Not Quite Getting Over It
From time to time, I wonder whether I overuse the word psychodrama. And then, within days, I find another one of these:
Update, via the comments:
Apparently, Ms Cranz is “ignoring those fucks” – the boys who upset her at school, the boys who could “DEVASTATE” her by smirking or being confident, more confident than she was – and she’s ignoring them by referring to them, passionately, angrily, as if they were of crushing importance, and letting them shape her worldview as a supposedly grown woman. Such that she publicly airs her hang-ups about confident, smirking schoolboys, and construes those hang-ups as activism. Proof of woke righteousness. You see, she’s “dismantling their power structures” by letting them have power over her, in her mind, years later.
Regarding the “boy from Kentucky,” the one whose expression and skin colour so enrage Ms Cranz, see this, and this, and this.
Oh, and this too.
Via Ben Sixsmith.
You can’t spell “Cranz” without a whole lot of Cra_Z. If it weren’t for pussies, there’d be a bounty on them.
I blame Twitter.
and
Seriously? I blame the media.
It’s both:
The overall issue has two parts.
One, that the planet wide internet is now utterly and absolutely ubiquitous and regularly accessed as easily as pulling out an equally ubiquitous cell phone.
Two, and the really major issue, the entirely resulting planet wide Eternal September, only this time with hipsters.
Oh Alex Cranz is a girl?
More like a cross between a beached whale and a land shark. Gender-identity is a rumor. She’s reportedly on the left in the photo below…
http://media.gizmodo.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2016/10/hydro.jpg
Isn’t she a sweetheart.
Isn’t she a sweetheart.
Well, at least she has a shred of honesty…
Damn those white people and tbeir racist…
(spins wheel)
…smirk
Isn’t she a sweetheart.
Charming. She should be a tailor. She’s very good and constructing things from whole cloth.
*at* not *and*
Advocates for the Progressive Left in the USA are clearly trying to crucify the lad in the video. A so-called specialist on body-language has been enlisted to analyses his behaviour – but not the behaviour of the adult male who walked up to him [and his peers] and confronted him:
https://luckyottershaven.com/tag/covington-catholic-high-school/
The specialist claims that the lad[s] encroached on the Indian man’s space, yet it was the adult who walked up to the lads:
”10/ Entering into another person’s interpersonal space (personal space and even intimate space) – is a body language behavior which very often provokes violence.
11/ While this is true for all genders, it’s particularly incendiary when two men are Whole Body Pointing toward each other (eyes, head, shoulders, torso, hips, and feet). Simply by turning 20º – 30º to one side will de-escalate the potential for physical confrontation.”
However it is not two ”men”. It is one senior and experienced political agitator confronting a 15 year old boy. What a bully.
That woman has more issues than National Geographic.
Isn’t she a sweetheart.
And so a de-escalation expert stirs the shit gleefully, hoping to enrage.
It’s the way she just inserts this, seemingly at random:
How Ms Schorn has divined this alleged fact is by no means clear. Perhaps she’s clairvoyant.
As with the ‘Google Memo’ saga – during which, the media’s near-total mendacity was actually quite shocking – it’s strange to witness, again, just how much of the media and commentating class is intensely dogmatic and… well, extremist. Yet, being surrounded largely by people who are eerily similar in their leanings, with similar educations and in-group expectations, they don’t seem to register their own uniform conceits as in any way contentious. And so, we watch them from a distance, marvelling at the ideological gulf.
I suppose this is what happens when a society allows the left to gain a chokehold on the education of its children.
Smiling “isn’t legally violence,” but…
As with the ‘Google Memo’ saga…
Not to open another topic David but have you by any chance read this? It’s quite the missive. The first comment in the thread is by Damore himself and while not completely confirming the details he states that this person seems to have knowledge that only someone in Google could possibly have.
After going through it the lengths to which they were willing to go, and the fact that they had so many willing accomplices is both worrying, and quite frankly, enraging.
https://www.reddit.com/r/JamesDamore/comments/adpj0h/i_helped_google_screw_over_james_damore/
but have you by any chance read this?
I have now. Thanks.
A parody of the news reports on a parody of the news.
Ah, we’re over here on page two now…is there explicit knowledge as to the age on Nick Sandman and/or the Hodge kid? I keep seeing different numbers, 15, 16, 17, and even 14. The most specific report that I’ve seen refers to him as a junior which, this being January likely points to 16, though possibly 17. Of course the state of journalism is such that asking “how old is nick sandman” to google returns “no results found”. Don’t recall this info being so hard to find regarding Trevon Martin.
