William M. Briggs

Statistician to the Stars!

This Week In Doom: SJW’s Openly Deploying F-Bombs

4644490799_60c4e0baa2_b

So a magazine which follows advertisers’ leads on how to match sock color F-bombed that neurosurgeon fellow who happens to be running for president. GQ, which I’m not sure who reads, offered the Headline (here bowdlerized) “F*** Ben Carson“. Not to be outdone, an actor who appeals to what are known as “beta males” went onto Twitter and added a “You” to the title, an act which many of his followers thought the epitome of wit.

The politician is black, and many think that the attacks against him are racially motivated. Which is silly. The neurosurgeon spoke in favor of an armed citizenry, and it is that which triggered the simpleminded. The magazine, actor, and others didn’t go after the neurosurgeon because he is black, but because the simpleminded fear that the neurosurgeon’s arguments will be accorded more weight because he is black—and they hate guns and because they thought they smelled a whiff of anti-Jewishness (arming Jews is bad, apparently). This is racism, all right, but it’s the everyday stupid racism of the left which awards bonus points to members of any racial group to which they have awarded Official Victim status.

No, the interesting things about this seemingly small incident are how a fashion magazine and a fat actor (1) thought themselves capable of making any sort of worthwhile political critique and (2) the coarseness of the language. Democracy guarantees the former, of course. Not only is Democracy one man-one vote, but because of this every man feels (and rarely now thinks) his opinion of equal weight. Isn’t it? The ignorant man with the ill-informed opinion votes, just as does the intelligent man who has educated himself. As Democracy grows, in the sense that the percent of the population eligible to vote increases and that the fraction of the matters voted on by the masses increase, noise must therefore grow. The average level of political conversation must decrease.

That decrease in intelligence leads to coarse language. Not only in politics. In entertainment, we have reached the point where corrupt English and the crudest language from musicians are all but expected, even encouraged, especially from black musicians (contrast country with hip hop). This is also true from comics of any race. On television, the cultural barometer sinks ever lower. The rate at which this is happening is surprising. In weather terms, we’d expect a whopper of a storm.

There have been, these past few decades, as there wasn’t in times past, many willing to cuss out this or that politician or party, on the streets, on-line, even at the office, but there was a limit. You didn’t see obscenities from “the top”. Not official ones, I mean. The magazine and actor are not exactly “the top”, but they’re certainly not the bottom, either (where you and I reside, dear reader).

Apologies might be forthcoming, but even so it’s a good bet this kind of thing becomes more frequent and that it creeps higher and higher. All Democracies end like this. Ours is nothing special.

I also understand the fat actor has a movie opening this weekend. Best not to go. Like I’ve said elsewhere, it’s far past the time for traditionalists to use some boycott muscle. If you have GQ—and why would you?—cancel it.

Update That didn’t take long. Esquire says Bobby Jindal should be ‘Punched in the D***’ Over Roseburg Comments.

A new “article” in the men’s magazine—check it out and you’ll see why it barely counts as an article—attacks Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal with a piece saying he should be jabbed in the manhood for suggesting male parents matter.

Charles Pierce’s article is headlined “Please Punch This Man in the D***”…

Next step: open countenanced violence? Say a SWJ bashes a peaceful citizen over the head while screeching “Fascist”?

23 Comments

  1. What does one expect from someone (Pierce) who says Enough of Hillary’s Heart In in Enough of the Right Places? Obviously, rational thought is not amount his talents.

    I fully expect, unless the brakes are put on this, you will see a counterpunch of confederate flags and the “n” word being used against these individuals. While this is the level of 7th grade locker room, maturity is not increasing in any sector that I’ve noticed and this would be the expected progression. As Briggs says, this is how democracies die.

    Countenanced violence already exists in the form of “race riots” which are nothing more than badly behaved often fatherless youth (hurl all the insults you want over that comment—it remains true) running wild and destroying businesses and homes. Mayors stood on TV and said it was a-okay with them if the poor little darlings wanted to let off steam (they announced safely from a pulpit with armed bodyguards and then went home to the gated mansion they live in, of course).

  2. The consistent and concise response of those so attacked should be a simple “Hate Speech!” Call it for what it is (in leftist terms) and see how the simpleminded are triggered.

  3. At Greenie Watch today there is an email received by Marc Moreno that illustrates the “caring, selflessness” of those who follow the global warming mantra. The language is equally deplorable. While it’s not a “gentleman’s” magazine (a true misnomer), it is often seen in people who emote and don’t think. Angry, uninformed puppets doing their master’s bidding.

