McInnes has an interesting post on Takimag here.
On one hand, I am skeptical of anything McInnes writes, as his history has been nothing but one of trolling the Internet. If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, Google his name.
That being said, I find this piece interesting. It shows how the Left is more interested in ripping prominent figures down more than the Right. The Left seems more interested in not just exposing figures as frauds (right-wingers do this frequently) but also proving their moral degeneracy. Instead of accusing a man of sexual impropriety as a sinner against God, the man is a sexist harasser, an agent of the patriarchy. Instead of invoking Christian doctrine against a racial bigot (We are all God's children) they accuse folks of "racism" and "privilege" in order to shame them.
The new theocracy isn't Christian, but progressive. Why do you think they fear a "return" of patriarchal Christianity? The need to keep the rage against right-wingers at 400 degrees so they can defend against recognizing the impulses in themselves.
Quote:Quote:
At this point, almost every time I hear something that fits the narrative, I assume it’s false. Remember when the black guy from SNL said black women aren’t funny? It started a huge backlash of people listing funny black women and calling him a sexist, racist, horrible dude. They’d have National Enquirer-esque headlines such as “Keenan Thompson Thinks Black Women Aren’t Funny” with his actual quote showing how wrong they are right below it.
“It’s just a tough part of the business,” he said, describing his own personal experience; “in auditions, they just never find ones that are ready.” I knew he never said “Black women aren’t funny.” You can just tell. Of course, he’s lamenting the fact that they can’t find any. He’s BLACK for crying out loud.
I’ve personally been through this false narrative meat grinder a million times. This morning, I learned that selling my shares and having American Indian children can still mean I’m a “racist” who was “fired” (I told the editors I plan to sue so the link may change). All modern journalists need to justify their false allegations is to point to other lazy writers who make stuff up. A few months ago, while discussing food stamp abuse on Hannity, I asked why our poor are so fat. Another guest said it’s because they lack nutritional education, and I explained it’s not a “fat pill” you take once and balloon out. The headline became, “Fox News guest tells Hannity: ‘Overfed’ blacks use food stamps as a ‘fat pill.’” (They changed it to “non-whites” after I threatened the author with violence.)
When I said I find Neil deGrasse Tyson’s fans annoying and added, “He could defecate on them and they’d be dancing in the streets,” Media Matters called it a “race-based attack.” Al Jazeera called me Fox’s “house racist” and spent half an hour discussing the conservative right’s hatred of science. Death threats ensued, coworkers quit, and eventually Facebook revoked my page. I don’t think you’d get the same response if you found Bill Nye annoying.
On one hand, I am skeptical of anything McInnes writes, as his history has been nothing but one of trolling the Internet. If you are not familiar with what I am talking about, Google his name.
That being said, I find this piece interesting. It shows how the Left is more interested in ripping prominent figures down more than the Right. The Left seems more interested in not just exposing figures as frauds (right-wingers do this frequently) but also proving their moral degeneracy. Instead of accusing a man of sexual impropriety as a sinner against God, the man is a sexist harasser, an agent of the patriarchy. Instead of invoking Christian doctrine against a racial bigot (We are all God's children) they accuse folks of "racism" and "privilege" in order to shame them.
The new theocracy isn't Christian, but progressive. Why do you think they fear a "return" of patriarchal Christianity? The need to keep the rage against right-wingers at 400 degrees so they can defend against recognizing the impulses in themselves.
