Tag Archive | hypocrisy

Brothers and Sisters, We Don’t Have To Put Up With This Shit

Don’t get me wrong. I know the media doesn’t care about my trust. They’ve successfully polarized the nation into liberals and conservatives, and the result is that it doesn’t matter what a news outlet reports. Liberals will accuse conservative outlets of bias and untruthful reporting, and conservatives will accuse liberal outlets of bias and untruthful reporting. Each and every issue gets carved into two halves, and what the average American believes is far more dependent on their political views than anything that might resemble truth. Naturally, this leads to shocking amounts of hysteria and hypocrisy. One day, you have the left criticizing Wikileaks and leaks in general while the right praises them; the next, the right criticizes Wikileaks and leaks in general while the left praises them. One day, conservatives cheer for the committee investigating Hillary while liberals condemn it; the next, liberals cheer for the committee investigating Trump’s alleged Russian ties while conservatives condemn it.

While I do enjoy pointing out the glaring hypocrisy, I know that it does no good, because it requires self-awareness to identify one’s own hypocrisy, and if they had any self-awareness at all we wouldn’t be in this mess.

But we are in this mess, and the media has played the biggest role in making it this way.

I think it’s time for a public admission from liberal news elements like The Guardian, CNN, Huffington Post, and all the others that they knowingly terrorized the population to support their political agenda. Have we forgotten the post election headlines? The constant fear and doom mongering? The headlines telling us that we needed to be afraid, that Trump’s tweets made him the next Hitler. “The Republic repeals itself!” and articles from resident lunatic Jessica Valenti about how she’s going to tell her daughter that we elected a racist, misogynist bully. The non-stop spiel from people saying “I’m disabled–imagine what Trump is going to do to me!” The people stating publicly that it was just a matter of time before conversion centers were on every corner, and LGBTQ people were being rounded up and electrocuted?

This shit happened.

I mean, the stuff that those lunatics raved about most certainly did not happen. But the lunatics did scream about it. Bloody hell, you’d have thought that we just elected LITERALLY Hitler to the presidency from the news headlines making the rounds. “You’re not dead, and you’re not in hell. You’re awake. You’re alive. This is your life now,” stated Rachel Maddow, with all pretense of fairness long discarded. And hers is among the less egregious of the horrific things the media peddled about how we were all about to die. “How Donald Trump Will Wreck the World Economy” ran other headlines. It was disgusting.

And there has been no apology. No indication that they feel any remorse whatsoever for this blatant terrorism, this lying, this manipulation, and this deceit.

We’re not weeping in the streets while Trump and his rightwing death squads round up and kill all the LGBTQ people, while they put disabled people in the ovens and cook them alive, and while Muslims are sent to concentration camps. Nothing has changed. Your life is the same as it was a year ago; my life is the same as it was a year ago. Even Trump’s travel bans aren’t new; Obama did it several times. Nothing Trump has done is any different at all from anything Obama did or that Bush Jr. did. All in all, things are proceeding right along exactly as they have always been.

Just contrast it to the world we were warned about four months ago! Fuck, you’d come away from the headlines expecting the KKK Grand Dragon or whatever to be the next Supreme Court Justice. You’d think that slavery was about to return, that forced registration of LGBTQ people was just around the corner, and that we omg we’re all about to die. I heard from people who were literally cowering in their homes in fear.

And it was the media–it was 100% the media that created, stoked, exaggerated, and heightened that fear.

They terrorized huge chunks of the American population just months ago, and they did the same shit over Brexit. “The sky is going to fall!” they shouted. “The economy will collapse! Muslims will be rounded up and killed! Xenophobes will rule the nation! We’ll be sold into slavery! We’re all going to die!”

And, again, none of that fucking shit happened.

Here we are proceeding along normally, doing nothing about the months of terrorism that was just inflicted on us by institutions that are supposed to at least pretend to be unbiased and fair. No, man. Fuck that. Fuck this. We don’t have to put up with this shit. Hold these fuckers accountable for what they did. That’s not okay. That’s not acceptable. You can’t terrorize people into supporting your political agenda.

That’s not okay.

I don’t actually care whether the people who spread this terrorism actually believed the lunacy pouring out of their mouths. Maybe they did, and maybe they didn’t. Maybe they knew that there was no chance at all that LGBTQ people would be forced into conversion therapy centers. Maybe they knew that men weren’t going to be able to run through the streets grabbing random women by the pussy. Maybe they knew that disabled people weren’t going to be euthanized. Maybe they believed this insanity, and maybe they didn’t. It doesn’t matter.

Because it’s reckless, irresponsible, and downright dangerous. Anyone who has ever encountered any wild animal can tell you that the most dangerous animal is the one that has been backed into a corner. And that’s precisely what the media attempted to do: convince everyone that we had been backed into a corner and that death squads were on the way. Now that none of their psychotic prophecies have come to pass, and there is no indication that anything at all is going to change, it is well past time to hold them accountable for it, make them apologize, and make them rue the goddamned day they thought that they could get away with terrorizing us.

We don’t have to put up with this shit, and we shouldn’t put up with it.

Stand up and scream at them, “No! I am a human being, and you will not push me around!”

Cum Trumpsters–i.e., Libertarians For Trump

It’s a subject I’ve avoided for the most part, but one that I can’t take any longer. I know a fair number of self-described libertarians, and even a few self-described anarchists, who boarded the Trump Train, and so I felt it best to just look the other way. Many of these people are friends, after all.

But these same people still support Trump, and I’ve got to call them out on it.

First, let’s talk about the VALs (Voluntaryists, Anarchists, and Libertarians, self-professed and actual) who routinely criticized Hillary as a passive attempt to help Trump, instead of just doing it because the bitch clearly wanted to start World War 3. They didn’t want Hillary to lose; they wanted Trump to win. I wanted both to lose. I wanted everyone to lose, in fact. No one on the ballot should have been on it.

If you attacked Hillary hoping to hurt her so that Trump would win, then you’re not just “not a libertarian.” You’re also underhanded and untrustworthy. We can’t just distrust the things you say; we must also distrust your motives for saying it.

I’m not gonna sit here and lie to you. I’m biased as hell. Everything I wrote during the election was aimed at making Hillary lose and McAfee win. I avoided Trump most of the time, because so many other people were attacking him, and instead focused my Trump articles on primarily addressing hysteria–hysteria that remains more of a problem than ever. In the grand scheme of things, Hillary was probably worse, seeing as she repeatedly threatened military action against Russia, but that doesn’t make Trump any better. He’s still a buffoon.

As to the people who fell for Trump’s speeches about draining the swamp, and who have now realized that it was all bullshit, welcome back. I hope you learn from the experience what I learned from Obama in 2008: no one in the main two parties can be trusted to do anything they say. I don’t know why anyone who was an adult in 2008 didn’t know this, but it happens, I guess.

Now the biggest group: the ones who are still with Trump.

Fuck all of you.

You’re not librarians or minarchists, and you’re damn sure not anarchists. Trump is clearly just another politician. If you supported Trump because you wanted to throw a bomb at Washington, I get it. I don’t approve of your choice in bomb, but I understand your sentiment.

But Trump wasn’t a bomb, was he? No, he was just wearing a Bomb Mask.

Pictured: Trump campaigning.

Now that he’s removed the mask, nothing but doublethink and cognitive dissonance can keep those people supporting him. He’s not a bomb. He’s not challenging the status quo. He’s just another politician, and one with a scary understanding of the military’s purpose and an America-centric way of viewing the world.

I was willing to give you guys the benefit of the doubt and let you say that you fell for his con. But you’re still falling for it, even though it’s apparent that he’s nothing but a modern Lincoln. You know. Lincoln. That President that libertarians despise because he cemented the federal government’s hold on the states, suspended the Bill of Rights, and killed more than half a million Americans. Policy-wise, he and Trump are identical. “The Union first” morphed into “America first.” The only thing that remains to be seen is how far Trump is willing to go.

But if by some chance [note: it would require more explanation than I’m willing to get into right now, but my position on California’s secession has changed–I now support it] California secedes, then we’ll see first-hand how similar they are.

And I’ve no doubt that you Cum Trumpsters would continue cheerleading for him as he invaded California. Why not? You guys don’t have the credibility to simply claim you’d be against such an invasion; your credibility lies burned by the bombs that killed the 8 year old girl.

You are every bit as bad as hypocritical conservatives. You know, the people who claim to want small government, unless it’s something they want to do, in which case big government is okay. That’s exactly what you’re doing. Your biggest issue is immigration. Even though the federal government has no authority over immigration (something that you knew until Trump announced his campaign), and certainly no rational or moral justification to affect it, you’re now totally okay with the federal government dictating over all fifty states and even cities in the name of your pet issue.

Just like a conservative.

Just like a liberal.

And, just like the conservatives, you completely lack the self-awareness to realize how hypocritical you are. If the federal government wanted to allow abortion in all fifty states, you’re all “RAWR! STATES’ RIGHTS!”

But if the federal government wants to force California to use Texas’s immigration policy, you don’t see the problem, the tyranny, or the hypocrisy. Because it’s YOUR pet issue.

Conservatives blew it, as I knew they would. It’s true that I hoped they wouldn’t, but I knew they would.

They had the chance to put their money where their mouths have been, to not force conservative positions onto liberal states. And instead of beginning to build bridges by allowing liberals to continue being liberal in liberal states, they jumped right to forcing conservativism onto everyone, particularly in regard to immigration, though there are other areas.

And you’re doing the same shit. “Oh, I’m a libertarian! I don’t think the government should be telling anyone what they can do! … Unless the government is going to tell them to do what I want them to do, in which case, yeah, I’m okay with that.”



You only want liberty when you get your way. If people who disagree with you want to get their way, then you suddenly stop being libertarians.

