Things I disagree with conservatives (that I find on the internet) + "Game"

(A) Their views on education

and

(B) their view when pertaining to the arts.

(A) Makes them look like "I pick things up and put things down" types or bitter "them 1%" types - yes, I bet you took "risks" (though undefined and never explained what these 'risks' were) while (B) helps them fulfill the stereotypical simpleton from inner America (though there are simpletons everywhere, even in cities and in every profession). But then again this coming from someone who admires & believes in John Henry Newman's view on education and someone who has great interest in the arts (painting, sculpture, writing, poetry, ballets, operas, symphonies, plays & musical theater, photography).

GAME
I'm new to this whole blogosphere thing. I'm glad that I found blogs commentating on what would be deemed as modern thought (e.g. modern day feminism, modern day views on sexuality). What really gave me a "what the fuck" feeling was learning that the writers of these blogs (some are Catholics, some are Christians) also seem to adopt the "game" mentality. In some odd ass way they're Catholics on one foot yet are Darwin-esque on the other. How this pairing happened I have no clue. This makes up for one messed up manosphere. It's like they bought into the "player" mentality when it comes to wooing and courting the opposite sex.  

More on this "Christian + [insert whatever modern day Kool-Aid myth that's believed on _____ ]." It's thoroughly depressing. 

Rejecting the "role model" label ... but not really because "they're talented"

It's been my observation that actors who start to get a little "risque", and then when they're confronted by these questionable decisions raised by the interviewer, they often times say "I'm no role model." I take this as a self-preservation tactic and in a way, on the actor's part, to have their cake and eat it too. It's one of many "Get Out of Jail" cards that actors use.

Here are some scenarios:
- Actor advocates for some social cause (mainly a 'progressive' one, like PETA, It Gets Better, Human Rights Campaign, any LGBT advocacy group, Kill Malaria, some Go Green cause etc.) and actor is seen as a "role model' (actor feel good about themselves)
- Actor takes nude photo, receives a DUI or just performs some action that is mainly due to pure narcissism; actor says "I'm no role model", blames the media or their fans becomes apologists for the actors sake

Like I said, "Get Out of Jail" card.

I'm not saying entertainers should act "perfect"; most likely they're going to act like idiots more often than the Average Joe simply because (A) they have the time and (B) they have the means and opportunities to do such things. Add the six figure income, yearly, and you get an entitlement to do whatever you want. What I'm saying is there's little to no accountability - no actual real scorn or dismissive tone towards the entertainer by their fans. The DGAF mentality is usually adopted between late teens (in Justin Bieber's case once he turned 18) and early twenties. If any scorn or critical judgment is put upon them they usually resort to this "no role model"/DGAF mentality; when praise is put upon them it's usually "Thank you to all my fans, your support and your kind words. Believe in your dreams, all you need to do is to believe in yourself and let the haters hate." (Which is basically telling all their followers to adopt the DGAF mentality.)

I stumbled on a conversation talking about Miley Cyrus. One poster was critical of her - this is when the dancing bear and twerking began and caused a commotion - while the other said that Miley would make a fine motivational speaker. That's right, Miley Cyrus as a motivational speaker. The poster was serious. He noted that what Miley's going through - the whole #YOLO mentality - was what he was going through at the moment. He said "I won't let anyone get in the way of my dreams." Yes, because there's a roadblock of "ME! ME!" in your way.

When the "common people" don't admire a certain entertainer (e.g. athlete, actor, singer) the accusation hurled at the "common people" is of jealousy or lack of talent or any other shallow jabs. Besides those jabs, "laughing to the bank" to "inspiring millions worldwide" to "you work in a menial/9-5 job" ad hominems are the stock darts.


