Even More Weird Tales Of The Great Stupid! WaPo Publishes A Peak Stupid Op-Ed, Then Censors Readers Who Say It’s Stupid

I really do wonder at what point the vast majority of Americans who have not become irreversibly deranged by the confluence of the Trump Freakout, the George Floyd Freakout, the Trans Freakout ,the Wuhan Virus Freakout and the Roe Reversal Freakout sharply slap their foreheads “I could have had a V8!” style and ask, “Why are we letting these unstable, untrustworthy people dominate our discourse and manipulate our culture?”

For the provocation keep escalating. The Washington Post’s editors actually thought that a Poe’s Law evoking piece headlined “My name is a Confederate monument, so I cross it out when I write it” was worthy of publication. In an orgy of narcissism, U.S. history-hatred and virtue-signalling, a writer named Bayard Woods saluted his ridiculous habit of crossing out his own name, which he says, “had stood as a Confederate monument over every story I had ever written.” See, the Bayards and the Woodses had owned slaves. By this brilliant logic, I should cross out my name too, since Chief Justice John Marshall was a slaveholder and “Jack” honors Jack the Ripper.

The ashamed to exist author writes,

Since before Reconstruction, Black Americans have thrown off “slave names,” but I had never read or heard about White people addressing our enslaver names. But I knew I could no longer carry mine innocently, so I decided to try to grapple with what it represents.I quickly realized that, though I could no longer bear my name — which I share with my Trump-supporting father, who died last year — I could not change it either. To change it would only continue the coverup that kept me from recognizing its reality. And any name I chose would probably be just as fraught as my own.

He had to get that gratuitous anti-Trump slap in there of course; it’s obligatory for virtue-signalers. Read the whole silly thing if you dare; I felt my brains oozing out of my ears the further I went into it.

But here’s the beauty part. The Washington Post, the newspaper that has as its pompous motto “Democracy dies in darkness,” cut off comments on the article and took out the handful that had been posted because even its predictably progressive patrons were tearing this Great Stupid classic to shreds. The Post now says that comments are closed, and that there were no comments.

This is the extreme American Left. This is the mentality of the party and politicians running our government, schools, colleges, and professions. This is the mainstream media that is dedicated to advancing the agenda, narratives and values of the extreme American Left. This is their version of democracy: indoctrination reinforced by censorship.

Of course it’s unethical; its also dangerous and destructive. But this is the Great Stupid, and it continues to roll on…

11 thoughts on “Even More Weird Tales Of The Great Stupid! WaPo Publishes A Peak Stupid Op-Ed, Then Censors Readers Who Say It’s Stupid

    • I don’t like resorting to psychological explanations because the genetic fallacy is always lurking, but, liberals do tend to have more mental disorders. They are more likely to be in therapy and be on some sort of medication. I don’t mean to disparage people who are doing either of those, but sometimes, your psychological issues can affect your judgments.

      The way that some on the left act really looks like people who have mental issues.

      • Can your ideological views affect your psychological issues? A lot of the ideas of the left are contradictory. How can you believe in racial equality and that minorities can’t compete against whites on a level playing field, for example. It must be difficult to keep your mind from the realization that you are a white supremacist. Since that is the type of person who has an identity founded on opposing white supremacy, what happens to you if your subconscious starts to realize that you are the actual white supremacist? You can make the same arguments for the global warming crowd who wants to keep people from dying from climate change by restricting food and energy production which may kill hundreds of millions of people. Communism seeks to enslave the vast majority of humanity and reserve a small ‘elite’ to rule them all. How is that compatible with the ‘eliminate income inequality’ crowd that promotes communism?

        • That’s a good point. They also think global warming is going to kill everyone.

          I mean, that could cause depression, and being at war with reality could also make depression/anxiety worse.

        • Michael R. asked, “Can your ideological views affect your psychological issues?”


          Can your psychological issues affect your ideological views?

          I think the logical answer to both questions is yes.

          In the end it becomes a chicken or the egg question?

      • Boomer, it’s just my crackpot theory, but I think a lot of really virulent lefty guys are gay guys who resent their heterosexual fathers and spend too much of their lives rebelling against their fathers and being angry for their being … heterosexuals.

        • I have a former co-worker who is gay who is like that. Any time his dad tried to teach him how to be a man, he rejected it. He argued constantly. One time, in a regular conversation that I can no longer remember, the topic came up in passing, and he went off. He didn’t like the idea as a man he would need to live up to anything.

          I think you are onto something though, that maybe there is a jealousy at not being heterosexual, and that jealousy fuels the anger.

  1. Yesterday I took my 10th (!) WW2 aviation print to be matted and framed. It shows the 487th Fighter Squadron launching on January 1, 1945, to battle Luftwaffe fighters who tried to destroy their planes on the ground (they were unsuccessful, and the 487th shot down half of them and sent the other half running home to mama). Those I own (so far) are all of Allied aircraft, or mainly feature Allied aircraft, mostly the Supermarine Spitfire and the P-51 Mustang fighters. Frankly I would feel kind of weird putting one featuring an Axis plane in a place of honor, unless it was in the context of a duel of great pilots or a gallery of great pilots of that war or something like that. That’s just my taste, however. I also just ordered two large prints of WW2 aircraft photos I shot myself, intending to put them on the wall near a lithograph of a B-25 in place of 2 prints of Confederate officers I took from a Mort Kunstler calendar after its year ran out, which will be moved closer to other Civil War prints.

