A note to conservatives commenting on Chicago

PG-13 for crude language.

Old-time conservatives when commenting on Chicago need to stop being so ignorant. I know that's a word that's thrown at non-progressives all the time, but I think in this case it's appropriate.

I am not apologizing for the city of Chicago's crime rate and gang wars, but if you want to "prove" that Democratic governance is horrid every time the city is mentioned, in whatever way, then at least drop the headlines that you receive in your local newspapers or whatever - most likely immensely inaccurate - ideas you have about crime in the city.

The "Chiraq" call is effective when commenting on the shootings, when acknowledging that there is a problem in Chicago, but on the South Side. But it stops there when conservatives or when outsiders use it. Why? If you want to get into the particulars a lot of the shooting happen in select low-income neighborhoods whose residents are black. Derrick Rose lived in Englewood which is a neighborhood known for its gang wars and crime. Ben Wilson aka Benji was shot to death in the South Side neighborhood of Chatham even thought Chatham is considered more of a "safe" neighborhood when compared to the likes of Englewood.

Most of the North Side of Chicago and Southwest Side are relatively safe. The West Side is the South Side Light, but like its "heavier" half most of the crime happens in certain neighborhoods - in certain streets/pockets/zones. What demographic tends to dominate the West Side? Latinos. Most of the North Side is white while the Southwest Side is a mixture of white (ie Polish immigrants) and family oriented Latinos. 

Many of the conservatives who comment on Chicago and its crime fail to acknowledge, or simply they succumb to laziness and generalizations, that a couple of the occurring facts that fail to make the headlines: Many of the shootings are located in neighborhoods on South Side which are dominated by black residents. The problem isn't the city itself, but the culture that pervades the South Side in these neighborhoods plagued by gang wars and ghetto mamas.

It's the culture, stupid!

When old-time conservatives complain about the MSM fooling America, they are fooled as well since Chicago crime fits right into the (true) narrative that ghetto culture ruins family and potential which is pushed by the right (and 'rightfully' so).

The irony of shot-gun feelings. No pun.     

The Hatchet (not the book) + Another (school) Shooting

A man snapped and attacked a group of NYC police officers in the borough of Queens yesterday. It reminds me of the knife massacres that happened in China.

Much love and comfort to the family and friends who experienced the Washington school shooting this morning.

Now, this gets me wondering: For all the "gun control" push and "gun free zones", what if the people who  commit crimes with guns resort to hatchets (or knives) instead? Will there be "hatchet control", or "hatchet free zones" being implemented?

If a person can't get a hold of a gun they'll resort to another weapon; let's not forget that our appendages also can be used as weapons (see: domestic violence and fist fights). Our fists, arms and legs can be lethal, but sometimes they're put under "martial arts" as a pretense. I would guess guns - the image of one - the sound of one going off - the destruction that it can cause - are major factors for those that push for such weapon control. They have "gunphobia." Literally.

You can't judge

I don't understand this "You can't judge so-and-so because you don't know them" especially when it comes to entertainers - especially actors and musicians (usually rock stars) - yet politicians, and sometimes athletes, are fair game. It seems like a phenomenon.

Can someone please help me understand this?

Sometimes I wish my interests were things like basket weaving and stamp collecting

But they're not. One of my hobbies is watching movies. Foreign. Indie. Black & White. Subtitles.

You get the idea.

The new critic darling, Whiplash, is lighting the indie movie world on fire. A Sundance favorite, it has garnered many admirers; with these admirers come typical defensive remarks when a critic goes against the the almost consensus view.

The "you didn't 'get it'" card and to be a "qualified movie critic" one shouldn't be offended by the scenes that garner the R (or NC-17) rating. Interesting. I never knew reviewing films had such  qualifications.

And this -

"It's a movie!"

On another comment, on another review, not liking the film is "being cool" for the sake of it.

Wait, I thought the ingrained belief/common-thought was that art was subjective? I guess not, at least not when it comes to indie, foreign and Oscar-type pics that win the critics' hearts. It also turns out that subjectivity is put aside when a movie widely rejected by most critics.

