Evan Sayet is bang on about the militant nihilism at the heart of modern liberalism. The only thing I'd add is that liberals also love the feeling of superiority they get from sneering at those bumpkins with their stupid 'morals'. Consider their latest baby seal: Gary Glitter.
Liberal elitism is plenty annoying at the best of times, but supporting child rape is a new low even for them. Needless to say, that's not quite how the left describes their position. The liberal butt monkeys are out in force - so called because of their habit of penning articles announcing that 'of course, we all agree that child rape is bad BUT....'.
Personally, I'm thinking 'of course, we all agree...' is the liberal equivalent of 'I'll be honest with you...'. Maybe the right should start using the same formulation for addressing issues we have no intention of doing anything about, as in 'Of course, we all agree arts funding is too low/class sizes are too big/social workers don't get enough respect'?
Actually, that's giving the left too much credit. It's not just that they don't want to turn up the heat on nonces, they objectively side with the paedophiles. Look at the proportion of liberals in the MSM (approximately 100%) who denounce anti-paedophilia activism as 'hysteria'. Really? What would be the correct reaction to child rape? Apathy? Ironic detachment? Warm applause? And if the abduction and subsequent sexual torture of a child doesn't raise any hackles on the left, what would? The assailant having a cigarette afterwards?
Incidentally, I'm thinking that if you're are intending to cast yourself as an iconoclast standing up to the mob, that probably requires more than spouting the self-same talking points as everyone else in the MSM. Just how much uniformity does it take for liberals to stop pretending to be Henry Fonda in 'Twelve Angry Men'?
Ditto, with the left's other moronic talking point, claiming the anti-paedophile effort is all a 'witch hunt'. Really? Wouldn't that characterisation be dependent on the hunters in question not continually capturing huge numbers of witches?
Hmmmm... you know, I'm thinking that if the liberal elite could denounce paedophiles with nearly as much passion as they denounce the folks who call for stronger action, the public might actually start to have some confidence in their commitment to dealing with the threat. Instead, we get what we always when liberals confront evil: stupid hair-splitting and absurd PoMo "what do you mean by 'evil' ?" arguments. Consider that the lefty blogosphere has hailed this piece of dreck as a modern day Gettysburg Address - only better!
Sarler's retarded point is that we can't take any action against paedophiles without deciding whether they're evil or mad (also, we can't read with the light on until we solve that whole wave/particle duality thing).
Well, no room for misquote there anyway. Never mind the need to protect the innocent it's all about the perp. Meanwhile, sane people answer the question like this: who cares? Whether bad, mad or vessels of demonic entities, they're a threat and they need to be dealt with.
Speaking personally, I'll start to believe the illness made 'em do it just as soon as someone can show me a case where these crimes were committed in sight of a uniformed police officer. Until then, it seems like they can resist their impulses just fine when they need to.
Sarler's argument would set new levels for stupidity, except that the rest is is even worse. She claims to be shocked - shocked! - at the revelation that predators can face other punishments in addition to jail time. Wait until she founds out this is only the tip of the iceberg - take drunk drivers losing their licence or fraudsters being disbarred from company directorships, for example. For that matter, would Sarler claim wife beaters denied shotgun licences are also victims?
All of which neatly answers Sarler's other asinine point. Sarler tries that most trite of liberal charges: it's all about the hypocrisy! Why, asks our learning-impaired elitist, are people enraged by paedophilia but not crimes of violence? Well, coming back at you libs! Why aren't liberals penning long articles calling for more understanding of tax evaders, firearms offenders or folks accused of hate speech?
Paedophilia is a live topic because this is where the left has decided to concentrate its latest efforts on defining deviancy down. If the liberal elite spent its time taking out onions for violent sociopaths, then there would be 'hysteria' (also known as 'public outrage') over that too. As it is, they don't, so there isn't.
That's the thing. However leftists try and hide it, it's quite obvious that they just don't think paedophilia is that bad. This is why they denounce critics as hysterical, while degenerate filth gets hailed as artistic genius. True, they can't yet get the age of consent actually wiped off the statute books, but they can give the law the death of a thousand cuts.
The only problem is the one the liberal agenda always faces: public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the lumpy, dumpy citizenry isn't yet onboard with our sofiticayted friends and their attempts to rebrand child rape as just another 'alternative lifestyle'. In fact, so frustrated has the left been by the failure of attempts to mainstream the sexual exploitation of children, they're starting to sound kind of... what's the word? Ah yes, hysterical.
As a rule, the more over-heated liberal rhetoric, the more ludicrous their arguments. In this case, the near-lunatic ranting can't hide the sheer weirdness of their position. The right's position is simple enough: every predator who ever lived isn't worth the life of a single innocent child, but what's with liberals? How did the folks who keep jibber-jabbering about standing up for the weak and the vulnerable end up proposing policies that objectively help sexual predators, and in particular, demanding that captured perverts should face nothing more serious than a brief term of none too uncomfortable imprisonment alongside fellow enthusiasts, after which they should be permitted to return to their vocation with the tacit support of the left?