On that Damore post, my spidey senses are twitching. Reads a little too smoothly. Of particular concern is the part where it claims that their spying likely made his devices particularly slow, inhibiting his ability to organize support. I seriously doubt they would be slowed to that degree and if so, Damore would have mentioned it as suspicious at the time. Maybe he did and either way I could be wrong. I just sense that made-up feel/wording.
On that Damore post, my spidey senses are twitching.
I feel that way as well, but I look at how evil Google is, and I don’t think it’s hyperbolic to use that term given their known behaviour, and I can’t help but still believe it’s possible.
Tom, Agree. Nothing truly surprises me anymore. The actualization of things I’ve long suspected but have been socialized/gaslighted to shut up about piss me off, yes. Surprise, no.
Smiling “isn’t legally violence,” but…
“
?_nc_cat=1&_nc_ht=scontent-lga3-1.xx&oh=d8ceef59d477093782b9dee9ab0e4b90&oe=5CF6AEDE”>
Smiling, no, but smirking is racist fascist violence.
OK, no more posting without a proper keyboard after this.
but smirking is racist fascist violence.
Ah, but it isn’t just a problematic smile, all that dastardly “weaponised privilege.” Apparently, simply wearing a MAGA hat is now a “racist provocation” and an act of inexcusable harassment. And therefore, presumably, grounds for whatever retaliation the Mao-lings find appealing.
We’ve been here before, of course.
Another lovely woke-ling shares his thoughts:
Shun your friends, colleagues and relatives – make their lives painful – for the cause!
Shun your friends, colleagues and relatives – make their lives painful – for the cause!
I think you mean ‘cult’.
I think you mean ‘cult’.
It does have an air of that about it – a mental narrowness. I also think it hints at a person’s character.
To flip things around for a moment, a peripheral relative of mine is a fairly hard-line socialist, and quite loud about it. She announces her socialism as if one couldn’t possibly demur and seems to imagine that anyone vaguely conservative must feast on the eyes of children. If implemented, her preferred policies would be profoundly unjust and economically ruinous. And yet… she and I can still share a joke, and a drink, at family gatherings. It wouldn’t occur to me to shun her at weddings and barbecues or connive to make her life painful and unpleasant. I rather like running into her.
Shun your friends, colleagues and relatives – make their lives painful – for the cause!
This isn’t even new. Remember last year during the Kavanagh confirmation hearings I believe, that Maxine Waters (Bloviating Gasbag:CA) screeched outside the U.S. Capitol that people should get in the faces of Trump administration officials when they were out in public and deny them peace anywhere?
This lead to Press Secretary Sarah Sanders, and her family, being run out of restaurant, Mitch McConnell being accosted on the way into a restaurant, and in his driveway, and a Florida state government official (Attorney-General I think?) being hounded out of a cinema with her date.
The problem, for the Left, is that adult government officials aren’t very sympathetic figures but high school boys, whom the evidence has shown are innocent of the trumped-up (hah!) charges, are, very much so in fact.
If they keep pushing this they may be very unpleasantly surprised. One can only hope.
…and seems to imagine that anyone vaguely conservative must feast on the eyes of children
tsk…
Good Lord, we’re not zombies, just the arms and thighs – like chicken.
What?
I smirk at Alex Cranz(D) @alexcranz who is such a useless POS she hates a bullied child for her own delusional self loathing
It’s a racist hate crime, apparently. He does “political analysis.”
It’s a racist hate crime, apparently…
TBF, that is one of the less vile ones.
Tucker Carlson goes to town on some of those responsible for the shit-show.
via Ryan Saavedra
He does “political analysis.
I don’t wear hats except the large straw one I have for gardening. But, dayum, I’m going to buy a MAGA one and wear it.
I don’t wear hats except the large straw one I have for gardening. But, dayum, I’m going to buy a MAGA one and wear it.
I don’t do hats either…
[ Runs fingers through hair lasciviously. ]
But I can understand the temptation.
So here’s another thing on the hats…Seems lately every time I go out for the evening, or at least every other time, I run into someone with a “Resistance AF” or similar shirt on. Like, yeah dude. For realz. The French Underground used to advertise like that and they were f’n awesome, right? But I can count on one, uh, digit the number of in-the-flesh MAGA hats I’ve seen. That being the one in the office of a beach motel in Ft. Lauderdale back in 2016. Wasn’t even in public. Was on a shelf. Not even on someone’s head. Yet I see so-called “conservatives” saying it was inappropriate for these kids to wear a MAGA hat TO A POLITICAL EVENT IN WASHINGTON, DC…ahem…Sorry. I was afraid if I held that in any longer I’d get a hernia or something.
