Twitter
LinkedIn
RSS
Facebook

Arguing with leftists, explained in one (epic) blog post

Behold: the last ten years of your life, explained at last! (Yes, it’s long, but worth it.)

Too much? Try this:

But the reaction to Drudge’s homepage from the left on Twitter is a reminder that “Hannah Arendt had it right”, as the late Sen. Pat Moynihan once told an interviewer. “She said one of the great advantages of the totalitarian elites of the twenties and thirties was to turn any statement of fact into a question of motive.”

Or as the folks at Twitchy write, “rather than go after Tarantino for his apparent delight in liberal use of the N-word, many journalists and progressives are going after Drudge for his headline.”

***
Leftist do NOT understand proportionality.

Here’s another example.

So I learned via Twitter during last week’s nonsense that a number of white male leftists are still (faux) furious with me about a joke I made maybe three or four years ago, about a blind guy having a job.

Note that none of them are driven to outrage over what the blind guy did at his jobharass politically incorrect nobodies who post “hate speech” on the internet that nobody else reads:

Which brings us to the matter of [Dean] Steacy himself. He’s blind, and he has an assistant help him function — no doubt a double-expense that the [Canadian Human Rights Commission} regards as a source of pride and a symbol of how the rest of society ought to work. I think it’s great that Steacy is still working despite his handicap. But being an investigator, especially where the matters investigated are words and symbols and intricate websites, requires eyesight.

Keeping a lead investigator who is blind isn’t just an act of supreme political correctness, it’s an act that so obviously risks the integrity of the commission’s work. (…)

Look, I think it’s great that Steacy’s still working after going blind — the fact that he was the CHRC’s union boss probably ensured that his lower productivity and need for another assistant wouldn’t even be considered. I’m sure that, if the CHRC could, it would require all Canadian businesses to go to such lengths and costs. But even the nuttiest anti-discrimination advocate would acknowledge that there are some jobs where vision is necessary. Being a pilot is one of them; being an investigator is another.

Unless, of course, accuracy, comprehensiveness and fairness are optional — which is why the CHRC permits it.


Comments are closed.