As Sayet would sayet, there is no objective criteria by which you can place the rights of a pervert over those of his victim, yet that is what the left is doing. Never mind the predators, what's with liberals? Sick or evil ?
Liberal elitism is plenty annoying at the best of times, but supporting child rape is a new low even for them. Needless to say, that's not quite how the left describes their position. The liberal butt monkeys are out in force - so called because of their habit of penning articles announcing that 'of course, we all agree that child rape is bad BUT....'.
Personally, I'm thinking 'of course, we all agree...' is the liberal equivalent of 'I'll be honest with you...'. Maybe the right should start using the same formulation for addressing issues we have no intention of doing anything about, as in 'Of course, we all agree arts funding is too low/class sizes are too big/social workers don't get enough respect'?
Actually, that's giving the left too much credit. It's not just that they don't want to turn up the heat on nonces, they objectively side with the paedophiles. Look at the proportion of liberals in the MSM (approximately 100%) who denounce anti-paedophilia activism as 'hysteria'. Really? What would be the correct reaction to child rape? Apathy? Ironic detachment? Warm applause? And if the abduction and subsequent sexual torture of a child doesn't raise any hackles on the left, what would? The assailant having a cigarette afterwards?
Incidentally, I'm thinking that if you're are intending to cast yourself as an iconoclast standing up to the mob, that probably requires more than spouting the self-same talking points as everyone else in the MSM. Just how much uniformity does it take for liberals to stop pretending to be Henry Fonda in 'Twelve Angry Men'?
Ditto, with the left's other moronic talking point, claiming the anti-paedophile effort is all a 'witch hunt'. Really? Wouldn't that characterisation be dependent on the hunters in question not continually capturing huge numbers of witches?
Hmmmm... you know, I'm thinking that if the liberal elite could denounce paedophiles with nearly as much passion as they denounce the folks who call for stronger action, the public might actually start to have some confidence in their commitment to dealing with the threat. Instead, we get what we always when liberals confront evil: stupid hair-splitting and absurd PoMo "what do you mean by 'evil' ?" arguments. Consider that the lefty blogosphere has hailed this piece of dreck as a modern day Gettysburg Address - only better!
Sarler's retarded point is that we can't take any action against paedophiles without deciding whether they're evil or mad (also, we can't read with the light on until we solve that whole wave/particle duality thing).
Well, no room for misquote there anyway. Never mind the need to protect the innocent it's all about the perp. Meanwhile, sane people answer the question like this: who cares? Whether bad, mad or vessels of demonic entities, they're a threat and they need to be dealt with.
Speaking personally, I'll start to believe the illness made 'em do it just as soon as someone can show me a case where these crimes were committed in sight of a uniformed police officer. Until then, it seems like they can resist their impulses just fine when they need to.
Sarler's argument would set new levels for stupidity, except that the rest is is even worse. She claims to be shocked - shocked! - at the revelation that predators can face other punishments in addition to jail time. Wait until she founds out this is only the tip of the iceberg - take drunk drivers losing their licence or fraudsters being disbarred from company directorships, for example. For that matter, would Sarler claim wife beaters denied shotgun licences are also victims?
All of which neatly answers Sarler's other asinine point. Sarler tries that most trite of liberal charges: it's all about the hypocrisy! Why, asks our learning-impaired elitist, are people enraged by paedophilia but not crimes of violence? Well, coming back at you libs! Why aren't liberals penning long articles calling for more understanding of tax evaders, firearms offenders or folks accused of hate speech?
Paedophilia is a live topic because this is where the left has decided to concentrate its latest efforts on defining deviancy down. If the liberal elite spent its time taking out onions for violent sociopaths, then there would be 'hysteria' (also known as 'public outrage') over that too. As it is, they don't, so there isn't.
That's the thing. However leftists try and hide it, it's quite obvious that they just don't think paedophilia is that bad. This is why they denounce critics as hysterical, while degenerate filth gets hailed as artistic genius. True, they can't yet get the age of consent actually wiped off the statute books, but they can give the law the death of a thousand cuts.
The only problem is the one the liberal agenda always faces: public scrutiny. Unfortunately, the lumpy, dumpy citizenry isn't yet onboard with our sofiticayted friends and their attempts to rebrand child rape as just another 'alternative lifestyle'. In fact, so frustrated has the left been by the failure of attempts to mainstream the sexual exploitation of children, they're starting to sound kind of... what's the word? Ah yes, hysterical.
As a rule, the more over-heated liberal rhetoric, the more ludicrous their arguments. In this case, the near-lunatic ranting can't hide the sheer weirdness of their position. The right's position is simple enough: every predator who ever lived isn't worth the life of a single innocent child, but what's with liberals? How did the folks who keep jibber-jabbering about standing up for the weak and the vulnerable end up proposing policies that objectively help sexual predators, and in particular, demanding that captured perverts should face nothing more serious than a brief term of none too uncomfortable imprisonment alongside fellow enthusiasts, after which they should be permitted to return to their vocation with the tacit support of the left?
As Sayet would sayet, there is no objective criteria by which you can place the rights of a pervert over those of his victim, yet that is what the left is doing. Never mind the predators, what's with liberals? Sick or evil ?
No comments:
Post a Comment