Friday Evening Ethics Nightcap, 1/24/2020: Special Dim Bulb Edition


Good evening.

1. You know, Chris, keep doing things like this and “Fredo” likely to stick. Incredibly, CNN dim-bulb himbo Chris Cuomo tweeted,

What a stupid and unethical tweet! 1) The term “Trumper” is per se evidence of bias, in the same category as calling Republicans “Repugs.” 2) The tweet endorses the cynical and unethical progressive practice of recruiting children to be your mouthpieces (if anyone can find an example of Republicans doing this, please alert me), so you can attack any criticism as punching down at a child. Thunberg has presented her self as entitled to insult and impugn adults in adult fora, like the U.N. She has waived any special consideration, ethically and logically.

Best of all, however, Cuomo’s employer, CNN, just paid a legal settlement for falsely attacking teenager Nick Sandmann, as many Twitter users gleefully reminded him.

Surely he knew this.

Maybe Chris just didn’t understand it.

2. Speaking of idiots...Are the Democrats really going to nominate someone who says things like this out loud? Heeeere’s JOE!…speaking about “Dreamers” at a campaign event.

“These kids have come, they’ve done well, most of these kids … there’s a lot of them, and they’re not just Hispanic or Asian Pacific Islanders … and they, in fact, have done very, very well. In many cases, they’re more American than most Americans are because they have done well in school. They believe … the basic principles that we all share. I think they should be, in fact … put on a path to citizenship.”

What—the HELL—is Biden trying to say? That if you’re here illegally and “do very very well,’ whatever that means, then you’re in the clear?  Did Joe really say that if a citizen doesn’t “do well in school” he or she are less American than illegal residents? Is he serious that an illegal alien who does well in school is  “more American” than they are?

How about Mexican, Canadian and Mongolian students—does “doing well in school” make them good Americans too? Do illegal immigrants believe in core American principles like “obeying the law?” I don’t see any evidence of that.

3. What the heck was Billy Joel singing about?

The Colson Center’s Joseph Backholm had a great idea: go to the women’s march and see how feminists and LGBTQ supporters twisted themselves into Mobius Strip pretzels trying to  define “what a woman is.” This is a hypocrisy and fanaticism revealing test on par with “It’s OK to be white.”

Colson got answers like,

  • “That’s a trick question.”
  • “I think a woman is anything that she wants to be defined as.”
  • “She’s an individual.” (PUNT!)
  • “Like, we’re selling uterus pins, but that doesn’t mean that if you have a uterus, you’re a woman, or if you don’t have one, you’re not a woman.’
  • “I think a woman is someone who chooses to express themselves … can be in the feminine way but also can be in the non-binary way as well.” (Gibberish alert!)
  • “A woman is love and strength and power.” (PUNT!)
  • “A woman is anyone that identifies as a woman, simple as that.”
  • “I think a woman is, like, if you identify as a woman. If you want to be a woman, then you’re a woman.”

Here’s the video:

These women were protesting the so-called gender pay gap, but if it is impossible to define what a woman is, the concept of a gender pay gap means nothing. Like cults, this kind of progressive gobbledygook depends upon people being unable to think critically, or perhaps at all….like, say, Chris Cuomo and Joe Biden.

4. Stacey Abrams is NOT a dim bulb, so an explanation of this is welcome. During a speech at the University of New England in Portland, Maine this week, Abrams said, “We have to stop re-litigating past elections and have to start planning for future elections.”

Wait, who are you really?

Since her 2018 loss to Republican Georgia governor Brian Kemp, Abrams has hardly shut up about how she was robbed. She still hasn’t conceded defeat. Her statement was the equivalent of nailing a flashing neon sign to her head that says, “I am a hypocrite.”

