Skip to main content

Gnosis of Mirth

I wonder if Flynn would (aka Simon) submit the following to the ADL: the words racist and bigot. It is plain that they are used to direct hate towards people with conservative views.
The terms "racist" and "bigot" have become powerful weapons used against conservatives. Sometimes they are justified. Sometimes they are not. They are, however, always effective - which explains their overuse. As conservatives it is important to recognize that when we fight Islamic fundamentalism we aren't fighting Muslims any more than we are fighting women when we oppose abortion. Do not allow liberals to shame us into submission.
I doubt it. Firstly, Flynn himself likes to hurl these words about, confident that he knows precisely what they mean and that he could never misuse them to score cheap points. Secondly, the terms do have a real meaning, which his poisonous attempt to defame the flag Canada flew in WWII is in danger of diluting. Let's just say that he gets his little wet dream, and the RCMP swoops down and asks the Red Ensign brigade to stop using the old flag. You know we'll just come up with a new one. Our views will still cause his hair to fall out, and he will still think we are haters. Will he go after the new symbol? What alternative is there? Debate the ideas? He doesn't like that. Let us simply agree to disagree? He doesn't like that either. He seems like the kind of out and out hater that will not allow anyone to step outside his little box of approved ideas, all of them of about a mere 30 years vintage, it seems. Would he then step up and say what it seems he really wants to say? That we should not have the freedom to say anything that might offend his bloated sense of righteousness? Get a grip man. I think your dinky little pirate is stupid. I think your apology for using it is even stupider, if that is possible. But you go right on. You see, I think in a free society people are going to get cross with one another from time to time. And there will be times when the differences are so severe that the law has to brought in. But mostly we can just let it go. The debate is a healthy thing. We have in our group, men and women, who's heritage is from all over the world. We are not masochists or sufferers of false consciousness. We have a flag that has a good history, and it is that good history that the real haters are attempting to use as a cover for their work. The very worst that could be said is that it is a symbol in contention. To put it on a level with an SS thunderbolt is to reveal an extremism and zealotry that alternatively frightful and laughable. Left to their own devices, most people would come to that conclusion. But Flynn has been crawling through broken glass (he's a martyr, dontcha know) to know the real truth. And now he's come back from his Batcave and is willing (hallelujah!) to share his gnosis with us. I suspect it will be to his shock and dismay when the result is not fear and trembling, but much mirth and spilt beer. Why? Well... I direct you to this, from the ADL, which says just what I have been saying:
Users of this database should keep in mind, however, that few symbols ever represent just one idea or are used exclusively by one group. For example, the Confederate Flag is a symbol that is frequently used by white supremacists but which also has been used by people and groups that are not racist. To some it may signify pride in one's heritage but to others it suggests slavery or white supremacy. Similarly, other symbols in this database may be significant to groups or individuals who are not extreme or racist. The descriptions here point out significant multiple meanings but may not be able to relay every single possible meaning of a particular symbol. For this reason, all of the symbols depicted here must be evaluated in the context in which they are used.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Reuters joins CNN on the bench

Makes room for CanWest to join the majors Kudos to CanWest for calling a terrorist a terrorist . Many, including The Last Amazon , will be happy to hear it. Reuters is among the worst of the major western news services, where I would also place the BBC and the CBC. Unsurprisingly, Reuters is not happy about the changes CanWest made to Reuters wire stories: Our editorial policy is that we don't use emotive words when labeling someone," said David A. Schlesinger, Reuters' global managing editor. "Any paper can change copy and do whatever they want. But if a paper wants to change our copy that way, we would be more comfortable if they remove the byline." Mr. Schlesinger said he was concerned that changes like those made at CanWest could lead to "confusion" about what Reuters is reporting and possibly endanger its reporters in volatile areas or situations. "My goal is to protect

Where credit is due

A good'un from Sawyer Brown . Thank God for You Well I've been called a self-made man Girl don't you believe it's true I know exactly how lucky I am When I'm gettin' this close to you It's high time I'm giving some praise To those that got me where I am today Chorus I got to thank momma for the cookin' Daddy for the whuppin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you A strong heart and a willing hand That's the secret to my success A good woman - I try to be a good man A good job - Lord I know I've been blessed I'm just a part of a greater plan It doesn't matter which part I am Chorus I got to thank momma for the teachin' Daddy for the preachin' The devil for the trouble that I get into I got to give credit where credit is due I thank the bank for the money Thank God for you

A very limited form of inquiry

Real Clear Politics is carrying commentary on James Q. Wilson's WSJ article on ID (got that?). Wilson, the respected social scientist, gets it mostly right when he says that ID is not science because it can't be tested: So ID is not science. Does this mean that science, in any way, implies the non-existence of God? No. Does this mean that belief in God is irrational and that we should all be "free thinkers"? No. Does this mean that it is impossible to arbitrate between various theories of the existence/non-existence of God and come to some reasonable conclusions? No. Does this mean that we cannot say that humanity is meant to exist? No. In other words, rationality outside of science is quite possible, and has been around for a long time. How do you think humanity invented science in the first place? We surely did not do it scientifically. Science as we know it is the product of millennia of philosophical debate -- from Aristotle to Lakatos. Science depends upon phi