arguments you see in the comments section of online articles. The article dealt with issues faced by homosexuals in their civil rights battles to get their attraction base accepted in many venues, which is a good cause that I fully support. As we all know, the LGBT community in general is a group that is often the target of nasty bigotry from the Right, and just as often incessant coddling from the Left.  Hence, the article, group of people, and comment section exchange in question combined to form a perfect example of PC at work, illustrating how it’s actually the flip side of commonly understood bigotry, not its antitheses (sort of like how hate is actually the flip side of love, not its true opposite, but you know what I mean). And this exchange was made all the more interesting and relevant since it was between someone harboring the common biases of the Right and someone harboring the common biases of the Left.

   The first commenter, coming from the Right, made a statement that went something like this: “I’m sick of how gays are always pushing their attractions on everyone else!” The second commenter, coming from the Left, made the following rebuttal: “No, gays do not push their attractions on everyone else!” So, being the opinionated egalitarian that I am, I felt the need to intervene and make the following statement-cum-lecture, which went something like this:

  “Both of you are actually incorrect, because both  of you are spewing generalizations. Both of you made a declaration implying gay people as a whole either always  get ‘pushy’ with their attraction base, or as a whole they never  do.  I think anyone who takes a truly unbiased view of the matter will observe the following:

   “Many in the gay community are very cool and decent people who display pride in who and what they are without shoving it up anyone else’s nose, and fully respect the fact that others can accept their attractions and support their civil rights without sharing any attraction to members of the same gender. Other people in the gay community, however, are indeed pushy nuisances who are annoyingly ‘in your face’ with heterosexuals about their attraction base, mistaking that for genuine pride, and have the belief that anyone who says they are not attracted to members of the same gender, or at least willing to give it a ‘try,’ are ‘immoral’ bigots who cannot possibly truly accept gay people and support their rights.

   “Any person, from any particular group, who refuse to see beyond their own perspective – be they heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, or even asexual (this group really exists, btw) – are the true bigots. Those people from any particular group who have open-minded values that accept any natural attraction base as equally valid despite not having it or even necessarily understanding it themselves are the true egalitarians.

   “Anyway, both generalizations basically deny gay people their essential humanity, but in opposite directions. The first speaks of gays as if they universally have more  faults than heterosexuals, whereas the second speaks of gays as if they universally have less  faults than heterosexuals. The real truth is that gay people are, first and foremost, well… people.  That means human beings,  and all the potential attributes–good, bad, and in-between–that invariably come with being human. They have the same inherent capacity for being good people, and achieving true greatness, as any heterosexual; and they likewise have the same inherent capacity for being bad people, and actually committing truly atrocious acts, as any heterosexual. The same goes for bisexuals, asexuals, etc. Demonizing them collectively like the first person did is bigoted, ignorant nonsense; and canonizing them collectively like the second person did is pandering, bleeding heart nonsense.”

   No doubt that diatribe of mine was long-winded and on the pretentious side, as my diatribes and anecdotes tend to be, but I think many get my point here. The PC attitude isn’t supporting minorities and victims, but engaging in brown-nosing and ass-kissing. It’s putting them on a virtually angelic podium that does a great injustice not only to everyone who isn’t considered a minority or a victim, but also against the minorities and victims themselves.

   I’ve known many members of different minority groups–including blacks, gays, and women–who are some of the greatest and inspirational people I have ever known. The list of my personal real-life heroes includes Martin Luther King Jr., Harry Hay, and Rosa Parks. I’ve noticed that every cool and awesome member of a minority group whom I have had the honor of knowing all have something interesting and, I think, wonderful, in common: None of them appreciate the PC attitude, and none of them typically eat it up when it’s directed at them, or to others of their group in front of them.