In some bizarre twist, the common man is expected to admire them and to use them as motivation (even though a good percent of the common man, I'd wager, do not want a career as a singer, actor or any unconventional creative job) while at the same time to see them as "just like us" (fair enough). This "just like us" is thrown out the window once the entertainer releases his "tell all" autobiography, or when one discovers how privileged they are, since "just like us" is drowned in their exclusive parties filled with other creatives; private transportation and, most likely, deviant relationships or multiple marriages. Such entertainers are always heralded as to have "lived a full life" since the common man are just stuck in their everyday menial jobs and routine. But, as always, when they screw up the "they're just human" is presented without fail. Their apologists will say "Like you're so perfect," in attempts to  play the "throwing stones as a glass house" card. I'd say throw the stones when needed. If it crashes then it crashes -- I mean, the common man is also "just human", right?

In all honestly, I don't even believe that most of the common man - those in the USA at least - really gives two sh*ts about entertainers as the media, their handlers and their fans often times lead on. Is this some way to use the common man as a scapegoat when entertainers commit one very stupid mistake after another?

There must be something in the water that non-conservatives drink. Combox #1

I think comboxes, to an extent, are a good way to gauge a certain group - be it the regulars or the occasional random posters that deny the article.

Depending on the topic, when I visit non-progressive sites & check their combox, the responses are somewhat predictable to almost "All your emotions are obnoxiously retarded." In case you were wondering, I'm not talking about conservative commentators, but the visitors - the "modernists."

Here are some topics that tend to get non-conservatives, whether they be libertarians leaning left or just flat out modern day leftists/progressives out of the woodwork:

- newly formed conservatives
- critical of homosexual "rights"
- critical of women's "rights"
- skeptical of global warming
- critical of libertarian ideals
- anything defending religion from the criticism of the secular/atheistic world view
- critical of Obama (this topic was a "golden calf" to the left, but now it seems their enthusiasm has greatly been reduced)

This shouldn't be a surprise. The topics basically make up the core of the social issues that are very much dear to leftists/modernists/whatever-you-call-them. (I'm an ex-liberal and I'm starting to get confused on what to call non-conservatives.)

There are probably other topics that have slipped my mind, but those six (not including Obama) are the main topics that tend to get the trolls where the combox reaches 150+. I'll just concentrate on the few listed.

The Newly Formed Conservative
Just recently I read an American Thinker (AT) article on being an ex-leftist. I recommend reading it. I read through the combox, not all 700+ comments (which I think is an AT record) - but most - and those that were not in favor of what was written stated the usual remarks:

- "You were never a true leftist." (Really, now?)
- "So you switched from one ideology for another?" (Let me see, you're a 'libertarian.')
- "This is just rhetoric smearing the left." (So you're saying everything was a lie or grossly exaggerated?)
- "Why should it be always a partisan war? There should be compromise!" (Mr. Naive.)
- "Kumbaya." (Okay, this was never actually said, but it's the 'moderate' card that was being played. )
- "I could say the same thing about conservatives." (So you can replace "leftist" with "conservatives for each point?)
- "Both sides have their bad." (No duh.)
- "This is just BS." (In other words: It hits too close to home OR you think the piece is either lying or over exaggerating.)

Even more interesting is that those that formed these critical comments weren't AT regulars. I presume that the article was posted on a site like reddit (actually no, if it were then the combox would be immensely vial and cruel) or people actively googled for similar posts and up popped the AT article. Or maybe the regulars who liked it circulated it gaining it mass traffic. I'm not sure how it gained that much attention.

Critical of Libertarian Ideals
Again, back to AT. I also liked this article. A good percent of the comments, 200+, are very angry libertarians - most of them first time commentators on the site. The writer's follow up article only received 77 comments, less than half of before. Unlike the above article where many of the commentators where regulars, the comments for this article were mostly first timers. How'd they sniff out this article? I guess that some site dedicated to libertarianism tagged it on its news feed and BOOM, swarming (a technique used to cause high traffic in order to overwhelm the writer and to intimidate regulars).

Critical of Homosexual "Rights"
Way too many to list. There's a few on AT and there's a ton on Breitbart.com. I frequent conservative sites and when something like this s issued I always tend to brace myself. The combox usually gets flooded and a good percent of the comments are "swarmers" - non regulars picking a fight or just mouthing off the cliches I've grown too weary to even care to refute.