Take for example Andrew Niccol's The Host. I thought it was a decent sci-fi/romance movie. It was at times uninspiring, but overall it was solid. Now, compared to its precedent Stephenie Myer adapted work, the Twilight series, The Host was practically disemboweled; the franchise wasn't met with warmth, but Niccol's movie was just crucified. 

WARNING: SPOILERS ahead.

The Whiplash love I "get", but I can't bring myself to share the same enthusiasm as the critics and its admirers; the "drive to be the best" was way overdone and it resorted to tired cliches (ie musician in family isn't understood, the football player is lauded) to downright petty scenes (mentor framing his student's father as a loser due to the mother/wife leaving them, the "rather be remember than not" mentality). Some of the critics who shared their negative reviews I also "get" -- I can see why the didn't like it (mentor's teaching method rendered him a  borderline sociopath).

I see it all often that when people say a movie is "overrated" - even when giving reasons why - the defenders resort to "So are you saying that all the people who liked it are wrong? Are you seriously saying that so-and-so from NYT/LA Times/Tribune/IndieWire/Hollywood Reporter is wrong?"

Wait, so are the critics the priests/judges now? I thought art was universally said to be subjective so if a a review is negative then it's equally as valid as a positive one. Hmmm. That seems to be not the case.

Those familiar with the movie making world, and not fully on the train of "ma feelings", would agree that it is wrought with amorality, subjectivity, relativism and nihilism. It's a very modern medium. I'm not talking about blockbusters, I'm talking about films that are screened at festivals like Sundance, TIFF, Cannes, and NY FF. Granted not all films are like this that are accepted & screened, but most of the lauded ones - the ones entered in the main competitions or the ones that are the most anticipated, tend to be tackle the similar themes (sexual angst, some sort of LGBT theme, inner turmoil). Basically, they try to humanize many things that might be a taboo to Western culture. I wouldn't really object to one saying that those films is said film fests were pretentious and self-involved without even realizing.  

But, like the person who said that critics who are offended by the contents of R rated movies, maybe I might  not be "qualified" to be interested in such a hobby.

Enjoy the sounds until you pay attention to the lyrics (and the music video).

I heard "Take Me to Church" by Hozier on the radio for the first time today. I didn't catch all the lyrics but I liked the melody, that is until I went on youtube and saw all of the lyrics, made sense of them and later viewed the music video.

My lover's got humour
She's the giggle at a funeral (1)
Knows everybody's disapproval
 
I should've worshiped her sooner
If the heavens ever did speak (2)
She's the last true mouthpiece
 
Every Sunday's getting more bleak
A fresh poison each week
'We were born sick,' you heard them say it

My Church offers no absolutes. (3)
She tells me, 'Worship in the bedroom.'
The only heaven I'll be sent to
Is when I'm alone with you—
 
I was born sick, (4)
But I love it
Command me to be well
Amen. Amen. Amen. Amen.

[Chorus 2x:]
Take me to church
I'll worship like a dog at the shrine of your lies (5)
I'll tell you my sins and you can sharpen your knife (6)
Offer me that deathless death (7)
Good God, let me give you my life


My break-down:
1. The glorification and hero-worship of the "rebel."
2. Sunday's homilies are poison and shouldn't be trusted. Only the rebel should.
3. Bodily/sexual desires are the only absolutes that we know of; obey them.
4. Relish the "sickness" in the faces of the "prudes" for this shows courage
5. People who attend mass are like Pavlov's dog.
6. Who killed the confessor? Was the confessor killed with the candle stick? Was it with the sharpened knife? (Hozier, that's Islam, you Irish git.)
7. The talk of hell does not scare me. Your death doesn't pertain to me.
 
The music video mostly shows a fictional story about two men supposedly in the closet to their town besides to each other - they are 'together.' They're caught walking alongside each other by a man who's in a gang. One day the man who saw them brings his gang to the boyfriend's house, kidnaps him and drags him into the forest where they threaten him. The other homosexual finds out about this and desperately tracks his boyfriend down, but it's too late. The captured man is seen being kicked and beaten in the distance; his lover covering his eyes in horror.

Like such a scenario for the music video wasn't predictable, especially for a song & video meant to speak out for LGBT "rights."