That’s conservatives’ shtick. Get that shit out of here.

Oh, and transgenderism? There is no fucking better indicator of a Cum Trumpster than vehemence toward transgender people. It’s not ubiquitous or exclusive, but it is certainly one of the best indicators. If someone professes to be a VAL but insults transgender people, particularly by calling us mentally ill, then I’ll gladly take the bet that they’re a Cum Trumpster.

You want to talk about mentally ill? Let’s talk about the Cum Trumpsters who think that the number of brown people in the country affects their lives in any way, and who think that how brown people enter the country makes even the smallest difference.

For fuck’s sake, these “Libertarians” are for the wall. The wall! The motherfucking, goddamn wall. I’m not sure that anything can get more statist than “We need the government to put a fence around our country!”

As Ron Paul pointed out repeatedly, walls don’t just keep people out. They also keep people in. Under no fucking circumstances should the government be building walls that could one day trap us in a la East Berlin. But no, these “Libertarians” are for it! They’re for what is probably the crowning symbol of statism: border walls.

Many of these same “Libertarians” want states or the federal government to legislate that a person can only use the restroom associated with their birth certificate. Even though, you know, they clearly don’t trust birth certificates, which is why their champion Trump carried the “Obama is a Kenyan” shit for so long. Though they don’t trust Obama’s to honestly report his place of birth, they’ll trust yours to report your birth sex.

Seems legit.

They’re particularly fond of saying that liberalism is a mental illness. So is conservatism, and I just don’t see a difference any longer between them and conservatives.

And they are conservatives, clearly–they want to conserve the 1950s Leave it to Beaver way of life that never actually existed anyway. They think their way of life is somehow under threat. It wasn’t long ago that I read an article by one Cum Trumpster saying that multi-culturalism was bad. What? Coexisting alongside other cultures is bad?

No, idiots. It’s only bad if incoming cultures refuse to allow and accommodate other cultures. It’s not even about assimilation; it doesn’t matter if people assimilate. It only matters if they conquer other cultures.

And while I know they don’t understand the difference and truly believe that Muslims are trying to conquer their culture, that’s because they are lunatics who think that a transgender person demanding the state not force its gender definitions onto her is the same as her forcing her definitions onto everyone.

And I do hate to say it, but that’s certainly a side effect of privilege: thinking that not being allowed to force your way onto people is the same as them forcing their way onto you. I mean, for centuries those people had the power and ran all over everyone. Then the democrats formed their equality coalition and pushed back. Of course, then that coalition became addicted to the power and went way too far, moving the goalposts from equality to elevation of minorities. I even agree that democrats have done that.

But the solution is egalitarianism and no one forcing things onto anyone. The solution is not reverting back to the way things were and forcing conservatism onto liberals. Just like Democrats, you “Libertarians” have moved the goalposts from liberty and egalitarianism.

So kindly fuck off and stop calling yourselves libertarians, voluntaryists, minarchists, and anarchists. You’re not. You’re conservatives who want small government when Democrats want to force their way onto you, and want large government when you can force your way onto them.

Some of you criticized Johnson for not being a libertarian, too. Are you kidding me? If you’re going to criticize Johnson for not being libertarian enough while supporting Trump, then you’re an idiot and you’ve dug the principled high ground right out from under your own feet.

I criticized Gary Johnson repeatedly as the libertarian candidate. The difference is that I did so because of principles. The Cum Trumpsters appear to have simply used that as an excuse to back a terrible candidate. And yes, Trump was a terrible candidate, and he’s proving a terrible President. I don’t know why anyone expected anything else. My sister recently said, “I like that Trump is doing what he promised to do.”

Like what? Bombing little kids? It’s true, he did promise to go after families. I have a hard time accepting that anyone, regardless of what they call themselves, is okay with that, but fair enough–he did promise to do that, and he is doing it.

That doesn’t make him a good President. It makes him a murderer. A monster. A depraved, disgusting wretch of a human being with calloused disrespect for life.

Tariffs are bullshit, too. They do have some place in world trade, but their only conceivable non-destructive use would be implementing them on a plan to phase them out from the start, easing a nation into an economic change instead of taking it all at once. That’s not good by any means, and consumers ultimately pay the cost, but it’s the only non-destructive role they could play. They’d still be damaging, but not destructive.

Economics is a pretty big part of libertarianism. I know very few VALs who are economically ignorant. So the Cum Trumpsters should *know* that tariffs on China should be put in place only if the plan is to abolish the Minimum Wage, and even then should start on a system to phase them out over several years. Ditto for Mexican tariffs. And this is because we KNOW that taxes are paid by consumers.

That sales tax you pay at Wal-Mart? That’s not a tax on you buying the item. It’s a tax on Wal-Mart for selling the item. But because Wal-Mart doesn’t want to eat the cost, they pass it onto you. That’s how taxes work. Consumers are always screwed by them and by tariffs. I’ll grant that it’s conceivable tariffs could be used to soften economic blows. I wouldn’t like it, and I think it would extend the damage, but I’m not going to argue the point. But just imposing tariffs and taxes?

A libertarian should know better.

I arrived on-site at a client’s and had to get started working. I intend to add more to this.

Rep. Nunes, *You* Voted For the Patriot Act, You Dumbass

Representative Nunes and the House Intelligence Committee apparently are outraged that Flynn, who recently had to step down because of the content of leaked phone calls, had his phone calls recorded in the first place.

“I expect for the FBI to tell me what is going on, and they better have a good answer,” said Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), chairman of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, which is conducting a review of Russian activities to influence the election. “The big problem I see here is that you have an American citizen who had his phone calls recorded.”

Perhaps the House Intelligence Committee has forgotten, but they passed, and then renewed, legislation that allowed warrantless wire taps on the American People. This is bizarre. The House of Representatives literally passed the abhorrent legislation that allowed this to happen in the first place.

This is so strange. It’s almost as though we’ve stepped into a world where politicians admit that the terrible laws they pass aren’t supposed to apply to them. This is basically an admittance of that, isn’t it? How could the House Intelligence Committee possibly not know that the Patriot Act destroyed the Fourth Amendment and set up the framework for this to happen?

This should be a warning to all of Sanders’ supporters particularly, because he has certainly done this, too–like when his campaign sued to keep people from using one of their images. As always, socialism is for the peasants, not the rulers, and laws are for the peasants, not the rulers.

There’s not much more to say about this. It’s stupid. Instead of serving as a catalyst for the Patriot Act to finally be repealed, they’ll likely just amend it to protect certain people. Nunes and the other Intelligence Committee members are probably wondering how many of their own phone calls are sitting on hard drives at the FBI.

The FBI was essentially given the authority to record phone calls, read emails, and intercept text messages without warrants because Congress–including the House of Representatives. In fact, Nunes himself was there and voted “Yea” in May 2006.

So… What the fuck?

No, really. What the fuck?!

Liberal Butthurt Part 1: “I’m Not a Victim”

Only in a society that has totally lost its mind would it be beneficial to be a victim.

And that is precisely what we find in the United States today. Liberals would not be bending over backward to characterize everyone* as victims if it wasn’t beneficial for those people, and therefore beneficial to the Democrat Party. “Vote for us!” they cry. “We know you’ve been victimized, and we have a goody bag for you! Yeah, you’d be basically selling your soul to a set of ideas that are demonstrably unsound, but we’ll pat you on the back and say ‘You poor victim’ and that will make everything better! We promise like totes 4 real!

I often find myself at the forefront of an extended trail of butthurt, and I don’t mean this in the way most people do. When most people say “butthurt” online, they mean “You dared defend your position from my straw men? U R CLEIRLY BUTTHURT LOL,” but I mean it in the sense of… actual butthurt, people who are offended by things that they shouldn’t be offended by.


If there’s any word that I despise, it’s “offended,” because we throw it around casually, without ever stopping to consider what it means to be offended. To be offended is to have some offense done to you, to be made a victim by something.

I do blame liberals for fostering this victim mentality. Everyone wants to be a victim. I would wager that it’s related to a Martyr Complex, but that’s just speculation on my part. Ha, that’s funny. I’ve never looked into the Martyr Complex before, and it lists “related to the Victim Complex” right there. Just watch how this screaming, petulant baby above whines about how offended he is by someone’s sign–so offended by those evil, mean words that he’s willing to physically assault someone and actually victimize them.

I guess that little bitch missed all the after-school specials that beat into my generation’s head that “No matter what someone says, it doesn’t justify hitting them.”

People are always so surprised to learn that I’m not a liberal, because we’ve gotten so used to people believing themselves to be victims, and there is no political party that panders to victims quite like the Democrat Party. I was ten minutes into one of the Sanders/Clinton Debates when I realized that it had taken me forty minutes to get that far in, because I kept pausing the video to rant about why they were wrong.

Seriously, though, the first ten minutes of the debate, at least, was unbridled pandering.

“You poor poor people…”

“You poor black people…”

“You poor LGBT people…”

“You poor Hispanic people…”

“You poor Muslims…”

I find pandering to be tremendously insulting. I don’t need your fucking sympathy or your goddamned handouts. Sure, I’ve been through some rough shit, and I’ve got a GoFundMe campaign asking for help to leave the state of Mississippi so that I can put my college degree to use. However, that’s a far cry from accepting help from the state; people who choose to can voluntarily give to my campaign, if they deem it to be a good cause. If not, they can ignore it. Of course, they don’t ignore it. I’ve had to delete at least a dozen comments on Twitter, Facebook, Youtube, and GFM itself of people who didn’t read anything I said on the matter.