   My best friend in the world is a woman, someone who is very strong and independent, and runs her own successful business without ever having received help or financial support from a man. She has told me many times how she finds the PC concept of chivalry, or the White Knight attitude extended to her by many men, to be degrading rather than coming off as considerate or gentlemanly. It offends her sense of pride and accomplishment as a strong-minded and confident woman, because it implies that she is inherently vulnerable and in need  of special treatment. This in turn carries the implication that she actually requires  special treatment in order to get anywhere in this world, because she is unable to earn it on her own merits. She is quite adamant about never having needed anything of the sort, and she takes great offense at this type of brown-nosing, feel-good attitude from men.

    In all honesty, how many people with true pride in what and who they are actually respect anyone who kisses their ass?  When have such individuals ever wanted or expected special treatment for some arbitrary reason rather than simply equality of opportunity, and the same civil rights as anyone else in society? How many of them need or want respect handed to them solely on the basis of what  they are as opposed to who  they are as a person?

   Affirmative action may have had its merits to balance out the lack of economic opportunities afforded to minorities in the job market for so long (the job market being a characteristic of capitalism, I will shamelessly add), but extending the basic concept into personal relations or a court of law to “balance” things achieves nothing of the sort. Instead, it simply replaces one form of injustice for another. Examples of these things include taking the side of a black person over a white person during a social dispute when you either knew the black person was in the wrong, or had no evidence either way; or, taking the side of a woman over a man in a court of law without even considering the available evidence first.

   The rationalization that such biased and disingenuous behavior somehow balances the scale for past injustices against these minority groups misses the point about fighting injustice and inequality by a long shot. It also espouses a really peculiar definition of the terms “equality” and “balance.” Perhaps worst of all, it crosses the line between justice and revenge. For those who may not see much of a difference between the two terms, the former is enacting retribution in accordance with strong principles; the latter is an attempt at enacting retribution at any cost  while giving the finger to any code of principles. It’s the difference between a desire to improve conditions for everyone and create a better world for all to live in, and a desire to simply lash out and hurt others as a vent for your own pain and anger.

   I’ve personally known individuals of every conceivable race, gender, sexual preference, etc., who were very good people,and others who were very bad people. I’ve known gay people who have made great and totally selfless sacrifices for others with no expectation of anything in return; and I’ve known gay people that were shameless users and thieves with every friend they had. I’ve known black people who were awful criminals, and black people who were so noble and self-sacrificing that they went out of their way to bail me out of a difficult situation despite the fact that I was a stranger, asking for or expecting nothing in return. I’ve known women who were some of the greatest and most inspiring human beings I’ve ever known (*waves to my best friend*), and I’ve known others who were among the worst liars and most selfish and cruel people I’ve ever had the misfortune of knowing. And of course, I’ve known fellow white, male, heterosexuals who ran the gamut of some of the best people I’ve ever known, with others being among the worst sociopaths I’ve ever crossed paths with.

    Moreover, I’ve known many people from all of the above groups who fell somewhere in between the visible spectrum of good and bad. All of these people had but one thing in common: typical human flaws. The differences among them where how they handled these flaws. Some of them dealt with their flaws admirably to become very good, selfless, and caring people,; while others gave into the temptation to act selfishly or expediently, to hate others, and to embrace any form of ignorant thinking that may have been to their social advantage.

   I think this evidence is readily observable to anyone who has routinely spent a lot of time around a diverse, cosmopolitan crowd of people, and not developed a chip on their shoulder against any group in particular due to negative personal experiences. In other words, people who have not lost their proper perspective, or considered an egalitarian view as a burden that gets  in the way of an out-of-control emotional desire to vent and spew noxious resentment towards a particular group.

V. What Happens When Political Correctness Runs Rampant

   This leads to the next section of this post. Thank you for sticking with me up to this point, those of you who stuck with me (*waves to those who stuck with me*).

   Anyway, here is the most important reason to oppose rather than embrace PC attitudes:  Plain and simply, due to some of those human flaws I mentioned, pandering and ass-kissing that are part and parcel of the PC attitude encourages many individuals to become selfish, inconsiderate assholes. Why? Think about it for a minute. Then, take a look at and consider my second real-life example.