I don’t do hats either…
But you can dance if you want to. 😐
Y’know, Twitter CEO Jack Dorsey claims (or at least portrays himself) to be a good progressive caring liberal. If that were so (rather than being just another run-of-the-mill greedy money-hog that the Ctrl-Left likes to rage against), one might think this weekend’s chum-fest feeding frenzy would cause him to have his “Dr. Frankenstein moment,” and realize that he has created a monster, whose monstrousness has grown beyond his ability to manage.
Twitter, through its vile, unthinking, uncaring userbase, will — mark my words — ultimately get someone (or multiple someones) killed such that it can be directly traced back to a tweet-storm or a hashtag campaign.
If Jack Dorsey had even an ounce of concern or compassion about this monster he’s created and the innocent people the monster will so indiscriminately devour, he would shut Twitter down. For good. And see to it that no one could revive it.
You know, I normally wouldn’t fault Jack Dorsey for what people do with his monster any more than I fault Smith & Wesson for thugs getting hold of their products and committing crimes. But Smith & Wesson isn’t restricting some people from using their guns while letting others get away, literally (ABLILML), with murder. Once you get into that level of control of your product, you become responsible for what people do with it. Especially as he hasn’t restricted the restricting to just real Nazis and ISIS and terrorists and such but has gone after people for the most innocuous of faux pas.
But Smith & Wesson isn’t restricting some people from using their guns while letting others get away, literally (ABLILML), with murder. Once you get into that level of control of your product, you become responsible for what people do with it.
So much this.
If Dorsey just let Twitter be a free-for-all, then, like the owners of S&W or Sig Sauer or whomever, he could completely disclaim any responsibility for what others do with what he created.
But he doesn’t. He allows his “Trust & Safety” team (as Orwellian a term as I’ve heard in a while) to pick “winners and losers” on the platform, such that if and when the “winners” end up causing the death of someone (whether out of sheer malice or unforgiving incompetence), he can’t say then, “Hey, I have no control over this thing.” Yeah, you’ve already shown you do, Jack.
Runs fingers through hair…
Stop oppressing have-nots with your shameless privilege.
Stop oppressing have-nots with your shameless privilege.
[ Eyes collection of manly styling products. ]
Runs fingers through hair…
Photos or it didn’t happen. 🙂
“ABLILML”
What?
Damn, always late to the good threads. Maybe there’s causation there…Ahem, anyhow:
Between football and a major smoked meat project I managed to miss the original BRO-ha-ha on this and I find it absolutely fascinating that a nation-gripping “story”, the pile-on, and the great retraction can all occur in the span of about 48 hours. Incredible.
I frankly despised Trump in the primary and still have mixed feelings about him. Upon his election I bemoaned another 4-8 years of celebrity worship after suffering the interminable years of Obama-bots worshiping their messiah. In that spirit I would gently mock those who wore it. Now? Today I’m purchasing an official MAGA-hat. Not only is it a piece of history, but a powerful tool for identifying unhinged radicals.
Also, RE reason magazine: yes, it has gone down. Yes, it has fairly consistently, though not 100%, sided with the Left in cultural battles. And yes, a few of their writers (namely Shika Dalmia, Robbie Soave, and Elizabeth Nolan-Brown) have taken moronic stances, in some cases in direct conflict with liberty. Having said all that, they DO take the principled and tough stances on several key subjects, namely gun rights, property rights, regulation, prostitution and substance prohibition. I’d score them as A- on free speech, and their campus reporting was ahead of its time. Though many might disagree with their stance on immigration, they are at least consistent there as well.
So, a qualified defense of the magazine. Unfortunately, as a result of the leftward shift the comment board went from one of the best in all the webz to a few doctrinaire righties and lefty shit-stirrers with only a handful of the old guard remaining. This development was good, though, as it led me to this board (the true best of the web) and all of you now can now bask in the brilliance of my hastily typed thoughts.
ABLILML – And By Literally I Literally Mean Literally. What? Everybody else got it. ;). It’s my pet peave that the word does not mean what it means anymore. Go ahead, look it up. Then join me in my woe. Just got tired of typing out the whole thing and figured everyone else was tired of reading it. But my OCD insists that I be clear when using that word. So…you know…
pst314 Is it a bit sad that I totally get that reference?
ABLILML – And By Literally I Literally Mean Literally. What? Everybody else got it. ;).
Unfortunately, Google didn’t, and only wanted to tell me all about “ableism”. So I decided to direct my question to a more intelligent source. 🙂
Runs fingers through hair…
Photos or it didn’t happen. 🙂
Better still, the 10 Year Challenge, I’ve got one of you from 10 years ago, let’s see the current.
pet peave
peeve…or is “peave” the British spelling?
😛
Nathan Phillips, Freon Ranger.