28 July, 2017

No, Blocking in Response to Personal Attacks is NOT Being Triggered

In September 2016, I posted (and subsequently updated, numerous times) this infamous post to this blog. Despite it being almost a year old, that post still has a lot of relevance today, so much so that I have to constantly go back to it to correct the record on such. Today, there was just one more example of this on Twitter.

What happened, exactly? Well, a discussion started with a judgmental leftist who had the nerve to call my fellow conservative, fellow philosopher, and virtual neighbor (both of us live in South OC) Mike Cernovich "fake news" because he shared a CBS article about churches being cracked down on. Whoever this leftist was (possibly a bot because it did not have a real name attached to it at all, neither in the @handle nor in the associated name — fake name + fake handle = probably a troll), he, she, or it (if a bot) not only was apparently clueless to the fact that the article was a CBS article (a left wing outlet to boot), NOT an article from Cernovich himself, to begin with, but also was hypocritically spreading fake news about Russia on his or her own profile to boot.

Now, wait a minute, how are Trump's alleged ties with Russia fake news? This Russia story is based on some of the very same fallacies (especially the first one) that I mention in the post that I link to in Paragraph 1. It goes beyond mere fallacies, however, because we also have videos on hidden camera, courtesy of investigative journalist and muckraker James O'Keefe. Producer John Bonifield admitted that the Russia story "is mostly bullshit right now." Anchor Van Jones admitted that it's "just a big nothing burger". Another producer, Jimmy Carr, called all American voters (hasty generalization — also on that list of mine) "stupid as shit," then doubled down on that claim. Ah, but what about Don Jr.? Didn't he have a meeting with a Russian? Yes, with a former Communist lawyer who hates his father and has no political power in Russia whatsoever. Just because someone is Russian does NOT automatically mean that Trump is Putin's puppet — heck, these former Soviets in particular are anti-Putin to boot. This standard of "if you meet with anyone from Russia, you must be a traitor" is one that implicates everyone in government, including leftists themselves, like Nancy Pelosi for example who lied about not meeting with Ambassador Kislyak.

So I called this troll out on the obvious fake news in the previous paragraph and how hypocritical whoever that was for spreading it, and what happens? This troll automatically jumps to the conclusion that I must be triggered. Yes, you heard that correctly. I got called a snowflake simply because I pointed out this LOLworthy double standard. Again, go back to the post that Paragraph 1 links to. What's the number 4 fallacy on that list? A false dichotomy. Yes, that's exactly what this is. This idea of "anyone who calls you out on inconsistency must be a triggered snowflake" is an idea in which two extremes are manufactured and assumed. In reality, there are multiple factors that must be assumed, the least of which is how much time one's opponents have on their hands, and I've got very little on mine. Personal attacks and judgmental language, for the record, are also valid reasons to ignore/block without being triggered, because they are expressions of baseless emotions in themselves. That's at least 5 options, not just two.

So, does anyone else want to troll me? There is clearly an active attempt by leftists to shut me up, but just like with Trump, they're messing with someone who is as persistent as a pit bull and as suffocating as a Burmese python. The more they troll Trump, the more he fights back; the more they troll me, the more I fight back. They have been warned.

18 July, 2017

My Political Journey: From Entitlement to Conservatism

Most people who follow me on Twitter, subscribe to my YouTube channel, follow me on Google+, are subscribed to this blog, and follow me on the most recent social network I joined ― Gab ― definitely know me as an all-around conservative traditionalist, cultural nationalist identitarian, and Christian apologist ideologue, but I wasn't always that way. If you had asked me ten years ago what political positions I have, I would have given you a very different answer.

See, although I have conservative parents, the public schools in California are definitely not friendly towards conservatism. My teachers in middle school and in my early years of high school were all leftists, and although I have been a very devout Christian (and social conservative) since my freshman year of high school (2007-08), my history, civics, and economics textbooks gave me a very biased message as far as partisanship is concerned — among other things, the "big switch" in political party alignments was in both my sophomore and junior year history books, as was the painting of laissez-faire economics in a much darker tone than it is in reality.

As a consequence, although I have always been socially conservative due to my pious Christianity, I left high school being a welfare state supporter who disagreed strongly with his fellow social conservatives on things like climate change (which I have since become much more agnostic/libertarian/open on) and government fiscal policy, even to the point of twisting the New Testament to support this distorted view. Because of this, I made the mistake of voting third party in the 2012 election, which just so happened to be one year after I graduated: even though I agreed with Romney on social issues, I also agreed with Obama on fiscal issues at the time.

So, who changed me on the fiscal issues? Dinesh D'Souza, that's who. I entered the 2016 election cycle, and particularly the primaries, with the same mindset that I had in 2012, but decided to be much more humble and have a much more prayerful attitude about it. My priorities, moreover, had changed at that point: after two years of Sean McDowell and one year of Greg Koukl coming to speak at my church, I began to not care as much about fiscal issues and began to value the social issues much more. It was after the Greg Koukl lecture that I got home and prayed about it, and as soon as I did, a trailer for Dinesh's movie, Hillary's America: The Secret History of the Democratic Party, came on my TV as a commercial injected into what I was watching. I thought, "Okay, maybe I'll watch it when it comes out this summer."

That's when I became a straight-up conservative in every sense of the word. It was when I watched that movie that I learned not only that the welfare state was doing the exact opposite of what it is pitched as to minority communities, but also that there was a conspiracy by President Lyndon B. Johnson to "have those n*****s voting Democratic for the next 200 years" by giving them "just enough [welfare] to quiet them down; not enough to make a difference." I learned that slavery, Jim Crow, and welfare dependency all came from the same political party, and that they all have the same motive. I also learned, famously, that the big switch is a big lie, as most others who watched that movie did.

Now that it is 2017 and it has been a full year since that movie came out, I could not be more honored to have made the decision that I did and voted for Trump, because it seems to have done a good job. The national debt is down. There are more outsourced, offshored jobs returning back home than ever before. Tax reform is on the table. The Senate is currently set to vote on repealing and replacing Obamacare. Businesses are hiring again. Although groups like Antifa still continue their ugly rants, they are slowly dwindling in numbers as more and more of them get arrested and convicted of felonies like vandalism, arson, assault, and battery. I want to see this trend continue, because taking back the jobs, infrastructure, and businesses that we lost to globalism and unchecked immigration under Obama is of utmost importance.