On another AT article, which unfortunately I can't seem to find it, not about anything homosexual related, but on Romney's potential to win the 2012 POTUS race, the day after the election I ventured back to it. Like clockwork two pro-homosexual "marriage" advocates started sneering that "they won." Of course this was the same, amongst many other usual gloats, when it came to articles relaying news of same-sex "marriage" becoming law making conservative sites. I distinctly remember one poster saying "My friends and I will dance in the streets!" when DOMA was struck down. This was troll on a conservative site.

And there's this piece of work: 950+ comments on a site that most articles don't get 20. 950+ ... I repeat 950+. And what was the topic you wonder? A rebuttal to an atheistic online comic. I figured it was posted on the comic's Facebook page (it was, I checked) therefore all the followers of the FB page pursued it. Who coined the label "Gnu Atheists"? Whoever it was, good job, cause I like it.

When I venture to HuffPo or DailyKos or Democratic Underground, the chances of me crossing conservatives are few and far between. They're like a rare (fictional) bird - think of Kevin from UP:

Why so few sighting? I don't know. I'll just say that non-conservatives have an anger in them that resembles the tantrum of a 6 yr old, therefore leading them to hunt down any articles - or even keep a list of sites to regularly check up on - that are critical of their precious social issues/causes. They're one bitter angry and irritated group. Meow! 

And when I do cross a conservative their appeal is generally harmless - benign and somewhat squishy, if that makes any sense. They're probably quoting a Bible verse that gets all the angry non-religious riled up. If not they're very "matter of fact", so much so that their tone resembles a history teacher reading from the pulpit.


So here's my round up:
- left leaning libertarians
- self-righteous & smug LGBTAONQPYW people
- angry feminists
- condescending atheists

Is it safe to say that these are "modernists"? I think so. Modernists are very angry people. Why is this? The whole "conservatives are the reason this country is not 'with it'" I don't buy. I've thought about it and it just comes across as an intellectually empty blame. Or as one person (in the 700+ AT article) noted that conservatism has caused problems in his life (though he never went into particulars or gave examples). I also think this person's "confession" is somewhat misguided as well.

One thing's for sure: Conservatism (especially being a social conservative, or supporting traditional mores) is probably the most hated, most mocked and most misunderstood ideology amongst modernists - which, I'd wager, is most of the Western Civilization. It just sets off those "Pissed Me Off I Dare You" buttons.

Are homosexuals under a drone attack?

One would think so. The media certainly makes it seem like such a group is and my fellow idiotic Millennials surely think they're the wall between the "bullies, bigots and homophobes."

The beauty of the internet is that it is a treasure trove of knowledge & information. I googled "boy scout knots" since I wanted to know how to tie a balikbayan box. I viewed some photos showing the knot and as I scrolled down I saw this:

Instead of figuring out how to accomplish tying the box my mind went elsewhere. This picture aided by another picture (to be talked about later in the post) urged me to write this.  

Now initially no openly homosexual boys were allowed - the reason being that due to this sexual/romantic/hormonal preference, a homosexual boy may make a sexual advance towards another boy (who most likely won't be bi-curious, homosexual, or even thinking about such things let alone girls, he may be thinking of his PS4 while tying knots), and the main precaution, to my understanding, was to protect any boys from advancements from their scout masters, who might be a homosexual. I understand the initial (now turned down) rule. Whatever happens to the a young boy the men in charge will be blamed and the organization will be held accountable. The parents would probably be compelled to sue the culprit and organization - and the BSA aren't made of dough. Something of this magnitude will no doubt bankrupt the organization. To me this wasn't due to homophobia (in many minds such a precaution is) since I go by -phobias as "fear", like actual fear, as in "GoldRush fears spiders."

