Sexual Harassment: another hippie “achievement” that hurts the innocent

Male child overheard calling female teacher cute, gets suspended for sexual harassment. Seems fair… (alternate headline: another reminder on how hippies ruin everything they touch).

I posted this on Facebook and got the following reply from this consistently deranged hater (who also happens to be a hippie) who follows me to hate on my posts, make things up to bait me into…er…owning him, publicly wish I was dead, call me a terrible/despicable/awful person, etc. Here’s the latest:

Text copy & pasted if the image is hard to read:

Jon Rich: Let me get this straight: a single case of an overzealous enforcement of a sexual harassment policy is proof that “hippies ruin everything they touch.” Never mind the millions of cases where sexual harassment laws have been fairly applied to prevent women from being exploited by bosses, co-workers, students, and professors. No, it is so much easier to make a blanket statement based on an anecdote.

Let yourself get it straight by learning to read. Since the public school system has failed you, i’ll have pity and help you out: the words “another” and “reminder” (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/another &http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reminder) mean the opposite of “a single case of an overzealous enforcement”. While its cool that you admit sexual harassment laws are just feminist propaganda (the official line is that they apply to both genders), it’s stupid to claim that “fair” application of a law to only one gender (see http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fair) is evidence that the law is good.

Sexual assault and ethics laws give tools to prevent injustices and prosecute them when they occur.
Sexual harassment laws give tools to destroy lives and make places of work and learning places of fear and oppression.

HINT: good laws dont have areas where they can be applied to suspend and tarnish 9 year olds for making innocent G rated positive comments to other students. but by all means – don’t let logic get in the way of your hippie dogma.

Blame it on White Male Privilage

Here’s a fun Facebook encounter I had:

?”According to the C.I.A.’s own ranking of countries by INCOME INEQUALITY, the UNITED STATES is MORE UNEQUAL a society THAN either TUNISIA or EGYPT.”

Richard: well duh. if you accept that a percentage of people will always choose poverty and shit lives and another percentage will always not choose but still not have what it takes to climb out of a poverty stricken shit life – then the country with the most millionaires and billionaires automatically becomes the one with highest inequality in income. the most communist nation will have the most equal and the most free nation will have the most unequal.

Sarah Polen: Yes, because we all know that poverty isn’t generational or anything. It also isn’t a result of white male privilege. We don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. And we are clearly putting our dollars into programs (education, healthcare, etc.) and NOT things like the military/financial bailouts so as to give people who do live in poverty the opportunity to succeed. And when we have an President like Obama who wants to close this gap, we’re all behind him 100%.

Sarah Polen: Also, on a completely unsarcastic note, who in the fuck thought Egypt (or Tunisia for that matter) was a communist country?

Richard: lol. bravo! Sarah’s satire of what an ignorant hippie would say is spot on! your sarcastic illustration of the foolish thing they believe is perfect, but unfortunately there are people stupid enough to actually believe those things and what is worse – they flaunt their ignorance instead of investigating the nonsense they preach.

they think generational poverty is an answer to anything, as if millions didn’t climb out of it and become middle class, upper class or millionaires. they actually think that “white male privilege” and good ol boys make people poor because they don’t understand how economies work and they think there are limited pieces of a pie so if the privileged have access to large chunks then that leaves just small pieces and crumbs for everyone else. they studied socialist propaganda instead of economic reality so they dont even know or begin to understand the limitlessness of the pie. you may joke that people dont know we spend $800 billion on education and are ignorant, stupid and intellectually incurious enough to never find out – but they exist! They have no clue (and dont care) that we spend 4% of our GDP on defense and 5 to 7%% on education.

There are actual Marxists out there that believe money is the answer to every problem and if we have a problem then spending more [of other peoples] money on it will fix it. Unfortunately, though you and I may mock the ignorance of these people through sarcasm, there are actually a large number of them who exist and earnestly believe (evidence be damned) that government should pulling people back who are producing too much will help poor people.