The reality is that there are poor places in the country from where escaping can be inordinately difficult. Rural Mississippi is certainly one of those, but I don’t intend to get into all of that. Besides, I just interviewed for a job last Monday (and just sent a follow-up email and “Thank you” letter since I haven’t heard back), and it looks like I’ve found an agent for my novel Dancing in Hellfire. In fact, my life here in rural Mississippi has been so difficult from the age of two that I was able to fill an entire book with it.

The only thing I’m a victim of is random chance, that I was born to drug-addicted fundamentalist Christians in rural Mississippi while being transgender. I can’t even make the argument that I’m a victim of my father and mother, because they, too, were victims of a cycle of drugs, abuse, and poverty that goes back generations. Victims, themselves, of random chance.

It wasn’t long ago that I received a friend request from a transgender girl who was clearly a Wiccan and ultra-feminist. That’s a bit redundant, I know. Have you ever met a Wiccan who was not an ultra-feminist? No? Nor have I. I’ve actually remarked in the past that, regardless of what they say, Wicca is a religion for pissed off feminists. I deleted this line from Dancing in Hellfire, because the manuscript will cause enough controversy on its own because of the constant attacks against fundamentalist Christianity; there’s no need to add to that.

Anyway, she asked me why I call myself a “shemale.”

Goddamn, that’s a common question, and it’s one that transgender people evidently can’t resist asking me. What the fuck business it of anyone’s? Wouldn’t it make just as much sense to ask me why I call myself a musician, or why I call myself an author? And, to be clear, I have only met one transgender person who did not ask me that question.

One person on Youtube, shortly after I launched my channel, saw fit to inform me that she was also transgender, and was “deeply offended” that I would use such a word, how it was an insult to her and to all transgender people.

Yes. What I call myself is an insult to others.

Makes perfect sense.

Bitch, you and I are different people. What I do in my little world doesn’t affect you in your little world. What I call myself has absolutely nothing to do with you. If you call yourself a shemale, then you could be affected if you don’t think I’m hot enough or something, but if you don’t call yourself a shemale, then it has literally nothing to do with you. Literally. You are offended and insulted by something that has literally no impact on you.

Anyway, so this Wiccan chick–Gretchen something or other, yes, as full Wiccan as you can go short of calling herself Mistress Diana–said that she’d “been meaning to ask” why I call myself a shemale. I gave a two-part answer, with my usual reasons, though I left off the fact that I love shemales. During my answer, I mentioned the “ultra politically correct culture,” and she asked what I meant by that. That immediately told me what I was dealing with.

Is there someone out there who doesn’t know what is meant by that? It’s the fucking culture that makes it unacceptable to say “midget” instead of “little person.” It’s the fucking culture that has white people trying to figure out what they’re supposed to call black people. It’s the fucking culture that leaves me having to explain that I’m a non-op transgender woman instead of just “I’m a shemale.” It is the culture that condemns Trump for referring to an explosion as a bomb. It is the culture that makes it unforgivable to “mock a disabled reporter.”

Speaking of that last one, notice the wording here. It’s not that Trump “mocked a reporter’s disabilities.” Trump didn’t do that, of course, and I haven’t seen the video of him allegedly mocking the reporter because I don’t care to. Being disabled has its own challenges, but everyone has challenges and, in nearly all cases, I don’t think having this set of challenges to deal with, as opposed to that set of challenges, should set someone up as special and immune from offense and insult.

The wording is important, because it’s clear: Why did Trump mock a disabled reporter? There is a subtle, but important, distinction from “Why did Trump mock a reporter’s disabilities?” On the former, it is unacceptable to mock a reporter who is disabled. In the latter, it is unacceptable to mock someone’s disabilities. Do you see the difference? Under the first, Trump could mock the guy’s hair, reporting capabilities, journalistic integrity, or any other thing that is fair game for being mocked. Under the latter, a disabled reporter can be terrible at his job, lack journalistic integrity, and have ridiculous hair, but it’s not okay to mock him for it.

Here we have another one:


I still marvel at the biased wording.

An entire research paper on subconsciously programming people could be written from this one question alone. I’ll try to stay at no more than a paragraph.

“Muslim parents”? What does their religion have to do with anything? Is that a factor in whether or not they can be criticized? “Of course not,” any sane, rational, and healthy mind would think. So why is it mentioned? It’s there to inform your opinion, to call up that liberalism that lists Muslims as a protected class, making it wrong to criticize them, just like its wrong to mock the disabled reporter. It’s no surprise that my answer has zero upvotes–the question is too biased for most non-liberals to touch it, and it’s written in such a way as to get liberals to answer and have a little circle jerk over the issue.

“Fallen war soldier” is equally emotional and yet another attempt to subtly manipulate you into being outraged that Trump would dare do it. It could only have been worse if the question had “fallen war hero” instead, and, in fact, I’m going to look to see if that edit has been suggested. Apparently, someone has attempted to remove the bias, and that is the result. Jesus. The only way to remove the bias from this question is to change it to “Why did Trump criticize the Khan family?”

In effect, this question is asking, “Why doesn’t Trump agree that Muslims who are the parents of a ‘fallen war soldier’ who died in Iraq should never, ever, ever be criticized?”

To that, of course, the answer is a question. “Why should any of those things affect whether or not they can be criticized?”

This is how liberals work. They create all of these social rules that protect various groups–their groups–from criticism. You can’t mock a disabled reporter! He’s disabled, and that means you can never, ever, ever mock him–even if your mockery has nothing to do with his being disabled. You can’t criticize the parents of a fallen war soldier when they’re Muslims and their child died in Iraq! Never, ever, ever!

You can’t criticize:

  • LGBT people
  • Black people
  • Hispanic people
  • Muslims
  • Disabled people
  • Women

That list isn’t all-inclusive. But, once again, there is an enormous difference between criticizing someone who happens to be transgender and criticizing someone because they are transgender. There’s an enormous difference between mocking someone who happens to be disabled and mocking someone because they are disabled. Intellectually, we all accept this and know it to be true, even liberals.

But liberals won’t apply it.

Just see the question above.

They will say until the end of time that it’s okay to criticize anyone regardless of their gender. But then you have liberals in the media calling conservative journalists sexist because they said something negative about Hillary. I’ve seen people say in the same comment that Trump is an orange oompa-loompa and a sexist because he said Rosie O’Donnel is a pig. Um…


Do liberals genuinely not see the problem?

So it’s okay to make fun of Trump for his appearance, but it’s not okay to make fun of a woman for hers?

As I’ve said before, yes, Trump is a sexist. So am I. So are you. Every single goddamned one of us is sexy and judges people initially based on their physical appearance. Every single goddamned person on the planet, bar none, no exceptions and no caveats. Yes, you reading this: you’re sexist too. Are you a straight man? Then you’re sexist, because sex is a factor in determining who you have relationships with. Are you a gay woman? Then you’re sexist, because sex is a factor in determining who you have relationships with. Unless you’re bisexual, you’re ipso facto sexist, and, even then, I don’t think you get to escape the label. I’m bisexual, at the end of the day, but absolutely consider sex as a factor and have a strong inclination toward women, such that I’ve never had a successful relationship with a guy and don’t particularly want one.

Every single goddamned human being who ever lived was sexist.

Part of the problem is that we no longer are aware that there is an enormous difference between “tolerance” and “acceptance.” Liberals have corrupted the word to the extent that if you don’t accept someone, then they consider you intolerant of them. Saying “I don’t like gay people” becomes intolerant, even though it isn’t–it’s simply unaccepting, and that’s okay, because no one has to accept anyone. To be intolerant is to attempt to use force, violence, and/or coercion to put a stop to behavior that you don’t it, or against people who have characteristics that you don’t like. But to simply not like those characteristics? That’s not intolerant.

As you can see, I’ve discussed the matter before.

This is clearly going to be part of a series on Liberal Butthurt, because there’s so much ground to cover that one article alone can’t do it. Let’s end this on a positive note.

Without using force, violence, and coercion against you, no one can make you a victim. You do not have to be a victim of anything or anyone. Stand up tall, stand up straight, and say it with me now: “I am not a victim.”

* Excluding white people, Christians, and men.

Oh! The Wiccan chick, the story I tried to tell twice and kept getting distracted. Evidently, she didn’t like my answer, so she blocked me. Yes, because I use words to describe myself that she doesn’t approve of, she blocked me. She didn’t reply, she didn’t say another word. She just… blocked me.

The Death of White Conservatism

Not long after I posted a new podcast about this very subject, Milo Yiannopoulos, the gay conservative editor with Breitbart, was permanently banned from Twitter for hate speech. Milo is well-known as a “troll,” apparently, and I can’t weigh in on that, because I don’t pay any attention to him. He was also a Trump supporter, though I wonder if that’s changed now that Trump selected Pence as his VP, and now that the GOP has made a horrifically anti-LGBT party platform. They enshrined conversion therapy, for fuck’s sake. No one with any sense of human decency should be able to stand with them as they try to promote such an immoral thing. How any LGBT person can maintain any loyalty to the Republican Party after they write Pray the Gay Away into their fucking party platform is beyond me.


That podcast specifically addresses three prominent Youtubers who, like Milo, are heading straight toward bans on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter. I spoke of how they need to choose their words more carefully, mind their Ps and Qs, and make damned sure that they don’t say anything that can possibly be construed as racist, and I’m not going to run over the same old ground. I am, however, going to focus more on why these three are receiving channel strikes, what they’re doing wrong, and why they will all be crushed by these social networks if they don’t drastically alter their methods.

The fact is that wearing a shirt that says “White Male” is racist and sexist.

They are doing this and similar things as a response to Black Pride, Female Pride, Gay Pride, and so on, and they are trying to call attention to the fact that racism exists against white straight men, because one isn’t allowed to have White Pride, Gay Pride, or Straight Pride. They are correct, and I have been talking about that for years. I found TNB not long ago, through comments on an atheism video, and didn’t even realize he had a channel until a few months ago. I’ve only ever seen one of Autopsy87’s videos, and that was when I was hoping to call in some backup on my Liberal Redneck video, and I’ve never seen one of Atheism is Unstoppable’s videos. It may be presumptuous, then, to say what they’re doing wrong, but… trust me, it isn’t. I do see them through Twitter, as TNB shares various things.