   Some time ago, I worked in a warehouse with several other guys, among them a genuinely nice guy named Jim. In fact, he was one of the coolest guys I had the privilege of working with there.  At least at first he was. That changed thanks to our esteemed manager, a guy named Paul. I personally liked Paul, but he had a strong bias against me because of my personality traits; specifically, those traits that tend to annoy certain people, like my quickness with an opinion, the fact many of those opinions aren’t popular ones (remember, I’m a socialist! Paul hated that!), my admitted enjoyment of instigating those who are sensitive (sensitive people are another pet peeve of mine, but that’s a subject for another post), etc.  Anyone who knows me well fully understands, I’m sure.

   On the other hand, Paul was highly enamored of Jim’s personality, who was undoubtedly much easier to deal with than me on a personal level, and this led to Paul’s tendency to give special treatment to him. So it got to the point where, because of Paul’s bias extended in different directions, he would do things like being quick to notice if I wasn’t doing my job for a minute at a time, and neglect to notice if Jim wasn’t doing his job for lengthy periods of time. Or, if Jim and I had a dispute over something, regardless of who was at fault, or if both of us were equally at fault, Paul’s typical reaction would be to say (directly to me): “Leave Jim alone, he’s a good guy.”

    And Jim was a good guy. But after a while of being on the favored side of Paul’s biased behavior, his own behavior started to change, taking on patterns that betrayed the upright person that he was (and I’m not  talking about his posture here!). It pretty much came to a head when he and I were goofing around one day to relieve the boredom of a slow shift, and both of us ended up falling on top of a table, our combined weight smashing it to the ground. Both of us were at fault. I knew that. Jim knew it. And the only other guy present, another worker named Chris, saw the destructive incident and knew it. So I suggested the obvious: That Jim and I both apologize to Paul for goofing around, basically throwing ourselves on his good graces by owning up to the fact that we were goofing off and it got out of hand. Except, Jim didn’t feel that was required. He told me that he felt he was in no way at fault for the lambasted table, and would make this clear to Paul. Why would Jim lie like that, being the nice guy that he was (or used to be, at least)?

  Simple: Because by that point in time, he knew that Paul would never  take my word over his that we were both to blame (which we were), even if the only “evidence” was his word against mine. The only reason that didn’t happen is because the other Chris intervened and reminded Jim that denying his complicity was ethically wrong, as he clearly saw what took place and that it was both our faults. So Jim thought about it a bit, and then grudgingly agreed to own up along with me. Deep down, he was still a good guy, but the bad side that everyone potentially has was being encouraged by the emotionally-based privileges that Paul was extending to him, which granted him the social and job equivalent of diplomatic immunity for any possible wrongdoing.

    As you might imagine, I got extremely angry when Jim made that declaration of non-guilt by default of Paul’s bias, but as I made clear to Jim, I was not angry at him  so much as pissed off at Paul. Why? Because Paul’s biased attitude and coddling of Jim was effectively turning this nice guy into an asshole. Yes, it was Jim’s fault for taking advantage, but it’s a well-known human flaw that people in general–no matter what group they belong to –will take advantage of being granted a privileged status by others for what amounts to emotional reasons. It’s a form of power   given to these individuals. It’s nothing less than a despotic form of privilege, and by its very nature it taints and negatively influences the behavior of people in the same manner as it does to those who are given positions of official power. Power based on emotional deference that effectively grants diplomatic social immunity is still a form of power, and it corrupts personal behavior accordingly. Power and privilege, in any of its myriad forms–whether financial, political, or social–corrupts. And no group of human beings are immune to this corrupting influence.

   Perhaps most importantly, this highlights the difference between power and empowerment. Some people are too quick to cross the line from one to the other, or to confuse the two, much as revenge can be confused for justice.