It reminds me greatly of "Sacrilege" with model/actress Lilly Cole, but this time instead of focusing on homosexuals it was about Cole's character sleeping around with most of the townspeople, later getting married to a man who's oblivious to her "bad girl" nature; every man in the pews she has slept with.

The parallels between the two narratives are alike, so I suggest to watch both and draw comparisons. 

Here's a couple of comments; the brilliance astounds me.

Will I keep listening to the song? I'm not sure. I do like the melody and I suppose this is one of those songs that I can "listen to" without paying attention to the lyrics.

It's the same thing when I heard Sam Smith's "Stay With Me" in that I really liked the melody and the lyrics. You're probably saying to yourself "Er, Smith is a homosexual as well." I know. But I didn't know that until after I learned about the singer/writer. The entire time I thought the song was about a guy singing about a girl (as did others).

What's interesting about "Stay With Me" is that, in some way, it's kinda respectful to religion. Smith is wearing earrings that are in a shape of crosses at the 2:20 mark where it seems he's in some kind of church, dressed in white, background white with organ pipes, as the melody transitions into a gospel-esque atmosphere. This tone in melody makes it is the best of the video for me since I enjoy some melodies from gospel music.

Now, every time the song is played on the radio I can't help think of two guys instead of a guy and a girl, which, sadly, diminishes my enjoyment of the song (once I heard it was about one-night stands it was a turn off; it was a second turn off when I learned it was about two guys).

It also doesn't really help that the Top 40 station in my city is playing his new songs -- and every time I hear one of Smith's songs I think "two guys."

Wait, what was that, Mr. Lee?

Honestly, every time. It came to a point where I'd listen to the lyrics if I haven't heard of the song before, then once it's played again some time later I'd switch it. People will probably say that I should be open-minded and get over it. I did listen to the lyrics and see how they relate to my own feelings of my love life and what not, but then reality hits me and remind me it's about homosexuals.

*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*  

Then there's "She Keeps Me Warm" by Mary Lambert who went to an evangelical church during her teenage years (they tend come from evangelical churches ... ). When I head that I felt kinda sick.

*reaches for radio knob and switches channels*

I can't forget about "Same Love" by Macklemore & Ryan Lewis featuring Mary Lambert (surprise surprise), probably the piece that paved the way for airing the above mentioned songs.

Also, bing.com is a gift that keeps on giving. Besides acting as a decent search engine, it also has its own news feed at the bottom. Since this post is about same-sex relationships, bing recently let me know that actress Rachel Evan Wood has entered a relationship with a woman. Such wonderful timing. Thank you, bing.com. According to wiki, Wood was married to fellow actor Jamie Bell (Billy Elliot) no less than two years - divorcing in 2013, bearing his child. I wonder how the kid turns out.

I wanted Swan Lake, but instead I got Mary McNamara.

I woke up this morning groggy as usual then I remembered that there might be a review of Joffrey Ballet's Swan Lake which premiered last night. I was suddenly alert. I flipped through my city's newspaper for the arts & entertainment section, finally getting to it and disregarding the rest of the sections like gift wrap on Christmas morning.

"Where is it?" I thought to myself since it wasn't the on the front page. Then at the bottom I saw this eye-catching headline; its content more predictable than I can imagine. It was a review, sorta, not on a ballet production, but how maternity is portrayed on television.

The two series could not be more different. "Homeland" is the once-exalted then much-criticized Showtime political thriller rebooting its fourth season to wary and conditional praise. "Jane the Virgin" is a highly anticipated CW comedy, with magical realism top-notes and a very high buzz factor.

Yet they share a troubling and unexpected theme: Socially Enforced Motherhood.

Despite their contrasting tone, form and intent, both shows insist that, deep down, every woman wants a child no matter the conditions, even when the woman in question has made it very clear that she does not feel this way at all.

So two shows all of a sudden make up a "tyranny" (of motherhood). That's an impressive conclusion to come up with.

No mention of whether or not the use of a biblical story as a plot device to make a comedy -- a virgin becoming miraculously impregnated without any sexual intercourse or in vitro -- was a "wise" decision to the audience members who may be religious since it obviously uses the story in a mocking manner (the character wants to save sex for marriage). It's parody.