Richard: In response to the unsarcastic part: your reading comprehension is a little off, but I suspect you’re still fooling around and are still satirizing what a dumb hippie would say (very clever. very dry!). While ignorant but passionate leftists believe every issue is black and white and fail to notice nuances – smart people like us are able to understand things like a sliding scale and when they read “freedom” and “communism” at opposite ends of a spectrum, they are unable to think within the parameters of the two. People “in the fuck” who thought Egypt and Tunisia had economically leftist/socialist governments are the people who know what they’re talking about (though the other part of what I said that you conveniently ignored is most likely more to blame for their state of affairs).

Sarah Polen: A few notes/links:

Sarah Polen: USA Government Spending as required by the new act for transparent spending: http://www.usaspending.gov/ Dept. of Education = 59 billion; Dept. of Defense = 263 billion. Study on the good ol’ boys network as prevalent (as explained by those uneducated “liberals” in higher education): http://uga.academia.edu/LauraBierema/Papers/290194/Exploring_the_Nature_of_the_Old_Boys_Network_In_the_United_States_Using_Electronic_Networks_of_Practice_to_Understand_Gendered_Issues_In_HRD_ Information on the governments of Egypt and Tunisia – founded on similar principles as those of the USA: http://www.state.gov/http://www.state.gov/ I just want to make sure I’m not being confused for a “dumb, ignorant” hippie.

Richard: So you’re not dumb and ignorant, you just play it on facebook? how else do you explain ignoring 100% of what i said? lol. this must still be performance art. i get it… you’re illustrating how dumb people argue things by showing what they do is ignore what you say but use words that you said to make different points that they are more comfortable talking about, is that it? excellent job! its almost as if youre fooling anyone. almost.

Richard: Tip for the future though: be more subtle when trolling. its better when you walk the line of “is she serious??” instead of giving it away with crazy things like Egypt and Tunisia being founded on similar principals to the US. where as you might fool some people with the first half of changing the subject from GDP to raw dollars to both undermine your silly claim that we dont spend enough on education and ignore the one that was made in response to it – its too obvious that you’re mocking people who think these things when you go “full retard” with things like the leftward government of Egypt or socialist party of Tunisia being close to american principals. its better to dial it back a tick so you dont give yourself away and people are left to ponder what you said instead of realizing that you ignored the direct challenges made against your previous false claims. practice makes perfect!

Richard: ?”hey random guy on the street: why are some people poor?” – “white privilege.” – haha. that part is my favorite. the follow up of an obtuse article about the existence of good ol boys is just precious. how long have you been satarizing leftists like this? youre good.

Jessica Schneider: Hey Richard, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t talk to Sarah like that. Your opinions don’t make you right, they simply mean you have a different ideology that you would like to see shape this country than Sarah. And being degrading and name-calling because you think you’re smarter is just more of the bullshit of the exact male privilege she just described. And another reason that compromise and cooperation continue to be pushed aside in favor of a static democracy (you know, those governments that are supposed to represent more than one viewpoint) that can’t progress. Name calling like a child says more about you than it does about Sarah. Seriously, you have more to learn about how to have a respectful dialogue than Sarah has to learn about political economy. It has nothing to do with what your opinions actually are, but how you express them. So far, I don’t know anyone who has ever heard of Richard Bushnell, but I know a lot of very famous and highly respected intellectuals who espouse similar ideologies to Sarah. So once again, having different viewpoints doesn’t make someone dumber than you, it just means they have a different value system. At least Sarah’s includes respectful disagreement. So yes, you actually could learn a thing or two from her. Grow up, Richard.

Richard: Hey Jessica, I don’t care what your viewpoints are, don’t be an elitist jerk and tell people they’re not allowed to respond to snotty sarcasm with factual sarcasm. No ones opinions make them right. the facts they’re based on do. Are you a performance artist too? Calling a response to baseless put downs, “male privilege”, sounds like more satire. HINT: Free speech is not a female privilege, babycakes. All sexes are allowed to exercise it, so if your outrage that someone didn’t just shut up and take the abuse they were dished isn’t satire then that’s pretty pathetic.

