Tolerance and the Despot

 

obama as despot“That’s my reality!” she said over and over again. It was 1997, I believe, and I was relaxing with a few friends in the NCO Club at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina following my return from another tour of duty in the Mideast. A female NCO was at our table, where we all took turns telling stories from our various deployments over the years. As the number of empty beer bottles increased, so too did the eccentricity and humor of the stories, except, that is, for this solitary NCO whose demeanor became more emphatic and grim as time passed.

I forget the specifics of the stories she told, chiefly because of the startling manner in which she concluded each anecdote, leaning in for dramatic effect, her eyes widening all the while, and announcing, “THAT’S MY REALITY!” The effect was immediate and as she desired, for it foreclosed any further question or attempts to explore her perspective in depth. Indeed, it seemed that to trespass on her “reality” would have been akin to saying, “No, actually, I don’t think your children are attractive at all, and that crayon scrawl your jug-eared son drew suggests that the epilepsy meds aren’t working very well either.” Certain things just aren’t up for discussion after all, and that included her “reality.”

To her everlasting credit, however, she didn’t demand our immediate and universal endorsement of her reality, such a presumption being considered, once upon a time, rude and small-minded. She could have her reality, and we could have ours, and we would coexist in a genial conversation. But that was back then, when from the academy to the editorial page we were encouraged to push against the alleged tide of intolerance, to celebrate inclusiveness, embrace diversity and, above all, to exercise Tolerance. Remember that word? That goal? That talisman?

In Up From Liberalism, William F. Buckley Jr., addressed the Trojan Horse of tolerance in the university thus:

I have been maintaining for years that American higher education has mostly developed into an engine for the imposition of the prevailing orthodoxy, and that the same people, by and large, who are involved in this operation do not hesitate to instruct the community about the imperatives of academic freedom.

Of course, the point all along wasn’t simply to release all ideas from the starting gate on an even field and simply trust that the right one would come thundering home ahead of the herd, but rather to guide and, yes, even to indoctrinate. The reluctance of the professoriate to come clean on this score was telling, as Buckley observed while examining the objective of the indoctrination.

But, as I say, those were days of sunshine and light, back when everyone wanted to teach the world to sing the Coca-Cola song and tolerance reigned supreme. Things are different now, as I wrote during the 2013 partial government shutdown. “No longer relegated to the fever swamps of academic fancy, utopia has acquired real estate and made known its demands.”

New York Times columnist Frank Bruni, in a recent piece, endorsed the position that, “[C]hurch leaders must be made ‘to take homosexuality off the sin list.’” The mental gymnastics that lead him to this conclusion are less interesting (categorizing certain behavior as sinful “is a choice,” he says, the result of “scattered passages of ancient texts … as if time had stood still, as if the advances of science and knowledge meant nothing.”) than the conclusion itself. For it is here that Visiting Professor of Hubris Bruni, gathers his considerable powers of conceit to step in for God and arrogate what ministers must be made to say and what they must be made to repudiate.

Perhaps he will get around to revising the Ten Commandments while he’s at it, but meanwhile we are entitled to inquire whether or not he cast his considerable thunderbolts from the mountaintop to revise the anti-Semitic and anti-American rubbish issuing from Reverend Wright’s pulpit. Did he enjoin compulsory editorial authority over Reverend Wright or Louis Farrakhan? By the way, at this point it is worth noting that we on the right never advocated any such action with regard to Reverend Wright’s invocation of The Almighty’s damnation of America. On the contrary, we maintained that he should be free to rattle on as long as he wished, but that we were simultaneously entitled to draw certain conclusions about the priorities and judgement of those who chose to occupy his church pews, including even an aspiring president. Their protestations notwithstanding, it is the left that has embraced totalitarianism, instructing the rest of us what we may and may not say, think, do, or purchase.

Have you heard of Christiana Figueres? Don’t worry, she hasn’t heard of you either. But if she had her druthers you probably wouldn’t even be here. Ms. Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (yes, such a thing really exists) and is on record in a recent interview bemoaning the number of people currently breathing, because it’s such an awful imposition on the planet.

“Really,” she said, “we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity. … So yes, we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also.”

Why the need to curtail the population? Why, because of climate change of course! Because what used to be regarded as the simple changing of the seasons has become an apocalyptic crisis, various confessions and misgivings of prominent scientists and former proponents notwithstanding. “The science is settled,” Barack Obama announces with all the certainty of his telling us that, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and he must act accordingly, with or without the consent of the governed. It is no longer a matter of questioning contrary opinion and inconvenient evidence, for the totalitarian mind is now busy drafting executive orders and depopulating the planet.