These are all great guys, and I’m not talking bad about them. But their methods are entirely incorrect.

You cannot defeat racism with racism. You cannot defeat sexism with sexism. You cannot defeat… sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism…

Let’s take a moment and operate under the assumption that Black Lives Matter is racist. We can make this assumption because… it is racist. It takes a thing that exists independently of the adjective (lives) and carves out a subset from the whole, and then assigns a value to that subset (that they matter) when the distinguishing factor between that subset and the whole is race (black). That is quite obviously racist.

Furthermore, let’s take a moment and add another assumption to that. Let’s assume that it’s not acceptable to have White Pride, Straight Pride, or Male Pride. We can also make this assumption because it’s not acceptable.

White-Pride--480x480This image on the left makes it indisputably clear that one is not allowed to have White Pride. If one attempts to take pride in being white, then one is called a racist, Neo-Nazi White Supremacist. Why? Having Black Pride doesn’t make someone a Black Supremacist, does it? Does Gay Pride mean that LGBT people hate or want to kill straight people? Of course not. Why, then, do we act as though Straight Pride means they hate gay people or want to kill them? These are obvious double standards, and what is the distinguishing factor between who gets one standard and who gets the other? Why, the distinguishing characteristic is race and sexual orientation. So quite obviously, that black people can have pride but white people can’t is racist; that LGBT people can have pride but straight people can’t is heterophobic*.

So now that we’ve a clearer understanding of the state of affairs in the United States, and we know that racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism** are acceptable in some cases, but whether they are acceptable for you itself depends on your race, sex, and orientation. We also know that it is not in any sense acceptable in society to be racist, sexist, and sexual orientationist (sigh) if you’re a straight white male.

So what do are they expecting to happen when they try to be racist, sexual, and sexual orientation as straight white men? Do they expect people in this environment to go, “Yeah, no, you’re right. If black people can have pride, white people should be allowed to have pride, too”? It’s way too late for that; that straight white male ship set sail two decades ago. They were too silent for too long for that to have any chance of working, for anyone to be reached with such ideas. That battle has been over for too long, and the consequences have been in place for too long; it is too late to start trying to curb them now. That’s done, and over.

Ignoring that reality, standing up, and proclaiming, “I’m a straight white male, and I am proud of that!” in the modern world will only get a person banned. We simply don’t live in a society where that’s acceptable, and “doing it anyway” isn’t going to make it acceptable. It will only see that you face consequences like being banned and having your channels deleted.

Nor can I say sincerely that “It would be great if you could stand up and say that you’re a proud straight white male,” because I don’t think that. As we’ve established, proclaiming that is sexual orientationist, sexist, and racist. It is sexual orientationist, racist, and sexist, just like someone standing up and saying “I am a proud black gay woman!” That someone is saying the latter, and thereby sectioning themselves off into various groups based on race, sexual orientation, and gender, does not justify a response that does the same.

At that point, you simply have two groups: one of “Proud White People” who proclaim that Proud Black People are racist, and one of “Proud Black People” who proclaim that Proud White People are racist. Since we’ve established that the former aren’t allowed to do this anyway, the latter will point this out, saying, “You’re not allowed to do that!”

The white people will respond, “Well, you’re doing it! We should be able to do it, too!”

To think that this is going to end well is, to be frank, delusional. It would ultimately end in a race war, and one that white people couldn’t possibly win, because there are too many white people who agree that black people should be allowed to have pride, but white people shouldn’t be allowed to. But it doesn’t matter who would win the race war anyway; we should not be trying to fight racism with racism.

Fighting fire with fire does not extinguish fire. It only sweeps the world in immolation.

Nor does racism end racism. It only extends it.

Yes, Black Lives Matter is racist. So is a t-shirt that says “White Male.” If you are arguing against BLM on the grounds that it is racist while wearing such a shirt, then you simply do not have any moral highground, and you are–I must use the appropriate word here–a hypocrite. I don’t like saying that because I respect these people and what they are trying to do in fighting against the regressive mindset that has glorified racism, sexism, and sexual orientationism for decades. However, as I said before: I will call it hypocrisy wherever I find it.

The reality is that Black Lives Matter isn’t the problem. Divisiveness is the problem. People being sectioned off into various groups, where this group can do this and that but the other group can’t, is the problem. Racism is merely one manifestation of that divisiveness problem. Sexism is another, and sexual orientationism is another. Black Lives Matter is, itself, merely one manifestation of the racist manifestation of the divisiveness that liberals have been encouraging and causing for decades.

In other words, Black Lives Matter is a symptom, but it is not the disease.

If you want to fight regressives, then you have to address the disease, not just its symptoms. Yes, the symptoms should be addressed as well, but we must not lose sight of the disease itself. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is racism… with racism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexism… with sexism. You cannot fight the symptom of divisiveness that is sexual orientationism… with sexual orientationism.

If you want to fight regressives, then I would suspect that you want to hang around long enough to do so, right? Well, then it’s time to face reality. If you continue on as you are doing, then you will be removed from the battle as a racist, sexist, and/or sexual orientationist. How many people will you be able to reach, to spread your message, if your Youtube channels are deleted?

I must ask: How do you hope to solve the problem of people being separated into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics by separating people into various groups based on irrelevant and inconsequential characteristics?

* To borrow the left’s habit of taking every fucking thing and slapping -phobic at the end of it.

** I did this initially as a joke, but I don’t know how else to characterize it.

Donald Trump: The Bible of Politics

The colleague that I greatly respect has argued with me repeatedly about Trump. Despite not really following politics, not watching any of the debates, and not even really knowing what Trump has said, he is a Trump supporter. He probably won’t vote (I’m not sure he bothers to), and I don’t think “supporter” is really accurate–“advocate” would be better. On several occasions, I’ve been extremely frustrated on the matter, because this colleague, realistically, has no idea what’s going on in the political world–the details, I mean. He doesn’t know what Trump has said, what Trump believes, or anything else, yet he’s more than willing to essentially be a Trump advocate anyway, and the reason is entirely that Trump is an outsider.

So is Charles Manson, but I don’t think we should elect him to be the President of the United States…

Anyway, today he sent me a clipped message from something someone forwarded him, and I’m going to share it with you in its entirety–and then I’m going to rip it apart mercilessly in the way that I do. 😀

Who is Donald Trump?”
 The better question may be, “What is Donald Trump?”  The answer?  A giant middle finger from average Americans to the political and media establishment. Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents.  But most Trump supporters have simply had it with the Demo-socialists and the “Republicans In Name Only.”  They know there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between Hillary Rodham and Jeb Bush, and only a few cents worth between Rodham and the other GOP candidates. Ben Carson is not an “establishment” candidate, but the Clinton machine would pulverize Carson; and the somewhat rebellious Ted Cruz will (justifiably so) be tied up with natural born citizen lawsuits (as might Marco Rubio).  The Trump supporters figure they may as well have some fun tossing Molotov cocktails at Wall Street and Georgetown while they watch the nation collapse.  Besides – lightning might strike, Trump might get elected, and he might actually fix a few things.  Stranger things have happened (the nation elected an[islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.) Millions of conservatives are justifiably furious. They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016?  Why? Trump did not come from out of nowhere.  His candidacy was created by the last six years of Republican failures. No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.).  Even Ronald Reagan was unable to eliminate the Department of Education.  (Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.)  No reasonable person can believe that any of the nation’s major problems will be solved by Rodham, Bush, and the other dishers of donkey fazoo now eagerly eating corn in Iowa and pancakes in New Hampshire.
Many Americans, and especially Trump supporters, have had it with:
    Anyone named Bush
·     Anyone named Clinton
·     Anyone who’s held political office
·     Political correctness
·     Illegal immigration
·     Massive unemployment
·     Phony “official” unemployment and inflation figures
·     Welfare waste and fraud
·     People faking disabilities to go on the dole
·     VA waiting lists
·     TSA airport groping
·     ObamaCare
·     The Federal Reserve’s money-printing schemes
·     Wall Street crooks like Jon Corzine
·     Michelle Obama’s vacations
·     Michelle Obama’s food police
·     Barack Obama’s golf
·     Barack Obama’s arrogant and condescending lectures
·     Barack Obama’s criticism/hatred of America
·     Valerie Jarrett
·     “Holiday trees”
·     Hollywood hypocrites
·     Global warming nonsense
·     Cop killers
·     Gun confiscation threats
·     Stagnant wages
·     Boys in girls’ bathrooms
·     Whiny, spoiled college students who can’t even place the Civil War in    the correct century… and that’s just the short list.
Trump supporters believe that no Democrat wants to address these issues, and that few Republicans have the courage to address these issues.  They certainly know that none of the establishment candidates are better than barely listening to them, and Trump is their way of saying, “Screw you, Hillary Rodham Rove Bush!”  The more the talking head political pundits insult the Trump supporters, the more supporters he gains.  (The only pundits who seem to understand what is going on are Democrats Doug  Schoen and Pat Caddell and Republican John LeBoutillier.  All the others argue that the voters will eventually “come to their senses” and support an establishment candidate.)
But America does not need a tune-up at the same old garage.  It needs a new engine installed by experts – and neither Rodham nor Bush are mechanics with the skills or experience to install it.  Hillary Rodham is not a mechanic; she merely manages a garage her philandering husband abandoned.  Jeb Bush is not a mechanic; he merely inherited a garage.  Granted, Trump is also not a mechanic, but he knows where to find the best ones to work in his garage.  He won’t hire his brother-in-law or someone to whom he owes a favor; he will hire someone who lives and breathes cars.
“How dare they revolt!” the “elites” are bellowing.  Well, the citizens are daring to revolt, and the RINOs had better get used to it.  “But Trump will hand the election to Clinton!”  That is what the Karl Rove-types want people to believe, just as the leftist media eagerly shoved “Maverick” McCain down GOP throats in 2008 – knowing he would lose to Obama.  But even if Trump loses and Rodham wins, she would not be dramatically different than Bush or most of his fellow candidates.  They would be nothing more than caretakers, not working to restore America’s greatness but merely presiding over the collapse of a massively in-debt nation.  A nation can perhaps survive open borders; a nation can perhaps survive a generous welfare system.  But no nation can survive both – and there is little evidence that the establishment candidates of either party understand that.  The United States cannot forever continue on the path it is on.  At some point it will be destroyed by its debt.
Yes, Trump speaks like a bull wander[ing] through a china shop, but the truth is that the borders do need to be sealed; we cannot afford to feed, house, and clothe 200,000 Syrian immigrants for decades (even if we get inordinately lucky and none of them are ISIS infiltrators or Syed Farook wannabes); the world is at war with radical Islamists; all the world’s glaciers are not melting; and Rosie O’Donnell is a fat pig.
Is Trump the perfect candidate?  Of course not.  Neither was Ronald Reagan.  But unless we close our borders and restrict immigration, all the other issues are irrelevant.  One terrorist blowing up a bridge or a tunnel could kill thousands.  One jihadist poisoning a city’s water supply could kill tens of thousands.  One electromagnetic pulse attack from a single Iranian nuclear device could kill tens of millions.  Faced with those possibilities, most Americans probably don’t care that Trump relied on eminent domain to grab up a final quarter acre of property for a hotel, or that he boils the blood of the Muslim Brotherhood thugs running the Council on American-Islamic Relations.  While Attorney General Loretta Lynch’s greatest fear is someone giving a Muslim a dirty look, most Americans are more worried about being gunned down at a shopping mall by a crazed [islamic] lunatic who treats his prayer mat better than his three wives and who thinks 72 virgins are waiting for him in paradise.
The establishment is frightened to death that Trump will win, but not because they believe he will harm the nation.  They are afraid he will upset their taxpayer-subsidized apple carts.  While Obama threatens to veto legislation that spends too little, they worry that Trump will veto legislation that spends too much.
You can be certain that if an establishment candidate wins in November 2016, … [their] cabinet positions will be filled with the same people we’ve seen before.  The washed-up has-beens of the Clinton and Bush administrations will be back in charge.  The hacks from Goldman Sachs will continue to call the shots.  Whether it is Bush’s Karl Rove or Clinton’s John Podesta, who makes the decisions in the White House will matter little.
If the establishment wins, America loses.