  4. In polite company people should use WTF instead of the F-bomb. The letters; not the words. It’s more F-cracker than -bomb. Uh, yup.

    Rather reminiscent of Kornbluth’s marchers. Cyril wasn’t writing about the future so much as his present. The F-word is the replacement for “Would ya buy it for a quarter?” which is too complicated of a sentence for the modern marcher. The multisyllabic version used by upper echelon marchers of course is F-Y.

    All one can say is: Welcome to 21st century politics, Ben.

    We need someone as polite and thoughtful as Carson but let’s face it — he’s not a real contender even if he is Megyn Kelly’s favorite. I get the impression he’s running for VP.

  5. DAV: Agreed. Looking back, presidents were cheerleaders, generals or womanizers or a combination thereof. I think the quietest was Ford, and we know how well that turned out. People tend to think of someone forceful as president rather than calm, mild-mannered person (now, if Carson were to suddenly pop up in a superman costume….).

  6. Ford was an waiting to happen. My bet is on Trump at the moment with a likely Trump/Carson ticket. Second possibility is Carly/Ben. Carly’s tour at HP does give one pause, though. Frankly, I’d rather it be someone with Rand Paul’s ideas but he’s not a contender either.

  7. Last post wouldn’t accept the YouTube link to a Ford accident. Said it was spam. Even blog software has opinions it seems.

  8. Now-a-days it is cool to be vulgar. Meaning “common” the term “vulgar” has been used as to denigrate those who are crude, ignorant,unrefined, obscene, or lewd.
    Ironically titled, GQ is now actually championing vulgarity. Part in parcel with this trend is the dumbing down of the masses. One requires no discipline, cognitive effort, or educational achievment to utter an explicative, so why invest the energy to formulate a coherent thought explaining one’s position.
    Gentle persons who do not wish to participate in this western societal trend are considered uncool, old, even God forbid, victorian. Those who value articulate speech, thoughtful discourse, polite society, good manners, and genteel behavior are becoming the minority as our society slips closer to the progressive vision of equality, that lowest common amoral denominator, aptly named “vulgar” behavior.

  9. Briggs,

    Breitbart unsurprizingly distort what Jindal said

    The claim that Jindal has made:

    “suggested (ing) male parents matter.

    Is not at all what he said.

    “”He brags that he has never held a gun in his life and that he had no idea that his son had any guns,” Jindal wrote. “Why didn’t he know? Because he failed to raise his son. He should be ashamed of himself, and he owes us all an apology.
    “When he was asked what his relationship was with his son, he said he hadn’t seen him in a while because he lived with his mother. Case Closed.”.”

    Jindal comments are idiotic and asinine and though merit though critic. Very little is known about the family but the guy lived with is mother, who is allegedly a gun enthousiast. So to blame is father and saying he is a failure and that he should apologize is simply enraged idiocy.

    He has a hissy fit against the father but say nothing of the mother who is by all account a gun nut. Strangely no one on the right notices that he also blames video game.

    All the developped world consume has much violent games than the US, but no other countries have similar event at such frequencies. Why would video games affect only US citizen or children?

    Gun don’t protect people they kill them. If they where protection the mother would have been able to protect hersefl from her kid yusing her gun to shoot her, and the kid at Sandy Hook.

    The idea of arming teachers is not better than the idea of bringing a bomb into an airplane because its unlikely there will be two bomb on the plane.

  10. Ever notice that the idea of single mothers is often advanced by single mothers or those raised by single mothers—fatherless individuals who have no idea what a real family is? Psychology says that’s to be expected. Politicians love it because it keeps millions of women enslaved by the government. Psychology says that is to be expected, too. (Democracy is not a common type of government since people tend to be lazy and would rather have their lives dictated than make an effort.) Deliberately denying a child two parents is actually child abuse. Selling the kid to the government in exchange for housing, a flat screen TV and food stamps is no less prostitution than actual sex trade. It’s all very immoral and the only advocates are those in control and those being controlled. The rest see this for what it is—enslavement, selfishness, destruction of human bonds.

  11. Esquire and GQ are the refuges of demasculated metrosexual beta-males “expressing their feelings” and lack the good taste to distinguish “edginess” from classless vulgarity.

  12. Sheri,

    Twain illustrated it rather well with the tale of the Royal Nonesuch scam in Huck Finn where victims of the scam actively supported it rather than admit their foolishness for falling for it. I often wonder if the proponents of socialism aren’t doing the same. OTOH, they may not yet realize they’re being had.