VI. Let’s Get to Some Controversial Political Examples That, Like It Or Not, Are Very Apt

    As a good political example of the PC doctrine in action, one of the emotionally-charged aspects of our society which can aptly serve as a macrocosm of the above personal example is discussions over how accusations of rape should be dealt with. Specifically, accusations by women against men. Please bear with me again, and let’s dive into some fiery territory whose heat surpasses solar levels, because I think it’s necessary to do so to gain a full and comprehensive understand of the price we pay for championing PC attitudes, let alone laws based on it.

   The accusation of rape is a very serious one,  because it’s a terrible crime that does indeed happen all too often, and it needs to be dealt with effectively when it does. Further, we need protective measures in place to decrease the chances of it happening as much as reasonably possible, and proper education and awareness about this subject need to be made readily available to everyone. I believe some of these measures should include proper training for girls in self-defense techniques being encouraged and made affordably available everywhere, along with raising kids with values that do not instill typical macho attitudes in boys, and which do not subject girls and women who openly express their natural sexual desires to the shame game. But this can be part of a whole other topic, and I certainly do plan to take on our society’s horrid and hypocritical practice of “slut-shaming” women in a future blog. My point here is to show what happens when this very serious and legitimate concern is met with emotional bias rather than reasoned thought.

   When the bias is in place, you will see rape support websites that purport to provide good information, advice, and support give the following instruction on what to do if a woman tells you she is raped: Always believe her. Seriously? With only that little tidbit of information given to the readers? What, you may ask, should be the fair and reasoned response, then? It should, IMO, be this: Consider the individual source.

  Meaning, we need to ask these important questions: Is this accusation being made by a girl/woman who has a reputation of being a generally honest and scrupulous individual? Is she known for being clinically sane? Does she have a known history of frequently going to unreasonable extremes to get attention or sympathy? Could she have any obvious ulterior motives to make such a serious accusation against this man in particular? If the answer to these questions are yes-yes-no-no, then you sincerely should  believe her, because she is very likely telling the truth, and the ensuing investigation and possible subsequent trial should take all of this into account.

 But conversely, what if the answer to any or all of the following questions turns out to be “yes”: Does she have a history of mental illness that has manifested as issues with men and multiple verified instances of making untrue accusations? Is she simply known to be a sociopath in general, or to be a generally unscrupulous person who is known for nasty attitudes or abusive behavior towards men? Does she have a known and verifiable reputation as a chronic liar and “drama queen”? Is she simply a person who has an extensive reputation for making stupid comments for frivolous reasons without putting much thought into what she says? Has she been known to have a major grudge against the man she accused which many who know her could agree was not due to justifiable reasons? Is she known to take rejection extremely badly, and be inclined towards vengeful behavior with those who have slighted her due to past experiences?

    If any or all of the above is true, then she could conceivably be lying, and judgement on both her and the accused needs to be reserved until a full  investigation can be made. Of course, just because she has a history of these negative behavior patterns doesn’t mean she is lying. Any woman can be a rape victim, and this certainly needs to be taken into consideration. That being said, everyone should be told the story of “The Boy Who Cried Wolf,” and the simple but important lesson it teaches, as soon as they become cognizant enough to listen to and comprehend stories.

 Conversely, not all men are equally capable of raping a woman, so what is known about the history of the accused’s behavior and character should also be considered. For instance, does he have a history of aberrant behavior towards women, or unusually aggressive sexual conduct? Is he known to be abusive? Does he have a criminal record along these lines? Is he known to act very out of line, with poor self-control, when he’s inebriated? Is he on any type of medication that may affect his behavior in extreme ways?  Has he enjoyed a very privileged upbringing and/or adulation for a series of accomplishments–such as being a renowned and popular athlete–that have rendered him known for not being able to handle being told “no” in response to any request or demand? Is he known for simply being a selfish jerk who could care less about the boundaries of others, or has he displayed obvious sociopathic tendencies? Does he have a reputation for being a chronic liar? All of these are important questions to ask about the man who is accused, and all are relevant to an investigation.