No mention of whether or not the feelings of, I would bet, most women when they find they are pregnant: joy - shock - nervousness - happiness.

Nope.

McNamara, a mother of three, sees these two shows - one a comedy, the other a drama - as vehicles of "socially enforced motherhood" even though abortion- on-demand is basically the issue for modern day women -- supported like crazy in her circles, elite journalism, and in the city of L.A. This mentality of feeling threatened I mention here and the abortion issue mentioned here.

I would think that if a mother of three is critical of this "socially enforced motherhood" then she must have a good point, right? I mean, if mothers themselves support abortion and woman's "right" to be childless, for whatever reasons, then that's how society should work, right? 

 All of a sudden the L.A. Times writer feels threatened by two shows. How about all the rest of the shows out there that are getting publicity?

In the Middle portrays a family, the Midwest of course, of five as lovable fools and motherhood as unattractive and (somewhat) miserable. The same with Malcolm in the Middle. Most of the shows today, when two characters have sex, don't even mention the pregnancy. They just get all hot, proceed to make out and get naked. Or the director just shoots the sex scene and skips the make out session and build up (see: Game of Thrones).

Or how about Sex and the City, Mistresses, Scandal and Revenge? How is maternity portrayed? I can safely say maternity isn't shown in anyway positive -- little to no affection, no anything. Just "that's my daughter/wife you slept with," type of attitude.   

All of a sudden McNamara wants the characters to practice "choice."

I do wonder what her thoughts are of the shows I mentioned. I wonder if the choices the females made in the shows would be seen as "empowering." I'd guess McNamara would complain about sexism and patriarchy.  

This "not wanting a child", kinda just using the reproductive sex organs as a gateway to pleasure without the consequences (nipping the babe in the butt), outright rejects the natural purpose of it. It divorces mind & body (though, if McNamara practices yoga or is a marathon runner she'll probably resort to the "mind & body" slogan). It draws a parallel to transgenderism and homosexuality as well, but especially transgenderism.

• Transgenderism - a man/woman whose brain tells them they're a woman/man. Obviously nature gave them something else than what their brains makes them think they are.
• Homosexuality - a man/woman is attracted to a man/woman. "Consuming" the relationship is a waste.
• Feminism - choosing not to allow the natural course of reproduction to occur, therefore rejecting the natural "job" and duty of maternity of which those organs call for.

And it's all about sex (and feelings), isn't it? They are all connected.

There's another through-line involved with these three: Neither of these are romantic. At All. I'm using "romantic" in its most classic sense.

But Swan Like is. It's a classic in the cannon of ballets. It's timeless. Even with modern twists and interpretation, it's still Swan Lake (unless some choreographer totally butchers the story). The only "crazy" thing in the story is between Odette and Odile, otherwise known as the White Swan and Black Swan. No, it ain't no lesbo story (I did enjoy the movie, though).

Maybe I'll be met with a Swan Lake review tomorrow morning. Maybe. Maybe I'll be met with beauty:

It's quite Easy

to defend detainees that are supposed terrorists. Just say the following:

• "they're people, too"
• "there are two sides to every coin"
• "the real evil is to (negatively) judge"

It's the One World, "we're all one human race under the same sun" type of mentality. It's not really flower-power, but it's a mindset that often falls into "let's give them the benefit of the doubt."

You then come off as a sensitive, well-meaning, thoughtful and intelligent person.

Of course, each of the above can be used for most of any modern social cause. Surprise, surprise.

Religious, Agnostic or Atheist

Every now and then these types of threads on IMDB, in its Movie Awards forum, show up. It's always interesting to see what the responses are and the explanations some give to their answer.

F*ck the Police? F*ck the Courts and ACLU!

The Supreme Court recently blocked the states of Wisconsin and Texas' bill to put in place voter identification come this November -- you just need to show a valid ID in order to vote (driver's license, state ID)  -- but that's controversial to the civil rights lawyers (like I didn't see this coming) that opposed it. 

According to the L.A. Times

By a 6-3 vote, the justices granted an emergency appeal from civil rights lawyers, who argued it was too late to put the rule into effect this year.