The egalitarian impulse of the liberal mind is now such that he has transcended the need to respect the opinions of those over whom he proposes to rule. “Elections have consequences,” he tells us when he wins one, but he can’t be bothered with that idea when he loses. No, he must take up his phone and his pen, and ignore the people and their representatives if he is to demonstrate how much he truly loves them. That business about We The People and the Founders insistence on self-government, it’s really a load of spinach to be perfectly honest, to be relegated to the same dust bin as his oath of fidelity to the Constitution.

“I’d like to make my own health care choices,” says the free man, to which the “pro-choice” liberal says, “No.” “Well then, I’d like to choose how to dispose of that which I earn,” says the American, to which the “tolerant” liberal replies “No” yet again, insisting that our earnings must be redistributed to those who choose not to earn. “Okay then, I’d like choice in the matter of defending my life, my family, and what little property you allow me to keep,” insists the citizen. “Absolutely not,” answers the advocate of choice and tolerance, “You cannot be trusted with this choice, so we must disarm you for your own safety.” “Upon what then may I exercise my right of choice?” asks the individual, whereupon he is told, “You will choose to endorse unlimited abortion and same-sex marriage.” “That’s a demand, not a choice,” says the citizen, “and I disagree with you.” “Stop oppressing me you racist, sexist bigot!” screams the tolerant liberal as he brings the instrumentalities of the state to coerce what had formerly been free people.

There is no separation of church and state where government becomes the predominant religion. The high priests now openly disregard their own rules while bringing the iron fist of government down on all who dissent. Thus, Hillary Clinton can decide for herself which documents are to be archived and which will be destroyed, in circumvention of the law and good sense. Try telling the IRS that you discarded your expense receipts on your own initiative and see how well things work out for you. But in the world of Barack and Michelle Obama, they get to take separate jets to the same city, sticking taxpayers with the bill and leaving a carbon footprint large enough to get its own ZIP code, all while lecturing the rest of us on the “settled science” of climate change and our corresponding imperative to say goodbye to our jobs and affordable utility bills.

We are told that our creeds and traditions, our faith, indeed, the fixed lessons of human experience itself must necessarily be superseded and improved upon by the latest intellectual fad or ideological epiphany. That the bright and shining “advances in science and knowledge,” have plainly improved mankind and anachronized those old “scattered passages of ancient texts” can be readily seen, especially from atop the mountain of corpses of the millions of children killed in the womb.

And what of this idea of the linear progression of morality? Does music work that way? Is Miley Cyrus an improvement over Bach? Do we dismiss the singular genius of Mozart in favor of twerking? What about literature? One hundred years from now, will people be reciting Shakespeare and Twain or Frank Bruni? The hubris of the left notwithstanding, eternal truth and value very plainly exists and are not subject to the frenzy and passion of the moment, nor to the situational ethics or the monstrous and absurd presumption of those few who impose their whims and most recent dogma upon the rights and prerogatives of the rest of us. That’s OUR reality.

There are 33 comments.

  1. 1
  2. 2
  1. Flizzo Stizzo Member

    Dave Carter:There is no separation of church and state where government becomes the predominant religion.

    God help us.

    • #1
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:02 AM PDT
    • Like
  2. Daniel Wood Inactive

    Bulls eye, dead center and right on the money. Agree wholeheartedly with every word. The kind of moral clarity you express is the only thing that will cut through the cloud of PC squid ink Leftists use to obscure their authoritarian impulses.

    • #2
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:07 AM PDT
    • Like
  3. Kay of MT Member

    I am forwarding your post to everyone on my mail list as well as FB and all my contacts and groups.

    • #3
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:45 AM PDT
    • Like
  4. The Dowager Jojo Member

    That’s about the size of it! Thanks.

    • #4
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:46 AM PDT
    • Like
  5. KC Mulville Inactive

    I read that Bruni piece. It was nothing but high school sophomore philosophy. It’s the perspective of the kid in the back row who says that since (society/church/whoever) used to believe something that we now consider wrong, we have lost the right forever to deem anything wrong. It’s basically an ad hominem attack; it claims that you can’t listen to someone because they were wrong once.

