Chilling Tales Of The Great Stupid: Bette Midler’s Tweets

Midler tweet 2

Midelr tweet 3

I love these tweets! The pop music and Broadway diva and actress has provided a cultural, political, anthropological and philosophical artifact for the ages. I could write a book about these twin tweets and what they tell us, not just about Midler, but about a society that produces the kind of celebrity who would produce them.

Where to begin? Well, taken together they are not unethical tweets: I might even argue that they are ethical, because they publicly declare to the world, “I am a complete and utter idiot, and not only do I lack the critical thinking skills of a three-toed sloth, I suffer from a near terminal level of the Dunning-Kruger Effect, being both unable to discern just how stupid I am, but also unable to comprehend the consequences of advertising my disability to the public.” Now there is no excuse for anyone considering having an interaction of any kind with Midler that involves trust—letting her baby-sit a child, for example, or even a guppy—and thus to make the mistake of relying on her judgment. She has none, and has been considerate enough to proclaim it. (Not that she hadn’t provided plenty of evidence before.) The tweets make the world safer. How many social media posts do that?

Is there anything else positive to say about these 64 words? I think it’s positive that Midler’s proclamation gives other idiots on social media something to aspire to, and perhaps exceed. The more people who publicly announce that they need to be kept away from sharp objects, ingestable poisons and motor vehicles the better. I advocate making a list of the 9,000 plus people who “liked” this first tweet and the 104 thousand mentally and ethically disabled Twitter users who liked the second to create a national registry for the benefit of potential employers. Then we should trace the educational paths that ended with each one of them being dumber than a box of toe-nail clippings. It would tell us a lot about where and how the U.S. education system has ceased to function, as well as how social media is killing brain cells.

It also says a lot about the bottom-of-the-barrel level of discourse that infects the abortion debate.

Before cataloguing some observations regarding Midler’s argument, let me once again confirm that the so-called Texas fetal heartbeat law is a bad one, with stupid and unethical qualities all its own. For example,the law depends on a “fetal heartbeat” that is detected before a fetus can have what is accurately called a heart. Worse than that, as many have already noted on Ethics Alarms and elsewhere, the citizen prosecutor concept, while novel, is the slipperiest of slippery slopes that could be adapted to all sorts of mischievous and destructive agendas. It is a spectacularly unethical device to get around a Constitutional right currently enshrined in a Supreme Court opinion of 50 year’s duration. As such, the law is also hypocritical: one of the ethical objections to abortion is that it embodies extreme utilitarianism, “the ends justify the means.” So does the Texas law. “Fight fire with fire” is not an ethical principle.

