Safe-Space Central

It certainly seems like “safe spaces” are getting out of hand, but since I haven’t done any research on it — I can’t tell how much of it is narrative and how much it is true — but there’s no denying that something has changed since my days in college.

For the sake of argument, let’s assume that the coverage on “safe spaces” is accurate. As usual, the problem is that people pounce on the actions of others in one context while being egregiously guilty of the same behavior in another.

I don’t take issue with some of their concerns on Safe Spaces — I take issue with the flagrant hypocrisy of it all.

Social Media is Safe-Space Central

As I wrote in The Rest of the Story:

For all the talk of college campuses these days — I find it ironic that social media is safe-space central — where you can hide amongst “friends” in fellowship of fury. Ah yes, the part-time conveyors of conviction — who foam at the mouth over facts in one context but show bottomless scorn for them in another.

Humans are hardwired to want some degree of attention, and forums like Facebook are phenomenal for sharing what matters to us. But the ever-rising ocean of partisan pettiness is gluttony under the guise of concern.

How did we get to a place where regurgitating garbage gets people to “Like” you — celebrating “victory” by clicking “bravo” to bad manners and bunk?

Some highlights from the commentary on the article above (full quotes at the end of the page)

Note: Leaving typos as they are in the quotes that follow:

• They they can’t handle the truth
• They’re creating mindless robots, sissies, and an entire generation, or more, that cannot handle any kind of stress or difference of opinions, whatsoever!
• They don’t belong there if they can’t handle criticism, people who will disagree with them, and ither such situtation that real life will present them with.

And yet — that’s all I’ve faced for over 13 years whenever I’ve challenged conservatives on the . . .

biggest and most demonstrably provable lie in modern history

Who do ya think I was talkin’ about when I wrote the poem below? And that was in 2004 — it’s MUCH worse now!

But it was that same behavior by liberals that planted the seed for my documentary.

As with almost all my poems, they just kinda came to me in the moment. So if a poem on bullshit by liberals would hit me right now — I’d whip it up and put it right next to the one below.

My poem’s not anti-war — it’s pro-thinking!

Not a single soul in the conservative crowd I have encountered knew one atom of substance on Iraq WMD — and that’s not an opinion, it’s a fact:

truth verifiable from experience or observation

“Everybody believed Iraq had W.M.D.” is not a valid argument any more than “armed only with skittles.”

And the trite taglines of today are the “everybody believed” bits back then.

I’ve never been a bandwagon believer in anything. When I was in high school, “NOT!” was dominating the day. I’ve never used it — hated it back then and still do.

The saying is innocuous on its own — the problem is that when you make a habit out of latching on to the latest lingo, it becomes easier and easier to adopt things without thinking them through — ya know, like matters of world-altering consequence.

Something I wrote many years ago:

Someone once said to me, “We’re building a house,” and after I politely inquired about it, I realized he and his wife were just having a house built. In and of itself, the distortion is harmless — but it’s representative of a trend of casually misusing language by altering the meaning of long-established standards.

What about the people who do build their own houses? Should I just guess which category people fall into when the subject comes up? Am I putting them on the spot by asking about their involvement? What if they really are building a house to fulfill a lifelong dream, and I show no interest at all by not asking about it?

I just think it would be respectful had we left “we’re building a house” to those who actually earn the right to say it.

The above is just a simple scenario illustrating the importance of convention in language. There’s nothing really underhanded about saying, “We’re building a house,” but if you’re not even picking up a hammer to help out — why do you feel the need to say it?

The egregious abuse of “agree to disagree” came about in the same spirit of self-importance.

At some point in the past there were people actively involved in building their own homes. Eventually that tapered off to where most people are just approving the floor plans .

Since the change was so gradual, it got easier and easier to fudge just how much participation was warranted to make the claim.

Now there’s no contribution required to say, “We’re building a house” — and whad’ya know, that’s exactly the same standard for “agree to disagree.”

I don’t approve of anything that contaminates our national discourse (or any conversation, for that matter). Mocking Fox News with “Faux” is childish and all the more poisons the waters. For anyone on the Right, manipulating the name of the Left is a far cry from civility.

Insidious disrespect in the form of “Democrat Party” is another ploy by the very people you worship.

No one is going to perceive that Republicans think the other party is more “democratic” simply by including that the “ic” in the establishment’s proper name. It astounds me that people live their lives looking for ways to belittle others as entertainment.

Many of them will never know the feeling of crafting an argument with care — using their own words in ways that they don’t even know that they’re capable of.

And speaking of worship

Government has devolved into the values business — where results are not measured in the success of serving your interests, but in the appearance of the pursuit.

Exemplifying how politicians prey on people’s emotions is Obama injecting his imaginary son into the Trayvon tale — opening the floodgates for folly.

Inserting himself into the saga from the start was an egregious breach of ethics —particularly for a president who knows both the law and sensitivities involved. An honorable leader would have withheld commentary until after the trial. And in the event of unrest, the president would educate the nation instead of pandering to it.