5. Oh, heck, let’s have a fun poll:

16 thoughts on “Friday Evening Ethics Nightcap, 1/24/2020: Special Dim Bulb Edition

    • Exactly! He got my vote for that reason. The rest are just part of the varied array of idiots that MSM wants to call “newsworthy”. Biden is looking to put this level of incompetence in the White House. Its been done before, but we should learn from our mistakes.

      This is a good example of why he had a couple staffers on the campaign staff craft a memo for distribution about his non-involvement in the Ukraine incident instead of calling a presser to say it himself.

  1. At first I thought there was supposed to be a “than” in the poll description. Then I realized what you meant. Either works because all are stupid.

    Biden says kids who don’t do well in school aren’t fully American….yeah.

  2. If asked to *define woman* I suspect that many — here too — would have a difficult time of it.

    It’s rather odd because in the instance of this street interview, feminists, radical feminists, lesbian-feminists (et cetera) should have a sound grip on their descriptive rhetoric, yet these women give credence to a rather typical refrain:

    Su confusión era tal que empezó a perorar mentalmente como una mujer. Cogía al azar la primera idea que se occuriera y la soltaba sin seguirla hasta el final. Y es que otra, no precisamente mejor, acababa de cruzar su mente … [Elias Canetti, Premio Nobel de Literature 1981]

    “Her confusion was such that her mind began to chatter … like a woman. She grabbed the first thing that occurred to her but dropped it again without following it through. It was because some other through, not necessarily better, had just occurred to her …

    Voltaire was both very right and very very wrong:

    Una mujer, amablemente estúpida, es una bendición del cielo …

    “A charmingly stupid woman is a blessing from Heaven.”

    It is a predicate of Progressive Ideology, isn’t it? that the entrance of amablemente estúda woman into the social spheres has resulted positively in the *betterment* of society. I am not sure that is the case if the issue were looked at *coldly*. It actually seems to begin a process of general feminization and feminization inflicts men.

    It is a strange truth to live with: women who imitate men successfully (rational process, ordered thought, resistance of emotionalism, etc.) actually express their admiration for men and man’s culture by that act. Or, women express admiration for man’s culture when they succeed in imitating men’s reasoning processes.

    But when a woman *goes off on her own* — in classical rebellion and a modern octave of the original rebellion — she loses her way. It seems to happen time and again. But in order to say what I am here saying I have to recur to a previous structure of definition of woman: those definitions that are now termed misogynist.

    Women must serve men and man; and men and man must serve women and woman. But what woman? There you have the requirement of the definition.

    I have an interesting book by Isidoro Loi that has this cover.

    It has always fascinated me because no matter how you look at it it shows an actress, a role, a game, but also the entire problem of *identity*.

    That Billy Joel song is the mirror of the same really. It is a man who casts his projection onto his woman, apparently his preferred and loved woman. I assume she *dances to his tune*. And this circles back to the picture on the cover of Loi’s book: “Tell me how you wish that I present myself to you.”

    Oh boy, much to think about . . .

      • Addressing the question of essence was the old misogyny. Reducing the question to bare, physical empiricism is the new misogyny. Admitting to the distinctions between any two things, even the difference between admitting to and not admitting to distinctions, will be the ultimate misogyny. It’s not anyone’s deliberate goal but rather the inert end-state of intellectual parasitism on the intellect. It’s the death of the host. The deleterious effects of the disease should be reversed and the parasite burned for public safety.

  3. Difficult to impossible to give any weight to any of these statements relative to the any of the others. We are exposed to this sort of non-sense on such a regular basis that none of them seem extraordinary. They’re all just run-of-the-mill lefty double-talk. This sort of gibberish is so common, it doesn’t even warrant any particular attention. Focusing on these sorts of statements is what The Babylon Bee does for fun and profit. Like shooting fish in a barrel.

    • Right you are, but consider that rather vigorous “scientific” attention was given the practice of Shooting-fish-in-a-barrel by none other than Mythbusters some time back and it actually proved somewhat difficult. They actually used real guns and barrels and water, but simulated fish. :))

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.