I suppose I should list the specific idiocies in the two tweets…

  • “Cruelty” is the latest DNC talking point being flogged on MSNBC and elsewhere: it’s “cruel” not to prevent landlords from collecting overdue rents, for example. However, calling sincere if misguided efforts to curtail what legislators believe is the legalized murder of millions of innocent human lives “cruelty” is a non-sequitur.
  • The non-logic of the next section is epic. The existence of other national concerns and policy problems requires ignoring a serious issue that involves human rights! Brilliant!  Who made that definitive list of what is so important that it is “cruel” to address anything else? Outside of the pandemic, everything else on that list—weather???—has been a concern constantly or intermittently for centuries, though it is worth mentioning that President Trump, whom Midler and her Hollywood pals savaged (cruelly!) for four years, nicely addressed joblessness until the virus struck.
  • Bette gives us an extreme example of the “Unborn child? What unborn child?” dishonest approach to the abortion issue. The law, to people like Midler, is just about women. But I’m pretty sure it’s a “shock” to a fetus to be killed…
  • Midler doesn’t have the integrity to even use the term “abortion” in her tweets. Employing “right to choose,” which she does twice, is signature significance for a citizen who hasn’t given any thought to the complex issue she’s shooting off her metaphorical mouth about. There is no “right to choose” to do whatever one finds convenient and expedient, especially when it involves harming other human beings. The current “right to choose” enabled by Roe v. Wade requires the legal and medical fiction that there is no human life involved other than the mother’s. If one wants to argue that this is ethically, morally and legally as it should be, fine; there are arguments to be made, so have at it. Using “right to choose” as a Get Out Of Reasoning Free card, however, is the mark of a shallow, ethically ignorant dolt…. like Bette.
  • Then we get to Bette’s “Lysistrata” suggestion, a marvelous example, considering her first tweet, of “garbage in, garbage out.” Did she really think this was original? The ancient Greek idea of a sex strike to stop wars was designed as satire, but if Midler intends humor, she sure did a rotten job signaling it.
  • The original idea was also about preventing deaths. How ironic. Bette wants the same device to be used to continue the killing.
  • Midler’s “solution” seems to be based in part on the assumption that only men oppose abortion, which is , amazingly, one of the least idiotic of her assumptions. Right, now, according to Gallup (but you know: polls), women support abortion rights by 9 percentage points, 52% to 43%, but it’s a fluid margin, with the anti-abortion faction leading by 11 points as recently as 2019. But turning an ethics conflict that involves complex trade-offs in rights and priorities is so much easier for the dim of mind when it is reduced to a simple males against females conflict, with women as the victims of those horny men who want to keep them barefoot and pregnant.
  • Midler’s concept is, as her peers in the rising totalitarian left increasingly hold, offensive to democratic principles. The Left’s favored way to win arguments is by intimidation, threats and extortion, not through reason, compromise, and respect for the concerns and interests of others.
  • Of course, Midler’s view of women is revealed as decidedly retrograde: Bette believes that when all the pretense is stripped away, women are just sex objects after all. Unless they can sing…
  • The depth of misunderstanding that Midler’s proposal reveals is like the Mariana Trench. A reduced availability of abortion procedures would necessarily require at least some women to be more careful about their sexual activities, so the law’s existence was not driven by male hormones, and thus is unlikely to be derailed by frustrating them.

A few equally dim bulb celebrities applauded Midler’s tweets, letting normal people know that they require keepers as well. One was Nancy Sinatra, whose brain’s not made for thinkin.” She wrote , “My dad actually suggested that decades ago.” Yes, Nancy, we know what your dad’s view of women were, and what they were good for, and why he liked the option of abortion.

Essentially, Midler’s Morass teaches us that bias makes us stupid, being stupid makes us unethical, and that anyone as biased and unethical as Bett Midler should shut up and sing.

14 thoughts on “Chilling Tales Of The Great Stupid: Bette Midler’s Tweets

  1. I might add that her comment on no sex is quite radically conservative. Haha. I think the abortion debate needs to move from “my body, my choice” to “Should the government ever interfere or pay for personal medical decisions.” Or perhaps “Do we protect our most vulnerable?”

    This isn’t the 1930’s. There are a lot of choices for the woman before she becomes pregnant, and many for the man to prevent pregnancy too. To use abortion as a form of birth control is ridiculous. There’s all these arguments about rape, incest, medical issues, etc but the majority of abortions aren’t from that. The majority are from people being irresponsible. Just like drug addiction. Just like smoking 3 packs a day. Just like staring at screens too long. “My body, my choice” for sure, but no one should pay for it but you. To pawn your poor choices onto the rest of society is irresponsible. Ironic they say the same about saying “no” to a vaccine that’s been around for less than a year and has way fewer options of avoiding negative outcomes, but if you say “no” to birth control and have a pregnancy they’re all about helping you deal with it 100%.
    I live in a state that the majority just passed a abortion till birth ruling last November. As a mother myself who had a c-section a week before my due date, it sickens me that someone could’ve been aborting a fetus that’s the same age. It’s a baby. It can survive without intervention. If I was killed in a car crash by a drunk driver it would’ve been a double murder. Me and the baby. Do we, as a society, protect the most vulnerable or not? That’s the debate as I see it. Do the unborn have rights, if so when? Does the government have a obligation to pay for or intervene in personal medical decisions?