It’s well worth reading completely, though it is kinda long for a forwarded email. And it has the appearance of reason and logic to it, though a look beneath the surface reveals that… something else is going on. So let’s start at the beginning.

Some Trump supporters are like the 60s white girls who dated black guys just to annoy their parents.

Okay, so we’re pretty much starting with a racist thought by alleging that white girls in the 60s would only have dated black men to annoy their parents. Maybe they just liked black men? This is a ridiculously generalized statement, and I’m only calling attention to it so that I can point out: clearly, this is an email circulated by white people. That’s a distinctly “white” thing to say. So we’ve already eliminated all black people from this email–it’s pretty much “whites only” because of this statement. While I’m not interested in making a judgment call about this, it’s going to get more and more restricted and group-based until we’re left with a very, very, very small minority of people. Anyway.

(the nation elected an[islamo-]Marxist in 2008 and Bruce Jenner now wears designer dresses.)

Oh goody!

I would advise people to learn what a Marxist is, and what Marxism is, before calling the President of the United States a Marxist. And I assume they meant to call him a Muslim, and not “islamo-” but whatever. So we’re back to racism, a point I definitively made here on Quora–the only people still harping on about Obama, Islam, and a birth certificate are racists. The non-racists who were simply concerned and had to adjust to the Brave New World have long since stopped calling him a Muslim and Marxist. So I don’t feel bad, particularly after the first remark I called attention to, for calling this race-based. It is. We’ve been over this, and you can read my answer on Quora–and the comments to it–if you want to see my reasoning. Warning: Contains logic.

They gave the Republicans control of the House in 2010 and control of the Senate in 2014, and have seen them govern no differently than Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid.  Yet those same voters are supposed to trust the GOP in 2016?

There’s nothing here to dispute; they’re absolutely right. Conservative officials pulled the same shit here that they pulled the last time Republicans ousted them. I don’t think conservatism is the answer, but the fact that Republicans control both the Senate and the House, yet the Affordable Care Act still stands, is abhorrent. Conservatives absolutely were betrayed, and they should be angry.

No reasonable person can believe that any of the establishment candidates [dems or reps] will slash federal spending, rein in the Federal Reserve, cut burdensome business regulations, reform the tax code, or eliminate useless federal departments (the Departments of Education, Housing and Urban Development, Energy, etc.)

It’s here that we start having serious problems with the reasoning. For one, as I’ve pointed out, Trump has absolutely no desire to rein in the Federal Reserve. By his own admission, he wants them to simply print whatever money the U.S. Government needs. Telling the Fed to “Just print more money” is not going to rein them in.


There’s a handy crash course on the Fed, Interest Rates, printing money, and the long-term consequences. Everything I said is 100% verifiable–I would play that podcast for the Chairperson of the Fed. Ron Paul for 27 years stood on the House floor and said exactly these things; they are sound statements and absolutely true.

I’ve watched all of the GOP debates, and I doubt that anyone who doesn’t work in a campaign has followed the races more closely than I. Cutting departments from the federal government… That’s not one of Trump’s primary principles, and neither is reforming the tax code. He only recently proposed any sort of concrete changes to the tax code, in fact. I won’t deny that Trump has discussed cutting wasteful departments, but it’s bluster–it’s clearly bluster.

Of course, getting shot at tends to make a person less of a risk-taker.

Then someone needs to gain some principles. Danger is no excuse for abandoning principles. Martin Luther King didn’t abandon his principles when someone shot at him. Jesus Christ didn’t abandon his principles when the Pharisees went after him. Bob Marley didn’t abandon his principles when he was shot. FDR gave a speech after someone shot him. Kennedy knew someone was going to kill him. He told his wife that it was inevitable. And yet he persisted. He continued fighting. So fuck anyone who would abandon their principles just because it gets dangerous. That’s cowardly.

But it’s the bulleted part where things get fun. These are the issues that Trump supporters have; this is what they’re tired of:

  • The Clintons
  • the Bushs
  • All current politicians
  • Political correctness
  • illegal immigration
  • unemployment
  • fake numbers
  • welfare waste and fraud
  • people faking disabilities
  • VA waiting lists
  • TSA groping
  • the Affordable Care Act
  • the Fed’s schemes
  • Wall Street crooks
  • Michelle’s vacations and food police
  • Obama’s “hatred of America”
  • Valerie Jarrett (I don’t even know who this is)
  • “Holiday trees”
  • Hollywood hypocrites (Is this like a “One of these don’t belong” game?)
  • Global warming “nonsense”
  • Cop killers
  • “They’re gonna take away our gurns!”
  • Stagnant wages
  • Boys in girls’ bathrooms
  • Millennials

It’s quite a list, isn’t it? In fact, the entire list can be erased and replaced with a single statement: “We’re white Christian conservative men.”

They’re sick of “Boys in girls’ bathrooms”? And yet… they support Donald Trump, who recently said that he’s okay with transgender people using whatever restroom they want? I’m deeply perplexed how you can support Donald Trump when he is explicitly okay with this, and even had Caitlyn Jenner obnoxiously go to one of his buildings to prove it. If you want Christian values in the government, then you probably shouldn’t support the guy who talks about “eating the little cracker or whatever.”

I find it funny that “holiday trees” were explicitly mentioned. In fact, “Yule Tree” would be more accurate and not politically correct, because using evergreen trees is a Pagan custom that Christianity simply adopted to help convert pagans. It’s kinda like their “traditional marriage” argument. Sure, you can stop at 200 years ago and say “That’s the traditional one!” but I can also point to 2000 years ago and say, “No, this is the traditional one.”

More importantly, this is the remark that unequivocally marks them as Christian, because Christians are the only ones who are upset about this. No one else cares.

“No boys in the girls’ restroom!” marks them as men. Presumably, girls have to be protected, but there’s no need to worry about girls using the boys’ restroom. At the very least, that’s chauvinistic, and also demonstrably sexist. It’s also fucked up toward transgender people and shows their total unwillingness to accept that transgenderism is real.

Earlier they referred to Caitlyn as Bruce and said that he wears dresses. Bruce underwent sexual reassignment surgery. If you want to call me a male, you can still make that case. I do, and will always, have a penis. But Caitlyn doesn’t. There is nothing that marks Caitlyn as a man, and referring to her as “he” is remarkably close-minded.

So this person is exactly what we would expect of someone like my dad–some fundamentalist religious nut who thinks there is a god, that he has a personal relationship with that god, that he knows what that god wants, and that he has the god-given right to force those ideas onto others.

There’s a huge disconnect here between them and what they should be saying. If they want to argue for the right of churches to refuse to perform homosexual marriages, that’s one thing. This is why I stopped arguing on behalf of conservatives: they’re not interested in living and letting live. They’re not interested in liberty and small government. They simply want to be the ones in charge and telling other people how to live. They don’t want liberty any more than Bernie Sanders wants liberty.