   Now, ask yourself these questions with serious consideration: Is there anything inherently unreasonable, let alone sexist or outright misogynistic, about the above suggestions? Is there anything to suggest that women are inherently more likely to tell lies than men? I certainly think not. But many who have gotten emotionally swept up into the PC attitude would deep throat me with their fist while accusing me of of the above things. Which is similar to how individuals with other types of biases and PC-oriented positions of emotionally derived privilege would accuse me (or anyone else) of being “anti-Semitic” for criticizing the Israeli government’s savage policies against Palestinians in the Gaza Strip.

    But due to the seriousness of this issue, and the powerful emotions that come with it, many PC-leaning folks on the Left will verbally eviscerate  anyone who implies that women are anywhere near as morally capable of telling lies or of exhibiting unethical behavior as men. This is not due to any inherent moral inferiority in men, but rather the fact that those who are PC-inclined about these issues feel that due to having been in a privileged societal position for so long, men have not earned the moral capital that women have, and as a result an injustice against a man is a lesser evil than an injustice against a woman. It’s also based on the misguided belief by way of PC rationalization that even if innocent men are thrown into prison on false rape charges, it’s an unfortunate but “necessary evil” if that’s what it takes to bring more awareness and sympathy to the legitimate danger of rape.

    The above belief, however, ignores the fact that the reason men have acted so abusive and domineering to women on such a scale is because they grew up in a system that established their privileged position, and even the majority of women complied with it in the past, sometimes because they were raised to believe that was the natural way of things, and other times because their particular husbands were as pampering as they were domineering and not blatantly abusive. In short, it was this power and privilege afforded to men that corrupted the behavior of so many of them, not some form of moral failing that is inherent to the male gender.

   To go with the Israel analogy again, this belief in the accumulation of moral capital being used to rationalize members of a group that was previously oppressed and victimized committing similar actions against another group of people at a later time  is an emotionally manipulative tactic commonly used by the right-wing and Zionist supporters of the Israeli government no matter what it does to the Palestinians. The rationalizations often used are that because of what they have been through in the past, Jews who support such policies, or who attempt to instigate war with Iran or other Middle Eastern nations, are simply “defending” themselves so that they will never be thrown into those gas chambers again. Any non-Jewish people who criticize these horrid policies are denounced as “anti-Semitic,” and the many reasonable and morally upright Jews who criticize these policies are derided as “self-hating Jews.”

   This right-wing attitude insists that the Israeli government be exempt from moral judgement no matter what it does, including establish an overt ethnocracy and a system of apartheid against Palestinians that Israel supporters (yanno, like Bill Maher) wouldn’t hesitate criticizing South Africa for doing. This is because the past status of Jews as victims is used as an emotional rationale to justify any conceivable action taken by the right-wing Israeli government as long as it purports to “represent” all Jewish people and their interests anywhere in the world.  Since Jews have been unjustly hated by many in the past (and they certainly have), this variant of the PC doctrine insists they have thus earned the “right” to act the same way towards other groups that happen to inconvenience the right-wing pundits who rule Israel on their “behalf” with their presence or mere existence. The Israeli government, their AIPAC lobbyists in America, and the American politicians who are terrified of going against this powerful lobby out of fear of being called all the usual names (which is just about all of them, btw) for breaching this impermeable PC membrane justify any atrocity committed against other ethnic groups by this government–including by blowing numerous innocent Palestinians and what passes for their homes to bits on the Gaza Strip during their periodic bombing assaults–with the usual claim that they’re simply “defending” themselves against ever becoming “victims” again. Sound familiar?