Lawyers for the ACLU noted that the state had already sent out thousands of absentee ballots without mentioning the need for voters to return a copy of their photo identification.

It would be “chaos,” they said, for Wisconsin to have to decide whether to count such ballots now because voters had failed to comply with the new law.

I'll psychoanalyze the emergency: "We can't enforce these standards on the illegal immigrants in the States. If that happens then it greatly weakens the chances of any (D) winning the election! We need the votes! Plus, it's their right to vote -- it's racism to make people (of color) to show a valid ID. It's totally non-progressive." The desperation smells like burning rubber. Oh the stench ... 

It just can't be anymore obvious why the ACLU "civil rights" lawyers did what they did. Their motivations and thoughts are bare.

Here are some of the things, in my city, where you need to show a valid ID:

• discounted opera tickets for students; valid student ID must be present when presenting ticket for entrance
• bars (21 yrs of age)
• entering certain building accessible only to its employees; guests need passes
• purchasing any student discounts for public transportation (need valid ID and working student e-mail address)
• teacher discounts at movies
• using a credit card (sometimes the cashier asks)
• paying by check 

But, for someone idiotic reason, ACLU and other like-minded "brights" think that enforcing a bill into law stating one must show proof of identification when voting wasn't all that important, that they left it off when sending out the ballets. Those law degrees are proving to be a waste when it comes to anything remotely cerebral; I wonder what type of logic courses they took in their college years, if any.   

Startup vs Corp.

ZocDoc from glassdoor.com -

For people who want to build something, try new things, and pave the way, they shouldn't hesitate to climb aboard. For people who want to do the same job day in, day out, clock in, clock out, maintain the status quo - probably better to go to a big corporation without any fire in the belly.

So I take whatever new status quo is put in place. set by an employee, another "fire in the belly" type of person will change that status quo a few years down the line? It's a revolving door of status quos trying to out do one another.

I guess this is the nature of "fast growing" startups. I wonder if the "fast growing" startups ever fully mature. Probably not. It ain't google, or facebook or youtube. but those places dress like college students -- and most, I bet, are like people in the arts: totally unaware of the real world and just sticking to their startups and art. But hey, they dress in jeans and have laundry (google) at their work.

Or my favorite Con:

LONG HOURS. 8-6 at least, but you are expected to work after hours as well, especially if your territory sucks.

Yes, because people in the medical world and finance world (big corp.) don't work long hours as well. You poor thing. Just ask my friends who are medical interns and my mother. Ask my brother about the hours he worked during certain projects plus some of his co-workers working till midnight - starting at 8:30AM - in accounting. Accounting. But this was at a Big 4 firm, not a startup. Heck, I know an executive personal assistant who had to arrive at her job at 8:30AM and couldn't leave the boss said "You can go now." That was anywhere between 6PM and 8:30PM, easily clocking 50-60 hrs a week. Add in being "on call" on weekends.



Then there's a little light of sanity -

Social Work & Conservatism

Since I'm thinking of getting a MSW (if so, going to attend the cheapest program that I can drive to) I visited an online forum called thegradcafe.com. One of the responses warned those holding conservative views that the waters were dangerous. I'm taking it with a grain of salt since the poster only has one post, but still, I wouldn't be surprised if what was said was accurate.

A "tacit" victory. That's an interesting way to put it.

When advocates of same-sex "marriage" say "gay marriage won't affect your marriage" I think they don't acknowledge (or don't realize) the underlying affects of such a belief and "justice."

The fact that they think two people of the same sex shouldn't be a factor when deciding whether to allow them to "wed", that only consent and love ("love is love" card) should matter, it says something about them. It does affect my marriage because it makes it the "archaic"/"narrow minded" view, even though such a view is one of the pillars for western civilization.

What happened today isn't creating anything that actually benefits society besides A) the LGBTYMCA activists and B) the perverts.

The "pairings" aka the homosexual/bi newlyweds, if they even want kids, will always go through a third party to get children. Always. They are sexual incompatible to produce a child together. There is no/zero point to their anal sex and oral sex besides "it feels good, so do it." I'm not sure how anal sex can even remotely feel good.