    Of course, it doesn’t actually offer an argument for the proposition itself; it simply tears down a debate opponent.

    You see this brand of argument all the time; it’s relativism masquerading as experience. And that’s the problem with relativism. It’s a tactic used to undermine other positions, claiming that (no matter what) the other guy’s argument isn’t absolutely true. But by the same token, a relativist can’t offer a positive argument. Once you say that no one can prove anything, you can’t prove your point either.

    • #5
    • April 11, 2015, at 12:01 PM PDT
    • Like
  6. jonb60173 Member

    Wow, it doesn’t get more succinct than that.

    • #6
    • April 11, 2015, at 12:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  7. Doug Kimball Member

    I wish it all wasn’t so, but our reality it is.

    BTW, have they selected your returns for audit yet or put your truck on the FMCSA scofflaw list?

    • #7
    • April 11, 2015, at 12:54 PM PDT
    • Like
  8. RushBabe49 Thatcher

    Thanks, Dave. Posted over at RushBabe49.com.

    • #8
    • April 11, 2015, at 1:23 PM PDT
    • Like
  9. Profile Photo Member

    With you here, Dave…(What’s the Air Force equivalent of “Ooh-Rah!”? Wanna get this right, don’tcha know…). But, since I can’t just sit here and wring my hands anymore (I am praying my fingers nearly-off, though.) What’s next?…A serious question, not just a rhetorical one, btw. Incidentally, I had a blast crashing last night’s gathering: So lovely to see you and S.! She said Vigil was amazing…I’ll bet! Holding you in thanksgiving and joy! Enjoy the rest of the weekend…Oh, and, love to Alphonse.

    • #9
    • April 11, 2015, at 2:30 PM PDT
    • Like
  10. Kozak Member

    Reminds me of Jamie on Myth Busters….

    mythbusters-reality-t-shirt-4

    • #10
    • April 11, 2015, at 3:42 PM PDT
    • Like
  11. Dave Carter Contributor
    Dave Carter Post author

    Nanda Panjandrum:With you here, Dave…(What’s the Air Force equivalent of “Ooh-Rah!”? Wanna get this right, don’tcha know…). But, since I can’t just sit here and wring my hands anymore (I am praying my fingers nearly-off, though.) What’s next?…A serious question, not just a rhetorical one, btw. Incidentally, I had a blast crashing last night’s gathering: So lovely to see you and S.! She said Vigil was amazing…I’ll bet! Holding you in thanksgiving and joy! Enjoy the rest of the weekend…Oh, and, love to Alphonse.

    Nanda, it was great talking to you via Skype from the meet up last night! Shelley said she loved talking with you too!

    With respect to your question of what to do next, we’ve learned the hard way that just voting for someone because they have an “R” by their name isn’t reversing the tide of national destruction. My sense is that we have to strongly support what Bill Buckley called “the rightward most viable candidate,” at a minimum. We would do well to also get involved in the Article V convention of the states initiative, recognizing that this remedy was provided by the Framers for exactly the situation we find ourselves in now, wherein the federal government cannot and will not reform itself. We are not as powerless as those who govern against our consent would like us to be.

    • #11
    • April 11, 2015, at 3:44 PM PDT
    • Like
  12. Percival Thatcher

    If Mr. Bruni feels the need to pontificate on what should and shouldn’t constitute a sin, he needs to get busy and found a church. He could get a tent and hit the circuit bringing the Truth to the benighted masses. Brother Frank’s Traveling Salvation Show and Petting Zoo. (Gotta find a hook to bring the kiddies in.)

    Does converting incoherent drivel and ill-considered blather into a New York Times opinion piece count as a miracle? Depends on the editor, I guess.

    • #12
    • April 11, 2015, at 3:49 PM PDT
    • Like
  13. Rightfromthestart Coolidge

    Excellent!

    • #13
    • April 11, 2015, at 5:02 PM PDT
    • Like
  14. TempTime Member

    Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change

    Sounds like a title straight out of Ayn Rand’s “Atlas Shrugged”. (Shrieking!) Please say it isn’t really happening. Why can’t we figure out how to neutralize and then eradicate this insanity?

    I once read someone’s (the name escapes me) answer to a similar question: Why do we keep fighting the same “war” (communism, socialism) over and over? The answer: “We let the losers teach.”

    Dave, your essay reminds of one of the reasons I joined Ricochet. I have a desire to develop/learn/acquire the skill/knowledge/ability to neutralize the enemy in my day to day life.