Why am I so alone in this? “Sure. People can do whatever they want, as long as they don’t use force, violence, and coercion.” Why am I the only fucking person willing to say that and live by it? Why is everyone else saying “Sure. People can do whatever they want, as long as they want to do what I want them to do”?

And you think Trump is going to rein in the Fed? For fuck’s sake, the man just said that they can just print whatever money we need and keep Interest Rates low! He couldn’t be less likely to rein in the Fed. I’m not putting words into Trump’s mouth–that’s what he said. I’m not projecting onto him.

His supporters are.

That’s all this email is–one projection after the next, as people project their thoughts and ideas onto Trump and fully ignore that Trump doesn’t hold those positions. They’re sick of transgender restroom issues, so they’re going to support Trump? They’re sick of the Fed, so they’re going to support Trump? It’s bullshit through and through–Trump is explicitly on the other side of these issues.

The correct answer to “What is Trump?” would be:

A slate onto which his supporters are projecting their own ideas.

But Trump isn’t a blank slate. He has ideas and policies of his own–you’d be hard-pressed to figure out what those policies are, because he flip-flops regularly and swings freely from -500 on an issue to +500 on it. But that huge sweep of the spectrum allows people from all walks of life to support him. If pro-Choice people want to support Trump, then they can–they just have to point to his 90s era quotes about it, and then ignore all the pro-life stuff he has said since.

That’s what his supporters are doing. They’re just cherry-picking, and Trump has given them enough material so that they can attribute almost any position to him. And just as they are proud Christians despite:

  • having no fucking idea what the Bible actually says
  • huge swathes of the Bible with which they disagree
  • and only a few verses here and there that they actually agree with

…so are they proud Trump supporters despite:

  • having no fucking idea what Trump actually says
  • huge swathes of Trump’s ideas with which they disagree
  • and only a few statements here and there that they actually agree with.

That’s what Trump is. He’s the Bible of politics.

Austin Petersen Debates the Anarchist Shemale on Twitter

Now, look. I don’t have anything against this guy. I think he’s probably a fine (albeit misguided) human being, and he’s certainly a lot better than many other candidates, but “being better than people like John McCain and Mitt Romney” doesn’t really count for much with me. I won’t support someone just because they suck less than someone else–I’ll only support someone who doesn’t suck at all. Obviously, that person is the Libertarian Presidential candidate John McAfee.

But today I posed the question on Twitter:

I’d really love it if someone could explain how and are and not just very conservative. Any takers?

I tagged Austin Petersen because I want to give his supporters the chance to defend him and to explain how I’m mistaken and how he really is a Libertarian, and I’ve simply misunderstood his positions. But I got the man himself. Yep. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, came at me personally.

Well first of all, I’m personally socially liberal. Being pro-life doesn’t mean you’re conservative. It means you respect life

I’m simply going to report here what was said, and I’m not going to criticize him for his position or his tweets–at least, not very much. There’s no point in doing that. I will, however, explain some of my positions, because Twitter isn’t a great place to be making well-reasoned arguments. I am going to edit nothing. To that, I replied directly:

And that doesn’t answer the question. How is controlling what >50% of the population can do with their bodies libertarian?

Taken by itself, a fair point, but obviously it invites further discussion and can’t just be left at that. Before we can say that’s a fair question, we have to analyze its details–right? No, not really. It’s a simple, direct question, and requires a simple, direct answer. I did not get one, which provides further credibility to my previous claims that Austin Petersen is more or less a Republican in a Libertarian hat. I added:

Surely you realize that your personal belief that the fetus is “a living person” is just that: Your personal belief?

This put me on shaky ground, but the issue is murky enough that I’m comfortable being on shaky ground here. He replied:

We can discuss the issue, but please admit you incorrectly labeled me as a conservative. Please read:

And provided a link that I’m not going to bother with. I’m not going to bother, because I don’t believe he would bother with mine. Plus, as I replied:

Policies speak louder than words. You’re also against the , right? I judge on your policy, not your expressed associations

Yes, exactly that. I don’t care that he says he isn’t a Conservative, and I don’t care that he says he is a Libertarian. I care about his policies, and where his policies fall on the political spectra. He can openly reject conservatism all day long, but if his policies are distinctly those of typical conservatives (small government, pro-life), then I’m going to call him on it, regardless of what he says. I also added:

While my facts may be wrong, I stand by my conclusion based on what I know. If I’m mistaken about your policy, I’ll gladly recant.

A beautiful statement, yes? If my facts are incorrect, I will gladly adjust my position so that my conclusion is in line with the facts. I will let the evidence dictate my conclusion, not allow my conclusion to dictate the evidence. We should all be so humble to say such things. Austin Petersen, unfortunately, totally missed the point:

If your facts are incorrect, how can your conclusion be right?

This inane dribble received 3 likes–indeed, it’s the “most liked” reply in the conversation. This bullshit he spouted at me because he failed to understand what I said is the most liked tweet of the thread. That’s sad, isn’t it? It’s sad that Petersen’s reading comprehension is so bad that he couldn’t discern the meaning of what I said, but it’s also sad that at least three people didn’t bother to see if he was talking nonsense or not–and he was. Anyone who read my comment would immediately conclude that I was simply allowing the possibility that I was wrong, and allowing him the opportunity to clear the air. I was most certainly not asserting that I was right while simultaneously saying that I was wrong, and a presidential candidate should have the self-awareness and literacy comprehension to have understood what I meant. I would almost say that he did understand, and merely stooped to the lowest possible route by attempting to convince people I had admitted that I was wrong, when he knew damned well what I meant. I say that because it’s pretty obvious what I meant, isn’t it? “Based on what I know, that is my conclusion, but I might not know enough about your position for my conclusion to be accurate. If you would explain your position and if I am mistaken, I will gladly recant.” I mean, c’mon. That’s what I said–only within Twitter’s character limit. There’s no way he thought I was saying something so asinine as “My facts are wrong but my conclusion based on those facts is right.” That’s silly.

you seem to not understand. If my facts are wrong, I will change my conclusion to fit them. Are my facts wrong? 1/2

I’m allowing the possibility that my information, and therefore the conclusion derived from it, is wrong. That’s not saying I’m wrong

Yes, I actually had to explain to him what I meant, because the lightbulb didn’t go off in his head and he didn’t say “Oh! My bad. You were simply allowing for the possibility that you’re mistaken–you were being humble. My bad.”

When he said that, I began to sense something was amiss. Because, no, there’s really no way that he misconstrued what I said. It’s possible that he read it quickly and typed out his quick response, but he must have surely immediately realized that he’d just came to the silliest possible conclusion about what I’d meant. But that asinine reply got three likes.

Getting things back on track, I added:

Are you not pro-life and anti-nap? Very close to the policies of Rand Paul? These are fundamental questions of liberty.

For those unaware, the NAP is the Non-Aggression Pact and is the agreement that it is never justified to initiate the use of force, violence, and coercion. It is not a vow to pacifism; it is a vow to not be aggressive, and it is a fundamental pillar of the Libertarian Party. From Wikipedia on the matter:

The Libertarian pledge, a statement individuals must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party of the United States, declares, “I hereby certify that I do not believe in or advocate the initiation of force as a means of achieving political or social goals.”

So being against the Non-Aggression Pact, as I’ve heard that Petersen is (a claim he never denied, by the way, leaving me to conclude that I’ve heard correctly) outspoken against the NAP. He’s outspoken against the pledge that one must sign in order to join the Libertarian Party. So I repeat: How, exactly, is he a Libertarian? He is against one of the most sacred tenets of Libertarianism.

Petersen replied with:

I’m an agnostic, pro-science libertarian. The child has separate DNA, therefore it’s a separate human body. This is logic

Oi vey.

I ignored that unrelated, irrelevant remark, and said:

So if a woman could donate a kidney to save a child and she refused to, we’d be justified in forcing her to?

Since we have the right to make woman make sacrifices of their literal flesh for the sake of others.

Petersen replied:

If you’re familiar with DNA, you’d understand that if you are pregnant, the child is a separate person.

It was here that Petersen began tagging several of his tweets as #prolife. We all know why he did this. He did this because he wanted to bring in people who were pro-life; he wanted to bring in backup to help him out. There’s literally no other reason he would have added that to the end of his tweet. That’s what tags are for, after all.

So I replied:

No one is disputing that. That’s not at all what I’ve claimed, though that’s still your belief, and many disagree. Not the issue, tho

…which isn’t actually true. I do dispute that, because I think deciding that x number of cells that have the potential to grow into a living, separate being is not quite the same thing as a living, separate being. A fetus in the womb is clearly not a separate being–it is attached to the mother via an umbilical cord and resides in the womb. If removed from the womb and severed from the umbilical cord, the fetus would die. This is not indicative of a living, separate being. It is indicative of a parasite. That’s a term that a lot of people don’t like, but that changes nothing: until birth, a fetus absolutely is a parasite on the pregnant woman. The only way people escape this scientific classification is by saying that the parasite is the same species as the host. Yeah, that’s true, but my dad is still a fucking parasite on my grandmother.

What’s right isn’t always what’s popular. What’s popular isn’t always what’s right.

This riled me quite a bit, and I didn’t hesitate to show it. Plus, another pro-life tag. That’s really transparent, especially for a tweet that didn’t really have anything to do with pro-life things specifically. Besides, the pro-life position is extremely popular… among other conservatives. I dropped the hammer on that asinine statement:

You haven’t addressed the point. Don’t throw weak platitudes at me while dancing around the contention.

There’s nothing for me to add to that. It stands on its own. A weak platitude isn’t an argument. It’s a weak platitude. So I returned to my parallel:

By that reasoning, it must be okay to force a woman to donate a kidney. Abortion doesn’t kill a fetus; it terminates a pregnancy.