I'm am not familiar with the "We Will Not Allow Gay Partners!" Unless both guardians of the boy show up at prospect meeting I don't see how one would know if both are gay let alone are partners. This raises some questions in me. Most boys start scouting when they're about 8 - that's Cub Scouts. If I remember correctly, since I was a Cub Scout when I was a child, Boy Scouts started around 10 or 11 after one graduates from Webelos. One isn't forced to do Boy Scouts; it's a choice (or unless their father is a Scout Master then the pressure is on). The first rung of the ladder in Boy Scouts is a Tender Foot, then one rises through the ladder and becomes an Eagle Scout at 18, given that all requirements are fulfilled - badges and a public service requirement. It's a long process. Entering high school as a Boy Scout, openly, isn't really popular since you're probably seen as one step lower than band members in the coolness factor. One usually sticks to it if they really want to achieve that Eagle rank.

Now here are my further questions: How do Scout Masters and the BSA know there's a scout who's a homosexual? Unless that boy who decides to become a Boy Scout AND knows he is attracted to his own sex, either exclusively or as a preference (considering he's bisexual) AND shares that to the public, the outcry of "We Will Not Allow Gay Scouts", as depicted in the propaganda cartoon is being melodramatic.  Sexuality, more or less, at that age is not so obvious that an initial look at a young boy's face turns on someone's gaydar, or bi-dar. How many young boys between the ages of 10-13, if they do know they're not straight, actually broadcast it? How many Boy Scouts would actually admit that they fancy their own sex? How many Boy Scouts who admit that they're attracted to their own sex were stripped of their accomplishments and booted out of the pack? I am aware of no story being brought forth.

Through experience, non of my peers talked about whether or not they were straight (it's largely assumed, naturally), gay, bi-curious, asexual, queer, if they preferred a sock and their own hand, or if they felt they were a girl instead of a boy. We were too focused on learning oaths and burying our heads in our scout books to even consider talking about sexuality. I don't think it even crossed our minds. Sexuality wasn't even brought up as a topic when meetings took place. In fact, the space where meetings took place was the same place where Girl Scout meetings where. I remember one of my peers walking to some of the Girls Scouts waiting to use the room after our meetings and saying "Girl Scouts?!" and puffed his chest out, making his scarf prominently stick out in the air. I mean, they had a rank called "Brownies." Brownies.Why? We had bad-ass ranks liked Tiger and Bear. (I'm being tongue-in-cheek, but those ranks actually exist in the world of American scouting.)

Now, of course, due to pressure from the outside world (as my reading from scout forums suggests, more 'progressive' parents and scout masters saw certain rules held by BSA as stifling, ironic enough - can anyone say "heretics"?) this ban - mainly due to protection of the organization and for the boys - has been lifted. The media, as demonstrated by the propaganda cartoon and the Atlantic Monthly (AM), basically turned this ban into a national story. What's interesting about the letters of the Eagle Scouts, those that were large enough to read, is that most followed the same lines of "This is an embarrassment to be part of such an association. This is discrimination. BSA fails to live up to its ideals. I am renouncing my Eagle Scout medal." And whose idea was to send in the highest honor? I'd suspect a letter was circled around to use as a template which encouraged to forfeit such an honor. I want to ask those that returned their medals if they knew any boy who was stripped of their accomplishments and booted out of the troop. I doubt they'd could conjure a single memory of such a thing happening.

This reminds me of Catholics who said they left the church for similar reasons without fully understanding any of the philosophy or doctrine behind teachings they had issues with, for instance the teaching that says homosexuality as a sin or the church not allowing & recognizing same-sex "marriage." Their thought process probably went something like this "What? Gays can't get married? Well that's just discrimination! That's an abomination! This is the 21st century! That's such an archaic and backwards teaching! I am embarrassed to be part such an institution!"

I'd wager that the men who returned there medal due to this now defunct ruling thought little of why such a band was there in the first place. I also have a feeling they were much brighter when they were younger before modernity crept into their everyday thinking. Not to mention the arrogance of telling an organization that they aren't living up to the written motto simply because it banned open homosexuals from being Scouts. In my eyes, such men showed that they do not do not deserve their Eagle rank. So, in some bizarre ironic twist, they proved they were not worthy of such an honor. 