    Currently my efforts are failing as people either just don’t want to be bothered with the very scary truth or think I am “crazy”. And I think the reactions I get are mostly because (1) they feel impotent to do anything to change the situation and or (2) just don’t want to admit that they see the truth because acknowledging the truth would require them to do something. But they don’t know what to do. Too much anxiety. It’s easier to call me crazy.

    I, Ok, …….. never mind. I have to stop writing now, my brain is simply exploding with a hundred questions, thoughts…… wondering over and over why are we allowing this situation to happen?. I want to shout “find some courage”.

    Yes, I am talking to myself and everyone else who has ever refused to see the truth or speak up because they were too afraid of losing a job, or not getting hired, or having their child “punished” by the schools, or rocking the boat, or losing friends, or upsetting the apple cart, or creating a rukus at Thanksgiving dinner … that I/we remain silent.

    Dave Carter you have inspired me. Now I hope the Ricochetti will empower me, a member of We The People who is currently falling down on the job to help preserve the Republic.

    • #14
    • April 11, 2015, at 7:40 PM PDT
    • Like
  15. Larry Koler Inactive

    This is what comes from electing a clearly anti-American president. But, no, there was a lot that led up to this, too. The left has the levers of power in this nation. They set the agenda and decide what is OK to talk about. Nihilistic, atheistic, Marxist, philosophy is pumped through the nation’s bloodstream.

    Dave, did you know that Ricochet has also fallen into this trap: recently there was a post on “When did Barack Obama break with Marxism?” that was not shown in the “Ricochet Most Popular” listing (which shows up on the public page) when it’s comment count exceeded the minimum limit to make it to the top 5 on the member feed? Truly pathetic. I can only figure that it is truly considered that 1) Obama is not a Marxist (is that even debatable?) and we don’t want to look stupid or 2) the editors don’t want to have a fight with the left. The left really controls the levers of power in this country.

    Take a look at my comment when it happened: https://ricochet.com/when-did-barack-obama-break-with-marxism/comment-page-3/#comment-2768667

    • #15
    • April 11, 2015, at 9:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  16. Larry Koler Inactive

    Here’s what I said when the above spiking (#15 above) occurred:

    The left cannot be fought if we refuse to name them for what they are. …

    My main point is that Obama is much closer to Marxist ideology than Capitalist ideology.

    This is exactly like the left’s and Obama’s unwillingness to name Islamic terrorism for what it is. Our side — like their side with Islamism — refuses to fight. This is our dilemma and why we on the right can’t put together a winning strategy and have it supported in a full-throated way. Reagan had to fight this exact problem.

    • #16
    • April 11, 2015, at 9:29 PM PDT
    • Like
  17. Profile Photo Member

    Who are the PTB so afraid of, that they’re ‘spiking’ posts? I’m glad we have Minute Men – and Women – among the Ricochetti who will tell us the scary parts and keep us on our toes…

    • #17
    • April 11, 2015, at 10:57 PM PDT
    • Like
  18. Cow Girl Thatcher

    Fantastic. Clearly explained. Fine, fine, fine. I love your writing! It is scary how much real truth has been rejected by this new “truth” that prevails. One of the most egregious new truths is that humans are what is wrong with the earth. A complete inversion of the actual truth that earth was created for human beings so that we could come here, gain bodies, learn God’s truths, and return to live with Him again. We do, indeed, get our choice: will we follow God’s truths, or will we reject them?

    • #18
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:22 PM PDT
    • Like
  19. Al Sparks Thatcher

    Dave Carter: “That’s my reality!” she said over and over again. It was 1997, I believe, and I was relaxing with a few friends in the NCO Club at Seymour Johnson Air Force Base in North Carolina following my return from another tour of duty in the Mideast. A female NCO was at our table, where we all took turns telling stories from our various deployments over the years. As the number of empty beer bottles increased, so too did the eccentricity and humor of the stories, except, that is, for this solitary NCO whose demeanor became more emphatic and grim as time passed.

    Well, probably she didn’t get challenged precisely because she was a woman. And it’s a variation of “…that’s just how I feel.” which also shuts down discussion or debate.

    I suspect that most of the men at that table decided to avoid her socially after that, isolating her even more, as I suspect she already was, given her reality.