What “names” are you claiming I called anyone prior to babycakes? If you’re referring to “full retard”, thats a quote from Tropic Thunder that references the way a person acts (ie: is not calling someone retarded). If you’re just referring to a general tone that you cant pinpoint and thus is why you provided no examples (because you cant) then…lol. So is this part of the satire where you make things up to show how to act foolish? or are you falsely calling legit responses to silly claims “name calling”? Again, I think you’re making a mistake like Sarah in going overboard with the trolling because it’s too obvious. When you say things like “name calling like a child” (ie: hypocritically chiding someone for name calling in the same sentence you call them a name), it just gives the whole thing away too soon.

Where exactly can I learn how to have a respectful dialogue? From your free speech stifling name calling hypocrisy? or from Sarahs sarcastic bullying and eloquent use of phrases like “who in the fuck thought [what you just said]”? Why don’t you lead by example? Wanna take a poll on how many people have heard of me vs Sarah? or do you want to abandone that Appeal to Authority fallacy on account of it being total nonsense? No one said a different opinion makes anyone dumb, so it’d be awesome if you didn’t use strawman fallacies as the basis for your attacks either. I still can’t learn anything when you fail to provide any details though so I don’t know what I am to learn from Sarah via respectful dialogue since my replies were mirrors of hers in tone. Was it that I didn’t mock her understanding of a subject by saying “who in the fuck would think XYZ”? That must be it, cuz I got her sarcastic dismissal down pretty well. I will try harder to use “fuck” more often when baselessly attacking people I disagree with. ?

[Original Poster of the link]: Dance puppets, dance!

Richard: any time! puppet shows are my favorite!

Richard: wait… im still doing it wrong. Jessica says I should take my que from Sarah on proper responses so scratch that last reply and lemme try again:

*clears throat* “yes, because we all know that we’re puppets. we’re not human beings or anything. we don’t have anything called an ol’ boys network. and on an unsarcastic note: who in the fuck thought i (or anyone else for that matter) was a puppet?” — hope that is better 🙂

Chris Slick: total dick

Have you noticed that people are super sensitive about even the most courteous of correction on the stupid things they say or is it just me? I love it when people post political news stories and then freak the fudge out and delete you when you’re not on board because I don’t delete anyone ever so other peoples intolerance gives me the friend-cleansing I would otherwise be deprived of. The keywords though are “politely” and “disagree”, because such a response is justified if its in reply to you going overboard with the hate first.

Today I found this posted item on Facebook to be provocative and replied. You can’t see my replies here of course, because the fellow who posted them (Chris Slick) is a scared little girl who said some  stupid things, got called on them, and then got embarrassed, so he bleached the record.

Luckily for you, dear reader, I have Chris’s replies saved and can easily reconstruct my own responses.

chrisslick.romneynut

What I said that was “completely nuts” was that Romney has a stigma against him that will do damage off the bat and if he is to be a contender for 2012 he must combat his negative image more effectively than he did in 2008.

Super controversial, right? Chris replied:

Richard – the only person the Governor lost to was McCain. McCain will obviously not be in the race this time around.
Additionally, if you we were to follow your premise then Reagan and McCain would never have been GOP nominees. They both ran and lost before they came back the following cycle and won the nomination. So to answer your question – these are at least two reasons why I am so confident. Plus, as of now, Huck and Palin are his closest competitors. Both of them are easy to take out – they are literal fools in ever aspect of the word.

Chris misunderstood my observation that “Romney has image-problems” to mean “Romney can’t win because he lost a previous primary”. An understandable mistake, if you’re dyslexic and retarded.

I clarified by noting that if you take the pulse of prominent bloggers and pundits concerning Romney, you’ll find the dude has major problems with his political base. I even said that the charges are mostly smears (calling him liberal, unreliable, a flip-flopper, etc are all eye-rolling nonsense when you look at the meat behind the charges for instance). For some reason, this still wasn’t taken well and got this response:

CHRIS SLICK: Well, Richard, I would have to completely disagree with you on the Governor not being able to shake the criticisms you listed. He did so and he did it quite well. He would not have beat out the folks he did without shaking those criticisms. People can have their opinions but we can have our facts – and facts will carry the day in the end.

