Author: Crowhill Report

Pigweed and I did a quick show on China’s remarkably family friendly tyranny.

Why is the left in America so wound up with LGBTQ stuff while the real left is prohibiting effeminate men in movies?

My eastern European socialist friends tell me the socialists and the communists were never as … what? I was going to say “pro-gay,” but that doesn’t cut it. I suppose it’s pro-non-hetereo ….

Anyway, the American left’s attachment to that string of issues is not strange. They all have a “civil rights protester”-sized hole in their hearts. They feel as if they were cheated by not being able to march and protest racism in the 50s and 60s (when there was real racism), so they’ve been on a mad search for “the next civil rights issue” ever since.

It reminds me of me, as a boy, spending time in the woods wishing I could be a character in The Lord of the Rings.

Attachment to the cause of the not straight people doesn’t seem to be a lefty thing. It’s a “left-ish in America” thing. And the best proof of that is that it doesn’t scare corporate America one bit.

Even someone as unhip as I knows that LOL means laughing out loud. When I saw people use LOLOL, I thought it was just a way to put an exclamation mark on it, and I tended to think it was silly. That theory was confirmed when I saw people using LOLOLOLOL, and such.

But LOLOL actually stands for “lots of laughing out loud.”

I feel better now.

It’s a common argument. We think we see a pattern. Behavior A provokes Reaction B. E.g., when a white person in a gorilla mask attacks a black politician, that’s a horrible, racist act that has to be denounced everywhere.

Then we see an exception to that pattern. Conservative Larry Elder gets attacked by a white person in a gorilla mask, and we hear … crickets. No denunciations. No accusations of racism.

It certainly seems like hypocrisy (I think it is), but it’s worth taking at least a moment to reflect on the poor quality of this form of argument.

We don’t know if Behavior A always provokes Reaction B. We see that sequence some times, and we think it’s a pattern. But is it really? If Behavior A doesn’t always provoke Reaction B, do we know why? Might the Larry Elder case fit into that general exception?

It is a weak sort of an argument, and I’m sure David Hume would hate it. But it’s strong enough that we should call out the media for ignoring this story.

It seems pretty obvious that it’s only “racist” (in the minds of the mainstream media) when people attack liberal blacks, and use props that are historically associated with anti-black bigotry.

• Is the solution to “vaccine hesitancy” to ram the vaccine down people’s throats with heavy-handed federal rules, or to understand why they’re hesitant and address those concerns?
• Are attacks on the unvaccinated racist, since Black and Hispanic people are disproportionately represented among that group? (A: no. I’m just illustrating how stupid some claims of racism are.)
• Does the President have the authority to issue such a rule?
• Does that matter?
• Should he have such authority?
• Wouldn’t it be better if a rule like this came out of Congress?
• Is it fair to put all the “vaccine hesitant” in the same bucket? For example, I have a friend who has already had Covid and believes he has natural immunity.

This is funny. Martin Luther’s Ninety-five Theses, as E-mailed by Your Passive-Aggressive Co-Worker