How I would love to look upon a leader who has the guts to inspire intellectual inquiry when it comes at a price.

THAT — would be some change to believe in!

Republicans would wholeheartedly agree that Obama repeatedly manipulated African Americans — as democrats have been doing for decades. But republicans are just the flip side of the same counterfeit coin, as they allow themselves to be manipulated with equal allegiance.

It boggles the mind that people who put their faith as paramount — would permit politicians to exploit their beliefs and betray their trust time after time.

Nobody captures that better than David Kuo in his book Tempting Faith: An Inside Story of Political Seduction. As a Special Assistant to President Bush and Deputy Director of the Office of Faith-Based and Community Initiatives, Kuo was connected to the top.

For two years I had bitten my tongue and toed the line. We in the faith-based office didn’t speak too loudly or thunder too much. We were nice. I wasn’t angry now, but I was no longer willing to lie.

Before your knee jerks to impugn his motives in coming clean:

Hearing the words “brain tumor” in proximity to the words “you have a” clarifies things. . . . My wife, my daughters, how I treat others, and how I live before God concern me greatly. That’s why I decided to write this book.

Kuo lost his fight to brain cancer 10 years later. He was a Christian who was the genuine article — a tried-and-true believer with a willingness to reflect. He was committed to the compassionate-conservative cause, and in so doing he struggled between his loyalty to Bush and honoring his Administration’s claims.

Try to keep that in mind as you read the following:

National Christian leaders received hugs and smiles in person and then were dismissed behind their backs and described as “ridiculous,” “out of control,” and just plain “goofy.”

The leaders spent much time lauding the president, but they were never shrewd enough to do what Billy Graham had done three decades before, to wonder whether they were just being used.

Kuo was a man of conscience who wrote his book with sincerity. His attitude was far closer to what Christ had in mind than anything else I’ve seen out of conservative Christians in the political arena.

As Kuo wrote in his Afterword — in 2004 he was asked to speak at the St. Louis Family Church (his “spiritual home” he called it). He relayed how after the service someone came up to him and said,

“You tell President Bush to get that Supreme Court right!”

He had heard it all many times before and always responded in a “pat” and polite manner to put the person’s mind at ease, but not this time:

That night . . . I threw out the old script. Instead, I said, “Maybe the problem isn’t the courts, maybe the problem is us. Maybe things are so screwy because we’ve spent more time thinking about how to advance politically than we have about just changing our own lives.”

On top of being incredibly informative, his book is an enjoyable read.

Everything he advocates comes back to the concern he quoted from a “prominent pastor”:

“What we’ve done is turn a mission field into a battlefield”

Same goes for the other side — always at the ready with disingenuous dialogue to rile up the base

I have thrown golf clubs with Ralph Reed and speared fish with John Ashcroft. I have eaten epic meals with Bill Bennett. George W. Bush whipped me silly in a private running race. From 1989 until I joined the Bush White House in 2001, I longed for the day the right political leaders would arrive, govern morally, eloquently profess their Christian faith, and return America to greatness.

Most of our problems could be solved politically, I believed.

Now I know better. I have seen what happens when well-meaning Christians are seduced into thinking deliverance can come from the Oval Office, a Supreme Court chamber, or the floor of the United States Congress.

They are easily manipulated by politicians who use them for their votes, seduced by trinkets of power, and tempted to turn a mission field (politics) into a battlefield, leaving the impression Jesus’ main goal was advancing a particular policy agenda.

I know: I’ve seen it, I’ve done it, I’ve lived it, and I’ve learned from it.

Speaking of the Supreme Court

A Facebook Messenger post I recently wrote to a friend:

Back in the Bush years — if a Supreme Court justice had died with a year left on his presidency, I would have vigorously argued in support of Bush getting a nominee through before his term was up.

That Bush is one of the biggest liars in history is irrelevant in that context — as my pursuit of the truth on Iraq has nothing to do his right to fill that seat. My views on policy are equally immaterial on that topic — because Bush won the presidency, and whether he deserved it not — he should be treated fairly.

Same goes for Obama — who was robbed of what was rightfully his (and once again — I argue this as a matter of principle, not policy). Conservatives think they won by getting their guy on the court — and for a time, they have. But in the long run—cheating the system is disastrous for the country.

I know all the talking points that Republicans used to rationalize their view — regurgitating how Democrats did this and Democrats did that.

Nowhere to be found was the notion of right and wrong (or how “two wrongs don’t make a right”).

I imagine most of those same people teach their kids that very principle . . .

but they leave out the part that it all goes out the window when politics are in play, and that you can abandon integrity, honesty, and fairness — as long as it’s for a “good cause.”

I originally came up with the “Safe Spaces” analogy in this Note I posted last November:

SAFE_SPACES Sunday, November 20, 2016

While it is childish that people are protesting over Trump, it is equally absurd that those having a field day over it see themselves as a bastion of civility in political discourse.