It's not like scouting was immensely popular in the States before this national story, and that when you saw a Scout you'd salute him. Sadly, it has become an activity often forgotten about once boys graduated from elementary school. Once someone found out that homosexuals were not allowed to be Scout Masters scouting became the activity for those who jumped onto the "homosexuals are victims of an unjust society and backward norms" wagon. Were there boys in my scouting days that were homosexuals? I have no clue. Were there Scout Masters that were homosexuals? I don't know. They were all married and had kids; the kids turned out to be my peers

BSA was more popular back in the day, more relevant, because it was seen as an organization and as an activity that appealed to the handy man, the outdoors man, and that it instilled discipline and virtue. I don't think most of America knew or thought of scouting that way before this whole fiasco. Now, those that didn't give two licks about the activity, and who are around my age,  even older, probably thought "Good riddance. Serves them right to be ridiculed since they're such a bigoted organization. I hate homophobia." All of a sudden such people care?All of a sudden homosexuals are victims?

 What are my opinions? To use the propaganda cartoon as a guide:

Do I think boys, who are homosexuals, should be allowed as scouts?

Answer: I think boys should be allowed to join regardless of their sexual preference - and I believe no questions are asked before the boy signs up if he likes boys or girls, so such a question is irrelevant. But, how would one know of their sexual preference in the first place? Many assume that a boy likes girls, and naturally so. Many times "Did you know so-and-so was gay?" is met with "Really?" If the boy is a homosexual is he open about? If he was open about it then I'd bet they'd be initiatives to integrate a "sensitivity" course throughout each pack & troop. There should be no such thing.

Do I think same-sex guardians should be allowed?

Answer: Vague question. Allowed to what? I'll direct it: I think the boy in their custody should be allowed to join regardless of who are his guardian(s). Now can one or both (open homosexuals) guardians be allowed to become a Scout Master? No to both. I've covered the reasons why earlier in this post.

Do I think homosexual partners should be allowed?

Answer: Vague question. Allowed to what? I'll direct it: Should homosexual partners be allowed to be Scout Masters? No. I've covered the reasons why earlier in this post. Then again I'm not aware of a story that homosexual partners are even remotely interested in Boy Scouts. In fact, I'd be mightily suspicious.

Does this make me homophobic?

Answer: No, not to me, but to the modernist and their eve expanding definition of what constitutes as "homophobic" I am. 

The other picture, a tweet actually:

fuck off 

So not only are the party members angry at the priest, but also the Millennial (the young lady is an actress) who felt strong enough about it to share her feelings. And in such eloquent fashion might I add. In my experience this is a common reaction amongst the 'modern and under 35' crowd. I remember reading on a movie site asking readers to list down what they hated. Many listed down "homophobia." I listed down "modern & post-modern thought." Yes. I. Did.

You'd think, given by her obvious irritation, that homosexuals are daily rounded up and sent to facilities that cured them. I'll admit that what the priest said was controversial, totally un-PC -- probably more controversial than most modern thought (ironic how that works out). People will loose their brain and start frothing at the mouth - the reaction is almost a disease (again, highly ironic). It is a highly controversial thing to not only think about  but to also say aloud in modern times. Modernists think homosexuality is not a big deal, that it creates nothing of wrongness, if not outright goodness. Granted @Little is an actress, so it's safe to say she knows a good number of open homosexuals - fellow actors, stylists to make up & hair artists. It's a sensitive subject to her. I understand. She might even have a relative that's a homosexual. Then again, so do I.

One would think such a defensive reaction would lead into a reality where homosexuals were constantly bombarded with Fundamentalists saying you're going to hell (highly doubt that's the case) or that their front lawns were vandalized due their sexuality (highly doubt that's a common occurrence). Given the religious climate in England, and given people like Richard Dawkins, I doubt @Little is surrounded by such Fundamentalists since she lives in London, and the last time I was in London I experienced no Fundamentalists or anyone on their soapbox saying "Repent! Repent! For he is coming!"