    • #19
    • April 11, 2015, at 11:34 PM PDT
    • Like
  20. Profile Photo Member

    Dave,

    You hit the bullseye! So well said. Cowgirl, your comments remind us of priorities. What in the end is of highest importance for the few year we have on this earth?

    The question is, how do we respond to the left? I meet many people that seem to agree with how bad things are, but then retort “what can we do?” A complete answer to that question would take more space and time. But a good place to start might be to no longer remain silent or controlled by the notion that what we conservatives have to say might offend someone.

    An illustration: A very dear friend told me of an experience he had on a recent flight. This articulate conservative was talking with a seat mate about progressives and what a horrible president we find in the Oval Office. When the plane landed a “woman of a different mindset” who happened to overhear the conversation snarled at him that he had no business talking about the president the way he had. Briefly taken back, he simply said he was having a personal conversation that did not include her and he didn’t really care what she thought and she should mind her own business (I may have been less gracious). Some might argue that this person should not have such a conversation in the open atmosphere of an airplane. Why not? If not on an airplane, then what about at a restaurant when one’s conversation may be overheard by a nearby table. I can’t count the times I’ve endured comments that by my values and standards are stupid, ill informed and just plain wrong. If I wasn’t part of the conversation…no reaction (Oh I admit, I might roll my eyes or shake my head.) If I am part of the conversation, I am silent no longer.

    Keep the posts coming, Dave!!!

    • #20
    • April 12, 2015, at 7:24 AM PDT
    • Like
  21. PHCheese Member

    Hey Dave, you are just a bitter clinger. I think the club now is the largest in the country. Thanks again for your well reasoned thoughts.

    • #21
    • April 12, 2015, at 7:43 AM PDT
    • Like
  22. donald todd Inactive

    Totalitarianism, but only for your own good. Give us your agreement and see if we don’t take any more than is absolutely needed.

    Please!

    Right now would be good!

    • #22
    • April 12, 2015, at 11:42 AM PDT
    • Like
  23. Max Knots Member

    Another outstanding post from the “Good” Carter (as compared to the one who was once our President). There is more sense in the period at the end of any of your sentences, than in the entire multi-volume set of Our Apologizer-in-Chief’s speeches. Whenever I am sufficiently masochistic as to listen/read one of his awful, illogical, non sequitur-filled, straw-dog killing, ad-hominem attack containing, diatribes against his fellow citizens, I find myself reaching for the antacids.

    Can he truly believe what he says? Or does he simply need to convince a small majority that “his reality” is theirs so that he can continue his con game? I fear it is the latter.

    We need to develop a collective immunity to these ideas. Perhaps this attack on our collective freedom will bolster our political immune systems so that we will better resist future political pathogens? One hope….

    • #23
    • April 12, 2015, at 1:00 PM PDT
    • Like
  24. jzdro Member

    Thank you, Dave Carter.

    happy2bI once read someone’s (the name escapes me) answer to a similar question: Why do we keep fighting the same “war” (communism, socialism) over and over? The answer: “We let the losers teach.”

    Anyone who figures out the source of that quotation, and posts it, would have my gratitude also.

    • #24
    • April 12, 2015, at 3:20 PM PDT
    • Like
  25. TempTime Member

    Jzdro, it’s not a direct quote; meaning I can’t recall the precise words, but the words I used convey the speaker’s idea accurately. It was a somewhat longer sentence more like: Losers of the war (communists, socialists) are allowed to remain in society and they then take the position of teachers.

    I’ve tried to find the exact quote myself, but so far I haven’t been successful. However, I know myself and my brain/memory will work at it until I succeed.

    • #25
    • April 12, 2015, at 6:33 PM PDT
    • Like
  26. J. D. Fitzpatrick Member

    I have’t seen Mark Steyn writing the NR Happy Warrior column in a while. Any chance we can encourage NR to give that space to Dave Carter?

    • #26
    • April 12, 2015, at 8:11 PM PDT
    • Like
  27. Ray Kujawa Coolidge

    Dave Carter:There is no separation of church and state where government becomes the predominant religion. The high priests now openly disregard their own rules while bringing the iron fist of government down on all who dissent. Thus, Hillary Clinton can decide for herself which documents are to be archived and which will be destroyed, in circumvention of the law and good sense. Try telling the IRS that you discarded your expense receipts on your own initiative and see how well things work out for you. But in the world of Barack and Michelle Obama, they get to take separate jets to the same city, sticking taxpayers with the bill and leaving a carbon footprint large enough to get its own ZIP code, all while lecturing the rest of us on the “settled science” of climate change and our corresponding imperative to say goodbye to our jobs and affordable utility bills.