    I wonder now what I was thinking 16 years ago when I actually took the time and spent the money to have them matted and framed, together with about four more from the same calendar that are clearly Union prints. Although I am certainly not sympathetic to the Confederate cause, I think I put them up because they were representative of the artist’s work, and I liked the color scheme of one that shows Stonewall Jackson standing next to Little Sorrell on a riverbank in an autumnal setting (possibly meant to evoke his last words, which were “Let us cross over the river, and rest under the shade of the trees”). There was also a “feeling” that both sides were Americans, and part of the same calendar by the same artist, so it wasn’t the same as putting up a picture of a dedicated foreign enemy.

    That led me to the question, though, what about these many military history artists who have made their livings (and sometimes done quite well) painting whatever patrons commissioned and later selling prints, calendars, etc.? What about folks like Robert Taylor (although he’s a UK person) or John Shaw, who don’t shrink from painting the Luftwaffe aces in all their glory, or Mort Kunstler, who painted both sides of the Civil War and was as comfortable painting Nathan Bedford Forrest at Fallen Timbers as he was painting Joshua L. Chamberlain at Little Round Top? Do artists have some kind of responsibility now (although Kunstler is 94 and no longer painting) to pick and choose what commissions they accept and not to accept those that might prove offensive? Do they now owe some kind of debt because of what they painted and profited from?

    I had concluded that the answer is no, artists should not let their talents be used exclusively or weaponized in the name of any political agenda, that’s a Soviet-era thing. If someone wants to commission whatever, then the artist should feel free to paint it, unfettered by any such agenda. The customer is free to buy whatever he likes and pass over what he doesn’t like. The homeowner is free to decorate however he likes, and if Kwame and Karimu down the block want to put up their kente cloth hangings and carved wood sculptures, then I’m going to put up my historical prints. If you don’t like my choices, you can step outside where you won’t see them. Some think some of the history I choose to honor isn’t worthy, and choose not to honor it, and that’s ok.

    This, though? Dishonoring your own NAME and going through these tortuous mental gymnastics to justify it? I’ve heard of those who love being submissive, but this is ridiculous. I don’t claim to know everything my ancestors from Italy, Ireland, and England ever did. I’m not sure I’d be inclined to search all of it out. However, I can tell you this: if I was to find out that my ancestors included some Italian sailor who was in on the conquest of the New World, or some Irish merchant who supplied the slave traders as they passed through, or some English settler who wasn’t exactly nice to the Indians, I wouldn’t let it bother me. My name is mine, chosen for me by my parents, like most Americans, and if I didn’t like it, I would go to court and change it as it my right. My middle name was actually that of my maternal grandfather, who, it turns out, wasn’t such a great guy in a lot of ways (near-alcoholic, domestic abuser). Am I to change it simply because of that? Am I to be ashamed of it simply because it was borne by a man who was a less than wonderful husband and father, and was, to some degree, a man of his times? I’m not the one who drank every evening before dinner and through every weekend, and I’m not the one who threw my aunt (who was far from a model daughter) down a flight of stairs in an argument.

    This idiot is not responsible for the acts of his ancestors. Someone who did not do anything wrong does not owe someone who had nothing wrong done to him a thing. America was founded on the idea that we judge you on what you do, not on who your father was. That principle was about not automatically giving someone a higher place because his father was somehow ennobled, but it tips the other way too: you aren’t responsible for what your father did, even if he was infamous. Otherwise, we’re right back in pre-Thirty Years’ War Europe, except this time you are ennobled by victim status, not landowner status, and the concept of the bill of attainder, which condemns and punishes without trial and extends that to families, is very much alive. Hell, the concept of visibly marking wrongdoers is very much alive. Striking out your own name every time you write it is not the same as branding an adulteress in the face with a hot iron or cutting off the hand of a poacher or pirate, but the effect is fairly similar – everyone who sees this is supposed to know what you did and react accordingly. Is that where we’re headed? I hope not.

  2. It’s ridiculously ironic, but self-flagellating white guys like this guy (of whom there are a great, great many), who seem to think white people are completely and forever going forward responsible for every aspect of black people’s lives bring to mind the old phrase, “the white man’s burden.” Very strange.

  3. Jack wrote, “This is the extreme American Left. This is the mentality of the party and politicians running our government, schools, colleges, and professions. This is the mainstream media that is dedicated to advancing the agenda, narratives and values of the extreme American Left. This is their version of democracy: indoctrination reinforced by censorship.”

    True dat!

    Something to consider is that their unethical propaganda tactics have shown to work rather well for them.

    In a year it’s very likely no one that the Washington Post gives a damn about will remember that the they deleted those comments, there will be no public record of the actual comments, the Washington Post can claim that there never were any comments because they didn’t allow any comments on the Op-Ed, the progressive cult will call any claims about the deleted comments misinformation, the Op-Ed will still be a searchable item that progressives can refer to as proof of something, and the cancerous narrative that has been shoved deeper into our culture will infect the minds of gullible people; therefore, job well done!

    There must be some really immoral totalitarian minded psychologists, psychiatrists, or a pure propagandist on staff at these media outlets giving the editors a constant flow of input on how to brainwash the public.

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com 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.