  13. I can’t understand why women would support gun restrictions or open carry laws. A gun is a great equalizer when most attackers are physically stronger than their female victims. In the supposed “rape culture” why would anyone relinquish peacefully their ability to protect themselves? If I desired a rape culture, the first thing I would do is take away women’s ability to stop a rape. I would stop feminizing men, too. If someone is assaulting you, would you rather have a tea-sipping, pajama wearing beta male or a gun-toting, aggressive alpha male around? I would love to live in a world where everyone abides by the law but I have daughters and a wife and I want them to have a lot of options to stop those who may want to harm them. In fact, women in a “rape culture” should be wanting to wear a six-shooter in a holster just like Wyatt Earp. I doubt a rapist would engage such a woman.

  14. PaulW,

    You should really read about rape and what causes it.

    Although a 6 shooter might be very fashionable in redneck world, I’m not sure that women share your sense of fashion.

    The vast majority of rape are done by the husband, father, brother and other male close to the victim.

    Most likely a woman carrying a gun gets killed by her own gun, either by shooting herself or having the gun taken away from her by the assaillant.

  15. Sylvain This comment is pure asinine:

    “Gun don’t protect people they kill them. If they where protection the mother would have been able to protect herself from her kid using her gun to shoot her, and the kid at Sandy Hook.”

    My entirer school carrer the were guns at scahool and yes I went to a reservation school, I had no fear of being shot, knifed that was a whole different matter. The reason school shooting have increase here in this country for some reason people like you thing crazy people have the right to wonder around threaten and eventually kill people and for some reason it not the person it the gun the difference between today and when I went to school over fourth years ago when there were no school shooting it was the lack of gun law to the most there were none, it was we had a functioning mental health system which I people like you tore down, after all it not the person fault he is sick it societies,

    If guns don’t protect people why do we are the secret service, why do police have guns for that mater why do we issue guns to our military personal, although Clinton disarmed then not allow them to have them on base, that accounts for some of the increase of these incidents, ditto for Clinton gun schools.

    Whether a gun could kill or save someone it purely who is holding it, Gun have done more for the equalization of human than any other tool. If gun had no come into existence most of us would either be serfs or slaves. To bad you are to stupid to understand that because if you have your way we all will be back to being serfs or slaves. God one cannot fix stupid!

    PS I clean up your spelling errors in your quote I hope you not offended my spell check found them. Something else we did not have when I went to school.

  16. I meant to say ditto for Clinton gun free schools not “ditto for Clinton gun” schools, spell check can only do so much, spelling and proof reading it not my strong points.
    I can only than the good Lord that he endowed someone to thing use English language challenged people could us that tool also, as he did for the physically challenged people with guns. Oh by the way half the population fit that physically challenged description they are called women, I highly doubt that women would have gotten suffrage with out guns to level the playing field.

  17. Sylvain, I don’t care one bit what causes rape or who does it. I care about what stops it no matter the perpetrator and I think it’s immoral to try to take someone’s protection away from them. Males are bigger, faster and stronger than females. I won’t deny them an equalizer.

    By the way, there are plenty of other crimes that can be deterred by guns and I believe guns work on brothers/fathers etc. so I’m not really sure why it makes a difference who does it. Maybe if you ever see someone getting assaulted you could quote your statistics and try to reason with them. Or better yet, condescend to them.That’ll stop ’em!

    I am proud, by the way, to be from and live in what you call redneck world. That’s the place criminals avoid on their way to gun free zones.

    fyi..After a quick google search I notice there are some very attractive holsters out there. And, if it’s seen it will never have to be used. Common sense to anyone but an intellectual.

  18. Mark Luhman,

    “The reason school shooting have increase here in this country for some reason people like you thing crazy people have the right to wonder around threaten and eventually kill people and for some reason it not the person it the gun ”

    I never said or suggested such a thing. In fact, these people should not be able to do what they are doing. And if they had no access to assault weapon (note that no one calls them protection weapon) they would not be able to carry their plan.

    We had a guy last year in Canada who went charging the parliament. He had no access to assault weapon and charge with a Winchester Model 94 “Advanced by the standards of 1894, it holds a maximum of eight rounds, but more normally seven, stored end-to-end in a tube under the barrel. It is not semi-automatic; the lever must be racked between shots.”

    http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ottawa-shooting-where-did-michael-zehaf-bibeau-get-his-gun-1.2811249

    Somehow the shooter was not able to buy a more powerful or useful weapon on the black market which is a frequent claim by USA gun nuts. Even though no one knows for sure how he got it to begin with.