Terrible strategy because its not true at all. Facts don’t just win because they’re facts. Perception is everything and if you have a perception problem, you need to get those facts out there – not just sit back with confidence that the truth will carry you home.

This is important, which is obviously, why I’m posting it here now: because a lot of you think this wrong way and need to not be doing that. Especially since I like Romney a lot – I have no interest in lies about the dude being the prominent headlines.

I said that its a mistake to think Governor Romney combated those criticisms effectively by using “he lost, but ahead of other people” as evidence and that “having your facts” doesn’t equal a win unless you convey those facts articulately and often. I said that its entirely possible that I could end up supporting Romney in 2012, but that he would have to do a lot better at his weak points or I would have to jump ship.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – you completely missed what I said. I am not talking about facts in the purest sense of the word. I was speaking about past history. Additionally, you should probably just jump ship now because you are a fair weather friend. You know, the kind no one likes.

Please never do this. Unless you’re trolling and trying to make the candidate you’re fake-supporting, Stephen Colbert style, look like a buffoon with only buffoonish supporters, never ever say something like “If you think the person I’m supporting has an unfair PR disadvantage then don’t support the person i’m supporting”.

I asked how I missed what he said about facts/history and how my response didn’t effectively reply to that point. “Additionally”, I said that its creepy to “make friends” with a politician because they’re not our friends, they’re our employees. You can’t be both without doing a crap job at one or both of those titles. Then I asked if he wrote Romneys name in on the 2008 ballot since that appears to be what he was saying with his whole “stick with your guy, even if he loses and is not a candidate anymore” policy — made especially weird given the fact that Governor Romney dropped out of the race for president at a time when many thought he could still pull the Republican nomination off, given the right circumstances – yet Romney halted and endorsed McCain “for the good of the country” and the party. so. erm. Romney was being a “fair weather friend; the kind no one likes” to himself?…

CHRIS SLICK: Richard, you do not know me – you obviously have some personal issues about what you believe and why you believe it that you need to deal with. I hope you find a good conservative to support in 2012. Best of luck.

I asked why he’s turning a political candidate strategy topic into a personal one and why, if he supports Governor Romney for president in 2012, does he keep encouraging me not to support Romney.

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – your comments are getting deleted – your completely nuts.

I asked what was so alarming about my comments that caused him to whitewash the record. I resisted temptation and did not mention his use of the wrong “your” the second time. I did ask though if he deleted his own comments as well as mine because he was conceding that what he said in them was, in hindsight, not exactly intelligent. He replied calmly and pleasantly, without resorting to personal attacks and crybaby ranting.
Just kidding:

CHRIS SLICK: Richard – what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc. I don’t have time for this shit. I deleted my comments because without your delusional thoughts processes it would not make sense for them to be here. Nor would it make sense for me to address a “Richard” when I have deleted your comments. Now, go take your medicine, smoke some crack, and try to keep your ADD under control.

Ryan – want to talk about splitting the nutty vote? Looks no further…”

I typed this response, again calmly explaining my words and his in an attempt to clarify what the dudes deal was or what he was even getting at:

Why are you asking what my problem is when I’ve stated each problem clearly and concisely? You said you deleted my comments and I asked why. That’s not an accusation, that’s repeating the fact that you had just told to me.

This is the 4th time I’ve asked what I’m allegedly “delusional” about (should i be asking “what the hell is your problem? making accusations etc.”? or is that right reserved only for you?). Thanks at least for answering why you deleted YOUR comments. so now: why did you delete MINE? what was so crack-user delusional about me saying that I hope Romney combats his critics more effectively?

You also never answered my question of whether you wrote Romneys name in on the ballot in 08. I asked since you attacked me and suggested that I not support Romney in 2012 if I planned to vote for someone else (possibly the Republican nominee) in the event Romney does not become a candidate.

I considered as an exit question: “why are you so personally offended by questions that ask for clarity on the positions you publicly espouse?” but it didn’t matter because Chrissy had deleted and blocked me on Facebook after delivering his last reply calling me a nutty delusional crack-addict with ADD for asking questions, so that reply could not be sent.

chrisslick.romneynutblock

Well… I guess he sure told me.

Brb. Crack to smoke.