And another:

An openly gay man joins the NFL, a Southern state issues same-sex marriage licenses and a drag queen wins Eurovision. #mostfabulousdayever
— God (@TheTweetOfGod) May 11, 2014

Because an openly gay man would not be accepted into the league? It made me chuckle that the qualifier Southern had to be present. A "Southern" state. Those backwards, toothless, inbreeding, racist, bigoted, obese, welfare, ignorant & stupid, Bible thumping Southern states!

"Hey guys, a SOUTHERN state finely joined the modern world!"
"Indoor plumbing? High speed internet? Free wi-fi at the bus stop where the bus runs on solar energy?"
"No. The state passed gay marriage!"

#TweetofGodMyAss

What makes parents proud? Bodily autonomy, ownership, not caring.

Don't ask me how I got to this video -- it's was one of those "I clicked here and there, found this video interesting and found another, and then I found myself in this part of youtube" type of scenario.  It's not the cute animal part of the site.

One of the commentators gave this response,

"The actress' parents must be very proud her."

 which was followed by this (which received an up vote),

"they definitely are. she's making more money than any of us and she looks great."

The critical post gave an interesting point, as well as the other. Given that actors, working actors that is, do get paid a handsome amount of money - and often times more than their parents, family members and childhood friends make in one month, probably all combined - I think any parent would be glad in that regard. Their child, by just cashing that check(s), would be financially independent.

Who knows how the parents of the actress feels. They may be proud - given no opinion about the career choices of their now grown adult child. (An interesting group of words that is - adult child.)  They may not. I don't know.

Now I am aware that highlighting this rather trivial concern brings up many questions and backlash. "Who cares?", "It's non of your business" to "she's laughing to the bank and you're not." But I think this is just the surface of the problem. I think the issue deserves much more respect and to dig into the philosophical realm (which should be explored by far more skilled, intelligent writers than I). Many will say "As long as no one gets hurt, it's okay." Many will also say "It's her body, career and choice. Your opinion therefore does not matter." Fair enough, but whose opinion counts? Those that support and agree with such career moves? Most likely yes.

For those who have found my blog, are you familiar with Adventure Time? I think this clip couldn't have been shown to me at a better time. I'd even say it was a "sign" for me to start talking about this issue (among others) since I have been meaning to express and write about.

"You've been telling me the answer all along. The only way to defeat parental disapproval is not caring about anything."

I think this goes both ways, I believe. A parent can not care what the adult child does and the adult child cannot care what they parents think. "Whatever makes you happy." To me, a bizarre mantra. I remember reading on a sports forum a poster saying people will do whatever they want to do. True enough. Though a somewhat poor example, if my parents don't like me maintaining a blog I'd most likely ask why, disagree with their reasoning, and justify my action: I'm not hurting anyone physically or breaking any laws. I am not sharing information that is privy to the US government (not that I'll ever be in such a position to be a receiver of such information).There's an absent of moral reasoning (that I know of) that says sharing/writing thoughts on numerous subjects via internet, setting on non-private, is poor judgement or morally wrong, unless one says exposing such thoughts is close to narcissism. Like I said, somewhat poor example.

Of course it could be said that, if my parents read my blog, and expressed disapproval of the thoughts written - not being aware that such thoughts were that of their own child, would it be "permissible" to continue? Or what if they were aware that it was the thoughts of their own child, would I be in the wrong doing?

To play on a modern day thought process, one should not care what ones own parents think - regardless if it was supportive - and "to do what you do" - whatever that thing you do is. Stripper? Prostitute? Porn star? "Fake" BDSM & explicit sex scenes? Sure, go at it. In the name of art and commitment. You only have one life to live, might as well live it to the fullest. As long as you don't hurt anyone, as long as you're happy and as long as you make tons of money while looking great doing it -- any parent would be proud. Or, don't care; don't think about it. Just shut off your brain. If you do care to comment in a disapproving way, "deal with it."