  2. Too often the argument in favor of “the right to choose” is based on economics such that unplanned pregnancies result in more women and children in poverty, reduced future professional opportunities etc. I do not doubt that childbearing increases health risks for women but as Spartan pointed out that women she knows had children later so the health risk argument at point a is no different than the risk at point b – all other health issues equal so the choice was determined by economic considerations not health risks to the women. If economic considerations are the rationale for allowing “choice” why does only the mother get to make that choice? Obviously, the economic hardship of raising a child from birth through college legally falls upon the paternal parent. Maternal parents are typically given automatic custody and are not expected to provide for the financial costs of prenatal care, medical care, housing, food etc. Courts customarily assign these costs to the known father.
    I will not impose my beliefs on others but I do believe if we the pro abortion activists want to continue with this argument that it is a right to choose then an equivalent right should also be available for the paternal parent whose professional and economic life will by affected by the pregnancy. I am not suggesting a father can force a woman to abort nor am I advocating that men should be allowed to opt out as a parent – which is exactly what an abortion based on economic considerations is – I am only pointing out that to have equal rights under the law fathers should have an equal say in the matter.

    • Oh Michael, they don’t believe in the science of birth control, they only believe in the science of climate change and vaccines (as it changes almost daily). Tut tut.

  3. I love the fact that she seems blissfully unaware that a significant minority of women oppose abortions. So why would they ever consider her tweet except, maybe to motivate them to have more sex just to spite her.

    You’re right, of course, Jack. Her tweets are a public service, both by notifying those who might not know that the world would be a better place without her genetic material in it, and to demonstrate the absolute wrong way to try to persuade people. It’s the kind of cheap, virtue-signalling, brain-dead activism that reminds us that we should ignore entertainers opinion on everything other than entertainment.

  4. I have read an awful lot of comments on sites like nextdoor that vehemently shame those choosing not to be jabbed because it is deadly selfish to endanger everyone around you which therefore removes said decision from the personal decision domain.

    As Demeter said: “My body, my choice” for sure, but no one should pay for it but you. To pawn your poor choices onto the rest of society is irresponsible.
    Is this not true?

    • The thing is, the Covid vaccines choice is a win/win. If you got the jab and trust the efficacy of said vaccines you will not get very sick. If you did not, you accept the consequences of that action. The choice to not vaccinate falls solely on the individual OR the vaccines themselves are a complete sham. Pick one. Contrary to popular belief, the unvaccinated are largely kids, 18 and under who are statically far less likely by far to die or end up in a hospital than their parents. (Who have likely been vaccinated). The Mayo Clinic has vaccine rates by age.

  5. Bette Midler’s demented logic is actually pretty common among abortion proponents. Abortion is painted as the only option available to women, and a cruel cabal – apparently men only – is trying to take that lone option away.

    First, as Jack mentioned, a sizeable percentage of women also oppose abortion. Bette, however – and “Still Spartan” in her COTD from the other day and others too numerous to mention – almost completely ignores this demographic, instead making the rather sexist implication that opposition to abortion is almost exclusively the oppression of men. Women that oppose abortion are a critical element, as they seriously weaken the argument that the pro-life movement is ultimately about “controlling a woman’s body and her future.”

    But that “taking away their right to choose” phrase from Bette is what really got my attention as well.

    First, Bette is referencing a rather precariously-worded piece of legislation that was passed in a single state. That is hardly “taking away their right to choose” in forty-nine other states, several of which are adjacent to Texas.

    But in addition, Bette must have overlooked a woman’s right to choose abstinence (the one sure-fire cure for an unwanted pregnancy), numerous forms of contraception (condoms can be purchased for five dollars a dozen on Amazon), safe and relatively minor medical procedures that prevent pregnancy, and adoption for those that do get pregnant.

    I wonder why that is…

  6. I have her autograph. I’ve seen her four times. The Divine Ms. M. has some wonderful philanthropic pursuits. The woman can put on a show and has talent oozing out of every pore. HOWEVER, starting and lasting four years, her Tweets of the Trump presidency were a cavalcade stupidity and at times unhinged and void of all reality. I have never seen hatred as she possessed for Mr. Trump Her latest Tweets are no departure from the last four years of diarrhea of the mouth. I hate to say it but I have had to turn her picture toward the wall and walk away. She is doing herself and her career no favors. Such a shame.

    • That pretty much describes my feelings towards the Divine Miss M. And Robert DeNiro, for that matter. At a point cognitive dissonance becomes too powerful to get around. It’s bias, but they earned it.

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.