    The implication is often made that the German people had moral failings that Jewish people do not have, despite how many Jewish people act no different when in similar positions of power, and in regards to adopting similar policies and ideologies based on conceptions of ethnic-based apartheid. Or it’s argued that it’s “different” when Jewish people behave that way, because Germans and other ethnic groups “never went through what they did.” Never mind the fact that many other ethnic and racial groups, including blacks, Native Americans, Vietnamese, and various Caucasian immigrant groups (other than Jews) have likewise been subject to extreme oppression that could, in their own way, easily be classified as “holocaust events” (as opposed to the Holocaust, or perhaps more accurately, the Jewish Holocaust). In fact, other Caucasian ethnic groups were likewise targeted by Hitler’s despotic regime, including Czechs, Poles, and Gypsies.  Hitler and his cronies cast their net of hatred far and wide, and as horrible as what happened to the Jews under his regime certainly was–a horrific atrocity I am in no way intending to make light of, as innumerable innocent people of Jewish descent were murdered and incarcerated simply for being  Jewish–what happened to them was hardly uniquely  horrific in the annals of horrors perpetrated by various groups of people against others when it was convenient for ruling classes–whatever ethnicity they may have been at any given time and place–to stir that particular pot so as to sustain or increase their privileged positions in the class hierarchy.

   People from any one of those above groups, regardless of race or ethnic background, would be apt to behave in such ways if in positions of privilege… including positions perceived on the accumulation of moral capital as opposed to the financial sort. As noted earlier, this is a form of exceptionalism that simply encourages bad and even inhuman behavior in people from these groups. Fortunately, many individuals from each of these groups do not  succumb to this temptation, because their strong sense of pride and ethical values do not allow it. But many others would, because this is a flaw common to  all human beings. Those who serve as defenders of these PC attitudes, whether coming from the Right or the Left political direction, are acting as enablers for these individuals.

    The same thing applies to the example of how to handle the serious problem of rape. Before any reader (of either gender) gives into the temptation to let their emotions get the best of them and start shouting invectives at me such as, “I’m so offended by what you said! Women very rarely lie about this sort of thing! It’s you fucking men who refuse to believe it! You hate women! You’re probably a rapist yourself, you pin-dicked creep!” or “So you’re saying that women are more likely to be lying than men? You dickhead misogynist!”, yadda, yadda, yadda, please take a step back, take a few deep breathes, kindly go back and read what I actually  wrote in a calmer (and hopefully more reasonable) frame of mind, and ask yourself the following questions.

   Regardless of whatever your gender, race, sexual preferences, age, or ethnic affiliation happens to be, if you were well aware that you could get away with negative actions towards someone you dislike because you knew that you could count on many others around you to always  protect you, shield you from any conceivable consequences of almost any conceivable action, and take your side with no questions asked,  how might that affect your behavior? Have you seriously never seen this type of bias played out amongst individuals in your personal or professional life? And when you did, how did this affect or influence the behavior of those individuals who were on the favorable side of this bias? Has any group of people you have ever associated with, either on an individual or collective level, ever been universally “above” taking advantage of this type of coddling and enabling?

   It should again  be noted here that many people from previously oppressed groups are highly scrupulous individuals, with a high standard of ethics that would never expect, accept, or justify privileged treatment. For example, you will see the renowned Jewish political activist Noam Chomsky routinely give harsh criticism to Zionists, the right-wing Israeli government, and the American Israeli lobbyist group AIPAC. You will likewise see this done very courageously and ethically by Jewish author and peace activist Uri Avnery, with some examples of his articles being here and here. You will also see this done by other highly principled and conscientious progressive activists of Jewish descent like Norman Pollack, as evidenced by examples of his articles here and here.  Are these men “self-hating Jews” as the Zionists and right-wing Israelis would claim, or simply individuals who are fed up with the Israeli ruling class committing atrocities against others while claiming to “represent” all Jewish people? I think that’s clearly a rhetorical question, by the way.