Here's a story my mother told me. She's a nurse, and one of her co-workers is a homosexual. He's in a relationship with another man who left his wife for him. This man has one child from the previous marriage. The co-worker wants a child because his boyfriend has one. So the co-worker finds a surrogate in India to birth the child. The child dies in labor. The co-worker is devastated. 

Call me heartless, but I feel no sympathy for my mom's co-worker. I do feel sympathy for the child of the boyfriend's and for the surrogate. I also feel for the ex-wife.

And I will not acknowledge any same-sex couple as a couple. Instead I will say "pairing," I won't think they're married even if they have the stamp of state & government approval because such a combination -- same-sex pairings -- defeats logic and purpose, let alone makes the concept of marriage another victim of the perversion of words.

There will be people saying "it doesn't matter what you think." Of course it does. If it didn't then advocates of SS"M" wouldn't be so indignant when people like me express such views. My thoughts are nothing to activist judges, but it sure matters to those who abhor people that share my views. So, the end, it is about acceptance - not just by the government, but by the people who go about their daily lives. It's not about "justice", it's about changing the social thought -- it's practically brainwashing and forcing (through intimidation) a particular (and destructive) belief onto innocent people.

"The eventual green light to same sex marriage will offer an interesting insight into the depraved mind of man."

Craig's List

The subject head was "Professionally managed elevator building" yet I found this at the bottom of the page.

I hope the dachshund is okay.

I don't care how, I want it now!

Due to a federal court in Texas siding with an abortion law asking to close down the existing abortion clinics within the state, I shall leave you with this:

No apology. Probably no shame as well.

Channeling Veroua Salt, I see. In the name of "rights", of course. I notice that most are tattooed. I 'hate' to be judgmental but I'm not surprised. And they' aren't attractive. at. all.

The "on demand" part always reminds of the "On Demand!" cable slogan. The "get all the latest & hottest movies" deal.

 
Oompa Loompas:
Oompa Loompa doompadee doo
I've got another puzzle for you
Oompa Loompa doompadah dee
If you are wise you will listen to me
Who do you blame when your kid is a brat
Pampered and spoiled like a Siamese cat?
Blaming the kids is a lie and a shame
You know exactly who's to blame:
The mother and the father!
Oompa Loompa doompadee dah
If you're not spoiled then you will go far
You will live in happiness too
Like the Oompa Loompa doompadee do

I also want to note that the Oompa Loompa's work in a factory, doing work that can be described as a routine and monotonous. What they do wouldn't be deemed to be exciting or creative (well, kinda). I wouldn't label it a field (candy making) that lends itself to self-expression. They aren't "their own boss." They make things (candy) that people consume and enjoy as shown in the film. It's practically a craft (in the traditional sense). I assume that what they wear in the video are their "work clothes" - so a uniform of sorts. Each has their own set of responsibilities, with Wonka calling the shots, and probably rarely go outside the factory, if ever. I don't know what they're paid for their labor.

They aren't worldly, but they're unique simply by being their own "race" (if we take the world of Wonka as it is). Their green hair and orange skin aren't fake - it's actually their real/natural color, driven by genetics & nature.

According to Willy Wonka, he rescued them from great danger in their homeland and asked them to work for him, where they'd be safe. The Oompa Loompa's also seem very content with their situation in life. Does this remind you of something very Americana?  

Motherhood & Modernsim.

Enter IMDb. Enter IMDb's forum. Enter some fucked up shit.

continued -

There's a mother who backs her -

continued -

And then there's always that guy -

TL;DR?

Run down:

(1) Independence (Me, Myself, and I are #1; choice - as always)
(2) Indignant that there's a "spinster" and "selfish" taboo attached to being childless.
(3) Lack of global (not personal) resources & carbon footprint.

No mention of "If I fall in love, have sex, maybe get married and it happens then it happens." (Cause, you know, maybe having a child is the natural outcome when both parties are fertile and when ABC isn't used.)

Interesting that poster ShoddyCursive talks about suppressing the biological urge to have kinds. I can expand on that much more, but for now I'll leave that to an "update."