This is a critical point, and one that I expanded in subsequent tweets. As Petersen so gleefully points out, the fetus and the mother are separate beings. Ergo, the fetus has no claim whatsoever to the woman’s body; the woman and the woman alone has the claim to her body, to her womb, to her time, and to her umbilical cord. The fetus, as a living and separate being, has no right to claim these things that are part of the woman’s body.

No it’s not OK to force a woman to donate a kidney, since a kidney is not a separate human life. Logic evades you

Let it be known. Let it be inescapably clear. Austin Petersen, presidential candidate, threw the first insult here. And not only did he insult me, he completely missed the point.

Child needs kidney. Woman has kidney. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder.

Child needs womb. Woman has womb. Woman says no. Child dies. Petersen disagrees: society can force the woman to give the womb, and that refusing to give the womb is murder.

The parallel is obvious, and it only gets stronger if we assert that the child is the woman’s son or daughter. It becomes:

Child needs mother’s kidney. Mother says no. Child dies. Petersen agrees: society can’t force the woman to give the kidney, and that refusing to give the kidney is not murder. But child’s need of a kidney is a direct result of the woman’s decision years earlier to get pregnant and have that child; the child’s need for the kidney today is absolutely a consequence of the woman deciding to have the child in the first place. Ergo, according to Petersen, she must accept her responsibility, and if she doesn’t, then we must force her to. That’s the only way for Petersen to be consistent. It doesn’t matter if the child is 5 months old or 5 years old when it needs part of the woman’s body–she is responsible for that need because she is responsible for getting pregnant and having the child.

How Petersen missed the parallel by such a wide berth that he concluded I was comparing a kidney (the organ needed) to a child (the entity in need) is something I can’t grasp. Again, I think he purposefully misunderstood in a weak attempt to wriggle away from the hammers bearing down on him. My parallel contains a woman, a child in need, and an organ the child needs that the woman can give. Petersen’s reply is blatant intellectual dishonesty or foolishness of such scale that he cannot possibly be qualified to be President.

The person who would receive that kidney IS, dude. The point has eluded you.

The umbilical cord and womb aren’t real people either. The logical parallel clearly escapes you. It begins with a simple statement,

and proceeds with a mightiness of reason you evidently cannot keep pace with.

I absolutely threw a condescending remark back, and did so by paraphrasing the master of such insults: Thomas Paine. Not only that, but the parallel did clearly escape him, and he came to the most outlandish conclusion about what I meant that he possibly could have.

Killing a child is murder, whether that child is born or unborn. Not your body. Not your choice.

More tags, eh? Really hurting for some support? Needing a pat on the back and a “Well done, Petersen”? Other than a few likes here and there, no one came to Petersen’s defense. I don’t blame them. I wouldn’t want to argue with me, either. So far I have trounced him at every turn, and now he’s back to simply stating his position because he’s been unable to justify his position. More to the point:

Do you not see the obvious contradiction there?

To clarify: the woman’s body is not the fetus’s body, either. To use the woman’s body is not the fetus’s choice, either. I mean, really. Did I have to point that out? This is why my point about “abortion is terminating a pregnancy, not killing a fetus” is critical. Unfortunate though it is–and it is unfortunate–the fetus cannot survive without the womb (see the kidney point above). But that womb belongs to the woman–it is part of her body, not the “separate” fetus’s. The woman and the woman alone owns her womb. The fetus does not. If the woman does not wish to share her womb, then that is her right, since it is her womb. It is unfortunate that she does not want to give her time and womb to a fetus/child/living molecule, but that is her right, just as it is her right to not give a kidney. The kidney and the womb, after all, belong to her.

The woman’s body–not your body, not your choice.

So, again, we’re discussing terminating a pregnancy, not killing a child. Unfortunate though it is, the child does general die. Still

it’s obviously the woman’s body and obviously her choice whether to give of her flesh to another.

Rock solid argument.

No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body. Separate DNA.

Yet another pro-life tag??? Really, Petersen? Are you that desperate for support against the lone Anarchist Shemale? God, I honestly didn’t realize how many times he used that tag… It’s kinda funny, really. Anyway, who the hell knows what he’s talking about. The reply is to my last tweet above, which, you know… is rock solid. It is the woman’s body, the woman’s womb, and the woman’s umbilical cord. So what “No, it’s not actually. It’s a separate body.” is talking about is, again, anyone’s guess. Is he saying that the womb is part of the fetus’s body? Because that’s obviously and scientifically false. The womb is part of the woman’s body. That’s seventh grade biology. The umbilical cord, to be fair, could go either way–I’ll concede that. However, the bulk of the umbilical cord remains with the woman, not the fetus and birthed baby, so… it has to belong to the woman, as well. The womb, however, is certainly the woman’s independent of the existence of a fetus. So… No, Petersen. You’re simply wrong. The womb is part of the woman’s body, and therefore the woman has say-so in what happens with it.

That has literally nothing to do with what I said.


unfortunate, but it is morally wrong to FORCE a woman to give of her body for someone else’s benefit, even when the cost is death.

He replied:

No one forces a woman to get pregnant except in cases of violent crime.

I retorted:

You talk of it as though it never accidentally happens. It most certainly does. Not the point anyway.

To this, Petersen said the most banal, inconsequential, and irrelevant thing yet by quoting Michael Crichton at me:

“I don’t blame people for their mistakes. But I do ask that they pay for them.” -John Hammond

I finished the discussion with:

More banal platitudes. I expected better of you. Honestly, I did.

At any rate, thanks for the conversation. I’m still betting that you join the GOP by 2030, though. 😉

And so that’s the second Libertarian presidential candidate with whom I have had some sort of discussion, though this one was more of a disagreement than a discussion. Of course, I follow John McAfee on Twitter, and John McAfee follows me on Twitter. Man, when I got the email that said @eTheRealMcAfee had followed me… I was stunned, and extremely happy. It appears to be the real John McAfee, going off the tweets, how they’re written and expressed, and the positions expressed. It might not be, but, if it isn’t, then it’s a damned good fake.

In the greatest tragedy of this election, McAfee is polling only at 4% among Libertarians, which is exactly what we would expect to find, if the Libertarian Party had been taken over by liberty-leaning republicans. I mean, just think about it. How well would an actual Libertarian do in the party if it had been taken over by liberty-leaning conservatives?

Poorly is the answer.

And that’s exactly why McAfee, despite being the only Libertarian on stage in the Fox Business debates, is polling at 4%. I’m only thankful that I watched the debate and saw how bad Johnson’s policies actually are, and how horrendously bad Petersen’s policies are. I’m writing in McAfee’s name no matter who gets the nomination, unless there is a very strong chance that the LP nominee will win the White House. And even then, I’ll never vote for Petersen, because he’s the lesser of evils, at best. Johnson merely has one bad policy, and I’ve urged him to reconsider that position. A Johnson supporter did challenge me on that, and I tore him apart, too. Johnson himself, though, has been silent thus far. In seeing what happened to Petersen when he took on the Anarchist Shemale, I can hardly blame him for his silence.

But his position should be defensible if he wants my support, and it isn’t. Neither is Petersen’s. And, in the end, Petersen didn’t defend his position. He merely stated his position while I pointed out the flaws in it. He pulled a great deal of foolishness or intellectual dishonesty, and he repeatedly tagged his posts in order to bring in back up. If there was a slim chance before that I would one day support Petersen, that chance has since evaporated. If there was any possibility that I could have looked past his pro-life position–as I once did for Ron Paul–that possibility has been wholly undermined by the insults, intellectual dishonesty, and weak attempts to call in backup to gang up on the Anarchist Shemale.

I don’t mind Petersen as a person. He seems decent enough, despite his insults, his underhanded argument tactics, and his attempts to bring in backup. But I adamantly disagree on his policies, and his intransigence in the face of well-reasoned arguments, his unwillingness to address counter points, and his strong similarities to republican Rand Paul mean that I cannot support him. And neither should you, dear reader. When I post this, it will go to Twitter, and it’s possible Petersen will see it and attempt to come here and challenge me further. That is not my goal. My goal here has just been to present my side of things, and he is more than welcome to create his own fleshed-out, 3500 word response.

And I’ll rip it apart, too.

Because the fact that there is a glaring contradiction in his position means that there is hypocrisy in his position. And what did I say about hypocrisy? That it is the duty of the rational person to challenge hypocrisy wherever it is found. And I will continue to do that whether the hypocrisy comes from a multinational corporation or a bloody candidate for President of the United States.

need I say more

lol, what?

Really, Petersen? These are the kinds of people who support you. Typical conservative pro-lifers. And you dare challenge my contention that you’re just a conservative? For fuck’s sake, that’s a Rubio supporter. A Rubio supporter.

Think about that.

In the interest of history, a few (presumably) Petersen supporters have carried on the debate. Here’s the best thing I’ve seen in the thread. For some context, he was specifically trying to tag in Gavin Whoever. Just like Petersen’s tags, I think it’s hilarious when people can’t take me on alone, without trying to call in help. And by his own admission, that’s what he was doing.


The Story of How Google Attempted to Intimidate Me Into Silence


Apparently my very existence is offensive.

transgender not acceptable

Google would have me stop saying that I’m transgender, because apparently that’s offensive to someone. Since “transgender” is the politically correct term for people like me, Google is saying that I’m not allowed to tell people I’m transgender. I mean that literally. That’s literally what they said–there is the email. I only edited out my name. Apparently, my being transgender is offensive. Evidently, my existence is offensive.

I exist, Google. And I am proud to be who I am, and I will continue to be who I am whether people like it or not. You have now lied to me. You have attempted to intimidate me. And now you have told me that my very existence is objectionable. I will not give you another penny, Google. And thanks to Ghostery, you won’t get any money from me through your advertising, either, and I’ve long preferred Duckduckgo as a search engine. I will not give you money after you have explicitly said that my very existence is offensive.