    Also, one of the strongest and most independent woman writers whose material I have read, Christina H, is my favorite columnist on the hilariously subversive Like all strong, independent-minded women I have known, she resents the PC attitude directed at women as special deference to their gender by misandrists of either gender. Note this article from her column on Cracked, and scroll down to her point #2 (“Women who get mad for no reason”), and you will see her harshly (and hilariously) critique the tendency for screenwriters to portray strong and independent woman in film as displaying blatant misandrist attitudes towards men, or to react with hostility or rudeness to relatively harmless approaches by men that are no way being overly licentious or disrespectful. You know, as if it’s “cool” or a sign of strength for women to be rude to every man who displays an interest in her if she doesn’t happen to reciprocate his attraction, irregardless of his manner of approach; or sometimes, even if she does find him attractive, so as to “put him in his place” from the get-go. Christina makes it quite clear that these distorted film depictions of female strength and independence sends very distorted impressions to many girls and women about how genuine strong and assertive woman act, and just encourages and enables this type of negative behavior in many of them.  It also encourages men of the “White Knight” mindset to be accepting and complicit with this type of behavior from the less enlightened females out there, thus acting as further enablers and defenders of abusive behavior directed by certain women towards men, interpreting and judging it very differently from the way they would (rightfully) react to abusive and misogynist behavior directed by certain men towards women.

  This should pre-emptively put paid to any ridiculous notion that I’m a misogynist… or anti-Semitic, or anti-Arab, or anti-Ecuadorian, or anti-Atlantean, blah blah blah… for pointing the above examples out, or for railing against PC attitudes in general. In order to do that, one would have to willfully overlook the large number of principled, ethically upright people from any given minority group who likewise oppose the PC attitude as a tendency that in no way benefits minorities or serves as an antidote to injustice, nor as a form of reparation for past oppression. Rather, it simply perpetuates injustice–albeit in the opposite direction–and encourages further antagonism between the genders and different ethnic or racial groups rather than establishing tolerance, understanding, cooperation, and equality.

   So, my point is this: By coddling any group of people, or any individual therein, you are running a serious risk of bringing out the worst  type of behavior in them. You are increasing the chance of some of them feeling comfortable with resorting to lies, manipulation, hatred, bullying, finger-pointing, and even extreme atrocities. You encourage them to look the other way when they see an injustice committed by someone from their group against someone of another group, and rationalize doing this as a form of just retribution or “self-defense” (the latter being the most common rationalization for the U.S. government supporting every abominable action taken by the Israeli government against anyone of Arab descent). When you do this, you encourage people to think with their emotions instead of their reasoning faculties. You teach them that important notions of justice and fairness only apply to some  people, and that an atrocity committed by Person/Group Y against Person/Group X carries less moral weight or inherent wrongness than if the reverse was to occur.

 I ask you to please think about this the next time you are tempted to defend the actions of someone whom you know to be wrong, or do not have good evidence or proof of their rightness, simply because they belong to a specific race, gender, ethnic group, or religious/ideological doctrine.

VII. So, What Are You And What Do You Stand Against, Anyway?

   I consider myself an egalitarian,  a word you noted me using a few times throughout this post. Hence, I support the empowerment and equality of all  human beings, regardless of what group they belong to, while not  supporting the special veneration of any of them. I believe the potential for good and even greatness is something all people, of any group, are potentially capable of. Likewise, I believe that members of any group of people are equally capable of terrible acts of selfishness, hatred, ignorance, and outright atrocity if they are given positions of disproportionate privilege and power, or forced to live in an environment that breeds mass material deprivation, with the insecurity, desperation, and extreme anxiety that comes with such a system.

 I believe this kind of behavior is bred and encouraged by systems and policies that are based on hierarchy and unequal opportunity & distribution of material wealth. Hence, I oppose such systems, as well as the concepts of hatred, ignorance, and bigotry themselves  rather than putting the blame or focusing my ire on any particular group of people.  I believe that hatred and inequality are never justified, regardless of what you, or a group you are associated with, has experienced, either in the present or in the past. By the same token, I believe that privilege and exceptionalism are never justified for any person or group of people for any reason.

 That’s what I believe and stand behind in the proverbial nutshell, dudes and dudettes.