Here are my experiences with childless women: The three I know of, two of which never married (I think they were never offered the chance) but were good with kids  - both served as godmothers to my sibling and I. They are practicing Catholics. The third is my aunt. She was married in her early 40s so I guess her biological clock ran out. I bet that if I asked each of them why they didn't have kids, and showed them the answers above, they'd be mortified and maybe quite upset.

And in case if you're wondering, I am not Yorick mentioned. Yorick is a poster that tends to espouse more conservative views when compared to the rest of the posters, not always though, but enough for him to stick out like a sore thumb when it comes to topics like this (as you can tell he's the butt of the joke). 

Name Calling

Warning: PG-13 for crude language.

Conservatives are called a host of names and are accused of many things:

• bigoted
• homophobic
• sexist
• backwards
• rubes
• redneck
• troglodyte
• neanderthal
• places they live are called "fly over country" or "nowhere" or (heard this in college) "bumblefuck"
• anti-science
• anti-logic
• gun-totting bible thumpers
• "clinging to your guns & bibles"
• the world despises you
• fatty 
• "soccer mom" (used as a jab in reference to mothers who drive mini-vans and dresses in zip hoodie) 
• wicked (some old-school dude in my city said that in reference to "typical whites" and conservatism -- said he was liberal) 
• Teabagger

Wow. Quite the list. It's quite "diverse" as well going from insulting ones intelligence, ones sense of place/home, potential, religion to assuring the receiver that he's held in contempt by the world (that's a lot of people). Overall, it basically insults almost everything about the person. From the way they look, they way they dress, where they live and the thoughts & beliefs that carry are around with them.

This also extend to jabs at low paying jobs. People working at KFC, as a cashier or in retail are usually met with "have fun working at your dead end job" to "have fun working at your menial job." White collar jobs don't fair any better - "office drone" to "desk jockey" to "pencil pusher."

I was having a discussion with some person who was obviously liberal. Since this was on the internet and my avatar wasn't a picture of me, so he had no way of actually knowing my face therefore let had no accurate way of assuming my background. The discussion got a bit testy and here's what he thought of me:

• I lived in the swamps
• I played the banjo (at least he thought I had musical talent)
• I had no teeth
• I had "infant parents" (parents that had kids in their teens or early twenties, hence "infant")

But none of those things were true about me.

And this was all because he read into my comment that I was making fun of rap music & rappers. I assure you I wasn't. If it is of any importance this guy was white.

The poster was man who was a college graduate, had taught kids English in the Middle East (or was it Africa?) and visited other countries afterwards. I think it's fair to say he's well-traveled compared to the average American, liberal (let's attribute these to the label: open-minded, compassionate, wants fairness & justice) and a college degree holder. Impressive, right?

No.

It's too bad every time I engaged he couldn't hold a somewhat sound position.

Now let's list the names asserted to modernists/progressives:

• pinko commie
• anti-American
• faggot (mostly hurled at homosexuals, but this is rare in my experience)
• pervert (more common than faggot)
• socialist
• libtard (I think conservicunt is better ... I just find it, er, a bit funny, but that's the 12 yr old in me speaking)

Am I missing any because it seems rather short? It's weird for me when liberals say the "love America" because most of the liberals (like the hardcore ones) I've encountered hold the country to some contempt; the affection & pride is nowhere near what conservatives display.

I remember about five years ago, there was a facebook page entitled "Lose the Label." I joined while I was in high school since I thought it was a good cause. Thinking about such a group it's safe to bet that most that joined were not socially conservative and probably held a negative view towards the GOP and towards anything remotely conservative.

Looking that the names conservatives are called compared to the ones modernists/progressive are called ... I guess "Lose the Label" was really geared towards eliminating words that were directed at certain groups, like LGBTs (fair enough) and the use of the word nigger (but black can call fellow blacks that). Kind of like how "It Gets Better" was initially - and mainly directed to this day - for the LGBTs. General bullying was just the "Oh yea, and them too!" safety net when someone questions the scope of the campaign.  Sorry fat kid and four-eyes, you're on the bottom of the totem poll.

"Wait, how about the whole 'equality' talk?  Isn't everyone created equal?"
"Sure, but that's different. It's relative to the situation."
"Oh ... I guess I can tuck that new 'It Gets Better' t-shirt away ..."