    “the difference between today and when I went to school over fourth years ago when there were no school shooting it was the lack of gun law to the most there were none, it was we had a functioning mental health system which I people like you tore down, after all it not the person fault he is sick it societies,”

    The first school shooting in the USA dates from 1764.

    See also the Texas University tower shooting in 1966

    I am against cut in mental health care we had here several years ago which followed similar cut in other countries. People with mental health need to be taken care off and follow their medication regiment.

    Better background checks would prevent such people putting their hands on the most powerful gun and buying on the black market is really not as easy as it may sound.

    “Assault weapon and semi-automatic weapon should only be in the hand of the army and police, they should not be available to buy at Walmart or other gun store. There should be a limited amount of bullet in a mag. This is when people are able to charge the gunman (example the Gabby Giffords shooting when people stop the gunman was changing mag) People reselling their weapon should be held responsible for the actions made by the buyer.

    If guns don’t protect people why do we are the secret service, why do police have guns for that mater why do we issue guns to our military personal”

    You are comparing civilian and professional use. I have no problem with civilian having access to hunting weapon. Hand gun and assault weapon are very different.

    I don’t mind clearing my spell check, but maybe you should do the same. At least English is my second language.

  19. And if they had no access to assault weapon (note that no one calls them protection weapon) they would not be able to carry their plan.

    A similar moronic statement was made about drugs in re the drug war. Look how that’s turned out. Making something illegal in no way limits access. Yet the morons keep marching.

    There is no such thing as an “assault weapon”. It’s a cosmetic vs. functional feature. Using the term shows the speaker’s total ignorance. Of interest perhaps is the song Smackwater Jack written by Carol King in the 1971. Ol’ Smack used something far more deadly than an “assault weapon”. He used a shotgun.

  20. Dav,

    “A similar moronic statement was made about drugs in re the drug war. Look how that’s turned out. Making something illegal in no way limits access. Yet the morons keep marching.”

    You chose a very bad example. Pot can easily be grown in your closet while gun need to made in factories.

    Would a ban on assault weapon would eliminate all mass shooting? No but it would make it much harder for the people that do commit these crime which of course are not the smartest of them all.

    In Sandy Hook several kids were able to escape when the gunman was forced to recharge is weapon. Imagine how many more would be alive if he had to recharge is weapon after firing 5 bullet.

    There have been 52 school shooting this year alone in the US (and there is still 2 1/2 months left, with 30 dead and 53 injured. This phenomenon is occurring only in the USA. shooting elsewhere do happens but they are very rare event.

    https://www.rt.com/usa/318169-school-shootings-statistics-year/

    You say you are pro-life yet you don’t want to do anything to protect the life of the 30k a year dying because of guns. The majority accidental and suicide.

  21. You chose a very bad example. Pot can easily be grown in your closet while gun need to made in factories.

    Funny. Gangs in NY had no trouble making them at home. Even had a demo of one in West Side Story.

    Would a ban on assault weapon

    You continue to demonstrate your ignorance. There are no such things as “assault weapons”. You are talking about a gun’s appearance. Banning something because of how it looks is moronic but then, in your ignorance, you don’t know that.

    No but it would make it much harder for the people that do commit these crime

    Banning pretty things makes it harder to commit crimes? How silly.

    you don’t want to do anything to protect the life of the 30k a year dying because of guns.

    Again, you demonstate your ignorance.

    According to the FBI, in 2012, there were 8,855 total firearm-related homicides in the US, with 6,371 of those attributed to handguns. The Centers for Disease Control reports that there were 11,078 firearm-related homicides in the U.S. in 2010.

    6,371 is a far cry from 30,000 but you either don’t know anything at all about anything you spout off about or you are a liar. Which is it?

    You continually show how totally and obviously misinformed you are so what exactly are you attempting to accomplish by posting here? What do you gain by showing how poorly your thought processes perform?

  22. You either don’t know anything at all about anything you spout off about or you are a liar. Which is it?

    If it’s any consolation to you, I don’t think you smart enough to be able to lie.

    I have no intention of continuing any conversation with you. You can’t even properly respond to what has been said. It’s like having a conversation with a scratchy, unintelligible recording that just repeats itself.

  23. It’s all about permitted talk.
    All this rude crude vulgarity, and they still can’t show boobs on TV in a non-crude context.
    Playboy banning nudity is a sign of encroaching socialist puritanism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.

*

© 2016 William M. Briggs

Theme by Anders NorenUp ↑