    Be angry for the waste of taxpayer money, but not the carbon footprint. That’s something we should celebrate as the prime users and producers of wealth on the planet. We don’t owe it to anyone. We didn’t steal any of it. We don’t have to feel guilty about that. If you’re feeling the least bit guilty about that, they might be getting to you, Bro.

    • #27
    • April 12, 2015, at 11:10 PM PDT
    • Like
  28. Ray Kujawa Coolidge

    Dave Carter:Have you heard of Christiana Figueres? Don’t worry, she hasn’t heard of you either. But if she had her druthers you probably wouldn’t even be here. Ms. Figueres is the Executive Secretary of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (yes, such a thing really exists) and is on record in a recent interview bemoaning the number of people currently breathing, because it’s such an awful imposition on the planet.

    “Really,” she said, “we should make every effort to change those numbers because we are already, today, already exceeding the planet’s planetary carrying capacity. … So yes, we should do everything possible. But we cannot fall into the very simplistic opinion of saying just by curtailing population then we’ve solved the problem. It is not either/or, it is an and/also.”

    Why the need to curtail the population? Why, because of climate change of course! Because what used to be regarded as the simple changing of the seasons has become an apocalyptic crisis, various confessions and misgivings of prominent scientists and former proponents notwithstanding. “The science is settled,” Barack Obama announces with all the certainty of his telling us that, “If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor,” and he must act accordingly, with or without the consent of the governed. It is no longer a matter of questioning contrary opinion and inconvenient evidence, for the totalitarian mind is now busy drafting executive orders and depopulating the planet.

    If this Madame Secretary was not a complete scam artist, she would, with the aid of the million or so loyal scientists at her disposal, be able to tell us exactly what number of people the planet’s capacity is. And while she’s at it, with her keen sense of compassion, she should be able to unequivocally tell us what the reason is for there being a perfectly balanced planet — i.e., what it is providing for those who didn’t have to be euthanized in her thought experiment, other than perfectly balanced and perfect unchanging weather, that is. Oh, and what to do with the millions of people from religions (chiefly Catholics and Jews with well developed senses of guilt) still around who feel too guilty for having been left alive after 3 or 4 billion of their former fellow citizens’ lives were snuffed out.

    • #28
    • April 12, 2015, at 11:27 PM PDT
    • Like
  29. Ray Kujawa Coolidge

    Kozak:Reminds me of Jamie on Myth Busters….

    mythbusters-reality-t-shirt-4

    Exactly. The response to this person is, “Well, my reality is that ‘You are wrong!”

    Because the person Dave used in the example was female, could her attitude be considered an example of female chauvinism? Did she think she had superior rights over other people, but especially over men that trumped their opinions? I found myself questioning how this woman could be effective in the armed forces and not at some point create problems in situations required team solidarity.

    • #29
    • April 12, 2015, at 11:41 PM PDT
    • Like
  30. TempTime Member

    Because the person Dave used in the example was female, could her attitude be considered an example of female chauvinism? Did she think she had superior rights over other people, but especially over men that trumped their opinions?

    Yes, I think she probably believes she had the superior position in that group for possibly more than one reason. And I think the fellows may have unintentionally reinforced her incorrect perspective. I don’t know if it is female chauvinism. I think it is Victim (alleged) chauvinism. I know I need to be careful here, but I’m going to take the risk…I’ve come to believe the other side of the coin “I’m a Victim” reads “I’m a Bully”.

    False Victims of society almost always think: their rights trump yours, that you must quietly defer to them, that they are in the superior position to you, feel fairly cocky they will not be challenged, and take a perverse sense of satisfaction in the fact that they can almost always get away with being a “bully” because after all, the “law” is on their side.

    I truly wish we would get rid of all the laws calling for special rights/treatments/deference towards one group of persons over another. The laws are just wrong. I think all the anti- discrimination laws are seriously flawed in their reasoning. Clearly the writers of the laws do not understand individual/group human psychology or they would not write these laws.

    Regarding the alleged societal victims, I think we need to politely “challenge” them and not defer to their bullying tactics.
    edited to remove a comment that was poorly expressed and could possible lead to shrieking if misunderstood.

    • #30
    • April 13, 2015, at 8:49 AM PDT
    • Like
  1. 1
  2. 2