If we all have rights, and liberal politicians are free to add to this list of rights on a whim, then primary among these rights would have to be the right not to be defined out of existence by way of specious arguments. That would be necessary for enjoying any of the others. And yet liberals violate this routinely, and flippantly, with “It’s a clump of cells” or “It’s a parasite” or “not capable of surviving outside the womb therefore not a person.”

If cops are harassing black people and shooting them and killing them without justification and this is happening all of the time, and whenever someone finds an example of it someone somewhere is deciding we should be hearing about it everywhere we go for months at a time — sooner or later there should emerge an example of it that doesn’t crumble and fall apart on inspection. Like Trayvon “Skittles” Martin fell apart, or Michael “Hands up, don’t shoot!” Brown fell apart. Why can’t the activists find an example of this that’s any good, that endures?

If men are running the world because of “patriarchy” in spite of the fact that women are just as smart and strong and fast and capable of doing anything men can do, something must have happened to put the men in charge. Consistently, In all the continents, as civilizations evolved…separately.

If we were under a king and in need of holding a no kings protest, then we would not be able to hold a no kings protest. Said king would surely stop us. Furthermore, the government would be open. The king would simply make it so and that would be that. Clearly, this is not what is happening.

If masculinity were toxic, and for the past several years we have increasing numbers of kids growing up in fatherless homes, we should be able to expect those kids to be earning better grades in school, and coping with fewer head-case problems, getting into fewer conflicts with others and with the law, compared to the kids with a father or other adult male figure in the house. Somehow, it is consistently the opposite that is the case.

If such-and-such an oppressed group has only just now achieved equality, there’s no more achieving to be done because they’re equal. If there’s still work to be done there, then they must not have achieved it yet and whatever “progress” was made in the past, was illusory this whole time. If the progress they made in the past achieved equality, then everything taking place in the here and now is nothing more than idle bitching.

Over and over again, it is liberals versus logic.

We explain this by taking note of the futility of talking to them. We notice how few ideas are actually exchanged when the true believers come in contact with the non-believers. We see again and again that it’s “Conservatives debate, liberals diagnose,” as in: “If all the guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns” — “Oh, so you’re in favor of outlaws and non-outlaws killing each other, huh?” So we figure liberals controvert logic and common sense, because they only pretend to discuss things, only pretend to consider opposing views, but actually persist in living in their hermetically sealed echo chambers.

That works, for the most part.

Until this “no kings” thing. Here, there are new problems.

If you hold a protest and you’re living in your echo chamber, only pretending to debate or discuss anything, so that things make sense to you when they shouldn’t; in the aftermath of the protest, you have to put in a little bit of honest deliberation as to whether the protest accomplished something. Right? Before you even so much as acknowledge the existence of a conservative, let alone debate anything with him. You have to wonder if the protest was effective.

We needed the protest because Trump is a king? But you didn’t get rid of him.

Or because he was acting like a king? So you taught him a lesson. His behavior has changed, then? It really doesn’t look like it, to me, but what do I know.

Or it was a warning, that this country has “no kings” and we want to keep it that way? Why bother with the protest then. We have had a Constitution. We still have it.

After all these years of watching liberals and trying to figure out why they do the things they do, I’m still learning.

I think it’s about feelings. If the “No Kings” protest accomplished anything at all, besides just a group or team building exercise or a way to meet people; then it, like many other protests, must be put into effect simply to make feelings visible. Just that. Nothing more.

This clicks things into place, as many other explanations have failed to do. Feelings. These must be people who make their feelings highly visible and known to many, and as a consequence of making their feelings highly visible and known, get what they want. These must be people accustomed to that. Maybe since childhood. Mommy found out they were feeling such and such, and so gave them a thing. Gave ’em what they wanted so she didn’t have to listen to it.

They accomplished this much, then: Elevated the sentiment “I feel like I’m living under a king even though I know I’m not,” to widespread visibility.

They accomplished something?

So, in 2028, or in 2026 with the midterms, a lot of people are going to vote according to: So many of my fellow citizens feel like they’re living under a king even though they’re not — so I should vote democrat?

We’re back to it not making any sense. If we had seven fewer democrats in the Senate, for example, right now the government would be open. The shutdown wouldn’t have even happened in the first place.

Once again, it’s liberals versus logic. If one is up, the other is down. If one wins, the other loses.

I guess, if you grow up with the sense of normal that you act like a goofball and then mommy gives you whatever you want, you’ll end up in conflicts with logic most-to-all of the time. Thinking like a responsible adult would be a constant challenge. After awhile, you’d let it go for good.

I end up where I’ve been so many times before, watching these people, wondering what makes them tick; Bewildered. Unclear as to how they can get out of bed, get dressed and function.

And so many of them do not only that, but become university professors. And then retire. And then protest.