Here is a podcast on the matter:

The Original Post

A few days ago, I started running ads through Google that directed people to this website, the “Trans Anarchist.” I had very little choice but to do that, because Google wouldn’t let me use the word “Shemale” in the ad itself (even though the ad leads to a website that has “shemale” in its URL, banner, and title…). I’ve contacted Google to get that worked out, explaining to them that it’s my responsibility to communicate effectively, and the most effective way that I can communicate my nature is with the word “shemale,” that the word can only be tied to pornography if we the people allow it to be, and I, as a shemale, refuse to allow the word to be inextricably tied to pornography. That’s my word. I am a shemale, so, yes, I absolutely have the right to disassociate the word from pornography.

The ad was approved, and it ran for a few days, and then I decided to change its target so that it pointed to my podcast, the RSS Feed for which is to the right. This meant that the ad had to be approved again (ugh), but I figured “That’s fine. It’s pretty much just my website, but in spoken form,” so I submitted it.


Click for larger image.

Oh, Google, you’ve stepped in it now… and you don’t even realize it, do you? That’s okay. I don’t mind that you’re a multi-billion dollar multi-national corporation. I’m going to rip you apart anyway. So, Google, sit back, grab a cup of coffee, and be prepared to be ripped apart for your blatant hypocrisy and favoritism. I hope you’re prepared for this. Oh, it’s not likely that I can actually do anything about it. Don’t get me wrong–I’m well aware of that. But it doesn’t matter. I’m not going to allow such horrific hypocrisy to stand uncontested. It is my duty, as The Shemale Anarchist, to rip apart hypocrisy wherever I may find it, because it is that hypocrisy–that “say one thing and do another” bullshit–that has allowed the world to fall into such a terrible state. It is our duty, as rational, logical, and principled people, to launch assaults on hypocrisy whenever it appears.

Click to enlarge.

Click to enlarge.

My issue isn’t that Google finds me offensive. Really, it’s not. I’m well aware that many people find me offensive, and I don’t care. I laughed when I saw the response, until I began wondering what it was that they actually found offensive. Because there aren’t very many things that anyone can definitively demonstrate are objectionable.

Only in a Fascist society that has lost its mind can liberty and tolerance be considered offensive.

My first thought was that it was because I was titled at Podbean “The Shemale Anarchist.” But that can’t be the case. “The Shemale” has been tied to my website here from the beginning. Could it be the foul language? Definitely not. My website contains plenty of foul language. Beyond that, it clearly can’t be the podcasts themselves. Why? Because of the RSS Feed you see over on the right. My Podcasts from Podbean feed directly to this website. If the podcasts are offensive at Podbean, then they must be offensive here. Yet my website was approved, so that can’t be the case, can it?

It can’t be that “R&R Ep 03 – You Intolerant Bastards” is a problem, because, though that does appear at Podbean, at the time it was one of the most recent episodes and certainly appeared here at Shemale Diary, as well, right there on the right, in the RSS Feed. That podcast was in both places. One was approved, one was not. So the logical conclusion is that the podcast isn’t the problem.

When I called Google Adwords (Kudos to them for low wait times and for connecting me with an American, I must say), the woman with whom I spoke referenced that episode as the problem. I objected, of course. There is worse material here on this website, and that podcast itself was (at the time) here on this website. When I requested that the disapproved ad be sent back to the approval team, I was told that it’s an automatic process and that nothing can be done about it.

That’s clearly not the case. Human judgment was clearly involved, and human mistakes are clearly what caused the initial ad to be approved. If one is offensive and must be disapproved, then both are offensive and must be disapproved. So that one of the ads made it through fine is, ipso facto, proof that there is human judgment involved and that the process is not automatic. This means the woman lied to me, but it gets worse.

Her response was that she could send the initial ad back through and make sure that both of them are disapproved. This seemed to be a threat, and I certainly took it as one. “Take what you can get,” is basically what she said, “or we’ll take away them both.”

Well. I don’t respond well to threats. Threatening to take both of my ads away if I continue to raise a ruckus about your hypocrisy is not going to have the effect you want it to have, Google. And it didn’t. So what did I say in response to this threat?

“Yes! Absolutely! Do what you’ve gotta do. If you have to disapprove both of them, fine. But since the same exact content is available in both places, you cannot justify the position that one is acceptable and one is offensive. By all means, then, do that.”

“Well, resubmit the first ad,” the woman said. “And I can’t guarantee that it will be disapproved…”

And that is the problem, lady! Don’t you see how blatantly hypocritical and deceitful that is? You clearly lied to me. If it was an automatic process, then you would be able to guarantee that the resubmission would be disapproved. Principles, their expression through Policy, and the application of these Policies is an automatic process. I know that, because I’m an anarchist. I do have principles and policies, and I do apply them without discrimination. I know exactly how principles and policies work, Google, and that is precisely why I support John McAfee. When you rely on principles, you always come to the same results. That you can’t guarantee the same result, Google, is proof that you do not rely on principles and policies.

The woman was clearly not prepared to have me call her bluff. How dare she threaten me like that, though. How dare she say to me, “If you want, we can make sure that both of your ads are disapproved. But you can instead just take the one we’re giving you, and not make us take both of them away.” No, hell no, not going to allow that.

You want to bluff me, Google? I will call your bluff. Every single time.

You can’t now hide behind your policy and say that you can’t do anything about the ad that was disapproved. That’s obviously and demonstrably false. If it was true that ad approval is an automatic process, then:

  • www.shemalediary.wordpress.com wouldn’t have been approved, because it contains an RSS Feed directly from the “offensive material.”
  • You would be able to guarantee me that a re-submission of the original ad wouldn’t get approved.
  • Which is just remarkably stupid when you think about it, because my entire point is that the initial ad shouldn’t have been approved if the podcast in question is the objectionable material, but it was, and now they’re disapproving the ad on the basis of that podcast, yet can’t guarantee that this site, which contains an RSS Feed that has that podcast, will be disapproved.

And you want to tell me that your policy justifies that insane rambling of doublethink and nothink? So I’m going to extend the RSS Feed so that it absolutely contains “You Intolerant Bastards” in the feed, and then I’m going to resubmit. And, yes, I’m going to post this and leave it here, because Google has either violated their own policy or they are unfairly targeting my podcast page.

Why do I say that? Because the only difference between ariadimezzo.podbean.com and shemalediary.wordpress.com is that one is far more accessible (being a spoken podcast) than the other (being written articles). The word “fucking” appears all over the place on this website. In fact, I did a search for the word “fucking” in the search bar, then did the “find in page”. 37 matches.

It appears once on the podcasts.

So don’t bullshit me, Google. If the word “fucking” is a problem, then you should have disapproved my first ad “with extreme prejudice.” But you didn’t. You approved it, and you’ll probably approve it again. And, yes, I’m going to have this right there at the top of the website when I submit the ad so that I know someone at Google has seen it. Either you have to approve both, or you have to disapprove both. You can’t hide behind principles and policies when I can demonstrate that you didn’t apply principles and policies. You applied some arbitrary criteria that is unknown, but you certainly didn’t uniformly apply your policies. And you clearly don’t uniformly apply them, because you still can’t guarantee that this website will be disapproved.

Ad to a website of written content that the average surfer won’t want to read? That’s okay.

Ad to a website of spoken content that the average surfer might listen to? That’s not okay.

There’s literally no other difference between the two URLs in the ads I submitted. One goes to written content, and one goes to spoken content. The content itself is virtually identical.

If you want to have a policy that means you can’t approve my ads, Google, that’s fine. I’m an anarchist. I’m 100% in support of your right to do that. And I acknowledge your right to be hypocrites, just as I recognize the right of conservatives to discriminate against LGBT people. But just as I’m going to call them out on their ill-considered position, so will I call you out on yours. Just as I’ll blast the hypocritical left for being intolerant, so will I assault the hypocritical Google.

People can say a lot of things about me. “Offensive” is certainly one of those things, and I don’t bother to deny that the average Politically Correct libtard will find me offensive, and so will most of the religious right. I really don’t care. But one thing that people cannot and will never be able to say about me is that I’m a hypocrite.

I suggest you re-evaluate your policies, Google, and the mechanisms by which you apply those policies in tandem with the criteria with which you cherry-pick when to apply those policies. Until then, you are hypocrites, and I am left to conclude, on the grounds that the only difference between the two sites is accessibility, that you merely want to keep the cause of Liberty quiet. Do I think that’s really the case? No. But I can make that case.

Oh, yes, and–since you recorded that call (as did I)–you may be interested to play it back and hear how your employee did threaten me with having both ads pulled if I continued to make a big deal about it. I’m pretty sure that making threats–even those that aren’t violent in nature–is against your policies, isn’t it? Maybe you’d like to apply those policies here. Because I don’t appreciate being threatened, and neither will I allow someone to intimidate me into silence.

That your employee tried to intimidate me into silence, Google, reveals quite a lot about what really happened here. People who are on the side of principles don’t have to intimidate people trying to shut them up. You are so in the moral wrong here, Google, that it’s astounding. Not only do you pick and choose when to apply arbitrary policies, but you also have employees bullying customers and attempting to intimidate them into submission. I don’t know what part of the world your headquarters is in, Google, but here, where I am, attempting to intimidate people into submission is not okay. It’s bullying, actually… You’re like the waiter at a restaurant who said “Yeah, the cook spit in your steak. Sure, I can send your steak back, and I can get the cook to spit in your fries, too.”

If that’s how you treat customers, Google–with intimidation, bullying, and threats to back up your hypocrisy while trying to hide behind your arbitrarily applied principles, then I don’t want to do business with you.

P.S. Enjoy the PR. 😉