“Crying” about not getting your way takes on many forms. Bitching about Obama every day for 8 years sounds a lot like wailing to me.

That you were right in many ways is irrelevant, as the issue is your highly-selective demand for the truth.

When you danced in denying him a Supreme Court nominee, that was not a principled position — it was you wanting to get your way at any cost.

Had it been your guy in office, you’d be singing the same tune as the democrats you deride — and such shameless hypocrisy is at the core of our country’s ills.

With rare exception, the outrage over Hillary’s emails had nothing to do with national security — (a topic that’s incessantly butchered by a crowd of uninformed know-it-alls — who have not an atom of reflection on their record of recklessness).

These are the geniuses who create chaos — then blame others for failing to fix it.

The costliest “entitlement” of our times is the infinite faith people place in their opinions — dismissing any amount of evidence that counters them.

Facebook is the ultimate “safe space” for the ocean of absurdity that America has become — where beliefs are “validated” in a circle of certitude and sound argument is shunned with a smile.

I do hope that Trump does a great job, but this country will never even remotely reach its potential with citizens so petty (that goes for liberals and conservatives alike). That brings to mind one of my favorite lines from Braveheart:

“Why? Why is that impossible? You’re so concerned with squabbling for the scraps from Longshank’s table . . . that you’ve missed your God-given right to something better.”

So for the camp that cries foul over “indoctrination” below — it entirely escapes you that your Borg-like behavior is the result of indoctrination. How else could untold millions of adults act like 6-year olds on a daily basis?

• Snowflake
• Libturd
• Libtard
• Cupcake

You have plenty of valid criticism to write about without having to sound so small. And it amazes me that at some point, maybe “libturd” came first — and somebody was sitting there thinking it would be clever to come up with “libard.”

Incredibly, some will be sitting there thinking that I’m out to defend liberals — instead of just good old-fashioned decency.

You’ve allowed purveyors of poppycock to infiltrate your intelligence — implanting triggers that bypass reason whenever it serves “The Cause.”

The Borg are a fictional alien group that appear as recurring antagonists in the Star Trek franchise. The Borg are a vast collection of “drones”, or cybernetic organisms linked in a hive mind called “the Collective”, or “the Hive”.

You have no idea what these soulless politicians and pundits have done to your brains — preying on your emotions while acting as though they’re working on your behalf.

You allowed them to take away so much that you’ll never get back — but it’s not too late to turn the tide

Probably the most powerful of these group cohesive forces is narcissism.

In its simplest and most benign form, this is manifested in group pride. As the members feel proud of their group, so the group feels proud of itself.

A less benign but practically universal form of group narcissism is what might be called “enemy creation,” or hatred of the “out-group.”

We can see this naturally occurring in children as they first learn to develop groups.

It is almost common knowledge that the best way to cement group cohesiveness is to ferment the group’s hatred of an external enemy.

Deficiencies within the group can be easily and painlessly overlooked by focusing attention on the deficiencies or sins of the out-group.

Note: Leaving typos as they are in the quotes that follow:

They they can’t handle the truth

They’re finishing the work begun by “No Child Left Behind”. “Common Core” and others before them.

They’re creating mindless robots, sissies, and an entire generation, or more, that cannot handle any kind of stress or difference of opinions, whatsoever!

It’s terrifying to think that these are the leaders of tomorrow! This has been in the planning for decades – destroy our children and you destroy the future of our Country.

Like · Reply · Jul 28, 2017 6:26pm

Immortal School of OJT
I suspect the firat case will be against a conservative speaker who tells the snowflakes the truth.
Like · Reply · 2 · Jul 28, 2017 4:52pm

Forget political correctness! These people are idiots and flipping socialists! So I guess it’s not enough for them to try to indoctrinate people with their sick and twisted liberal agenda!

Now they want to persecute those who don’t agree with the libtard mindset!!

I guess enrollment will drop significantly at the University of Michigan! Good luck getting government funding when you keep attacking people’s freedom of speech and civil rights!
Like · Reply · 7 · Jul 28, 2017 4:11pm

College studenrs are now officially wusses in my book.

They don’t belong there if they can’t handle criticism, people who will disagree with them, and ither such situtation that real life will present them with.

And colleges that pander to them? Pathetic.

Like · Reply · 20 · Jul 28, 2017 3:28pm

They they can’t handle the truth

They’re finishing the work begun by “No Child Left Behind”. “Common Core” and others before them.

They’re creating mindless robots, sissies, and an entire generation, or more, that cannot handle any kind of stress or difference of opinions, whatsoever! It’s terrifying to think that these are the leaders of tomorrow! This has been in the planning for decades – destroy our children and you destroy the future of our Country.
Like · Reply · Jul 28, 2017 6:26pm

what a bunch of sissies we have developed into with our feelings controling every aspect of life, imagine what these kids would have had to worry about in the 70’s. They would require bubble wrap or live in a protective dome

Like · Reply · Jul 28, 2017 6:00pm