House of Eratosthenes

No matter who is elected President tonight, something is terribly wrong. There are far too many among our fellow citizens participating in elections, and all these lively exchanges of ideas, who are supposed to have ideas about how to make things better but simply don’t believe in it. They don’t believe in solving problems.

Oh, they wouldn’t characterize themselves that way. They do see themselves engaged in some kind of “fight,” a word they use frequently as both a verb and a noun. And they deploy this word for the purpose of describing some activity in which they come across something that is in some situation, toil away at it for awhile, and leave it in some better state. That seems like problem-solving. But, all the dominoes start falling when you start belaboring definitions — something someone who’s actually solving problems, should be able to do. What’s the situation? What’s the better state? And what’s “awhile”? They can’t define these things, but they can certainly define: Who the enemy is, what that enemy did, what we said to really let that enemy have it, really make ’em see how much they suck, etc. etc. etc…as for the question about time, well, it’s just like the dog chasing the car. No limit.

One woman at work offers me some residual hope for tonight, although she is not an example of this. She believes in actually solving problems. Things between her and the male sex are a bit frosty at this chapter in her life, and she’s none too pleased with Trump over that bus recording. But, like all the other women in the office, she can’t stand Hillary Clinton. The subject at lunchtime had somehow meandered to breast implants and she made the remark that women who undergo the procedure “set the clock back fifty years for women.” The subject veered off into something else before I could say anything and that’s probably a good thing.

A special clock that is tethered somehow to the situation involving women, would imply that there’s something happening with women over fifty years or more. A situation that is changing and heading in a single direction, a desirable direction, at a more-or-less uniform pace. Right? I have to wonder, simply, what that could be. Can anyone answer? It is not a trivial question. Of the very few Hillary supporters from whom I’ve heard, managing to eke out something positive about the ramifications of a Hillary victory tonight, this is the primary concern. Keep that clock ticking, forward and not backward.

The answer most friendly to the premise and the emotions surrounding it, would be something like “the progress made in persuading straight men to stop wanting to look at womens’ tits.” Nobody actually says that, word-for-word, but that’s the sentiment. And nobody actually says it because it is a spectacularly wrong idea…which, sadly, doesn’t seem to stop anyone from thinking it. It is the single most erroneous aspect of modern feminism, which is saying a lot. In fact, I think it’s not overstating the situation to say it may be the single most flawed idea popularized during my lifetime, which happens to be the above-stated fifty years. Perhaps the second-most flawed idea out of the last hundred. “Let’s purify the human race by getting rid of the Jews” manages to edge it out by a healthy margin.

No social or political movement is going to discourage straight men from looking at womens’ tits. Ever. Can we get that one thing straight? If Hillary Clinton manages to snag two terms out of this, I expect in 2024 I’m still going to like looking at womens’ tits. If Donald Trump can somehow pull off two consecutive victories and be our President for eight years…ditto. The same is true of all straight men. You can’t elect a certain person President and in so doing make us stop appreciating the sight of a beautiful woman.

You can do something else, though, unfortunately. If Hillary Clinton wins, and is still our President in 2024, I expect male/female relations to be about as warm and cuddly as white/black relations are now. That’s what I should be expecting, right? There’s no reason for any of us not to expect this; no reason for us to expect anything else. Hillary Clinton, after all, doesn’t make any different use of the existing uneasiness in gender relations, than Barack Obama has been making of the existing uneasiness in race relations. She exploits these in exactly the same way. And yet, among her supporters, a great many see her elevation as some kind of victory.

Well, it’s a victory alright…against someone else. Some necessary, and fictionalized or at least embellished, overly-macho enemy. But a victory entirely invested in someone else’s defeat, be they real or imagined, hasn’t got any residual energy left for anything else and it won’t be advancing any sort of “clock” toward anything at all. Electoral victories are the most fleeting of all. What did the social justice warriors gain, that crisp November night in 2008, that will still be in place on January 20, 2017 at 12:01 p.m. EST? Name one thing. You can’t. Certainly nothing that can compare with what was lost, for now the nation has had its experience with the “First Black President,” and He turned out to be awful. Just a sales device, a garnish on the side of an entrée of hardcore left-wing swill that couldn’t have been sold otherwise. We were just talking about turning a clock back a few years? There’s a good example of doing it.

President Hillary, I’m afraid, will be another example. Perhaps, though, by 2024 the lesson will have finally been learned to stop looking for “firsts.” Can we say that yet? Probably not…could be construed as saying only straight white males need apply. People interested in winning arguments & not in solving problems, have to win a few more — things have to get worse. It’s sad, because we as a nation don’t have an excuse not to have grown wiser, at least incrementally. We’ve had our eight years. Racism has not been vanquished. If anything, it’s rebounded from the brink. Really, it has. In 2008, the best evidence we had that racism was still around, were some whispered rumors that America might not be ready for a black President; rumors which turned out to be false.

One #NeverTrump guy I know has a granddaughter he adores, who is now two. She’s a big part of the reason why his conscience will not allow him to support Trump, who is the one person who could stop Hillary. I’ve questioned the notion of whether “conscience” is what we’re really talking about, since whatever it is, it won’t allow him to stop Hillary — and seems remarkably serene and unmolested at the idea of a Hillary victory. But thinking about the granddaughter, I see we’re brought back again to this troubling business of Doing It For the Girls. Children absorb imprints — one time. The imprints make such huge impressions on them, and there is no do-over. Two years old today means ten years old in 2024; what impression does it make on a ten-year-old girl, growing up in Hillary’s America? No, this generation is not likely to be absorbing the news of Madam President traveling to Paris for the latest climate accords, or the Senate voting to override her veto…but, they’ll be living in the culture. Social-justice-warrior culture. We’ve seen what that’s like over the last eight years. It’s negative and not positive. What is this thing that compels us to presume otherwise?

Ah, well. It’s a good argument, but I don’t expect it to reach anybody. I thought it was pretty darn persuasive when parents just a little bit further along in parenthood than me, began complaining about having to explain “blow jobs” to their young children because of Bill Clinton’s shenanigans. That had very little effect either, surprisingly. We’re an odd species that way. Our politics affect our culture, we know this, and even while we’re in the midst of celebrating it, seems we’re generally tone-deaf to the less desirable consequences.

The broader picture is not so discouraging, it is about life. The drama vanishes when you step back and look at the forest as opposed to the trees. Life is simply going to teach us the same lesson, over and over again, until such time as we’ve learned it and then it will advance us to the next lesson. That’s really all we’re deciding tonight. Have we learned the difference between trouncing undesirable persons & classes, REALLY sticking it to ’em and showing ’em what-for — vs. actually solving problems and making things better? If we have not, there will be ample opportunity, and soon, to repeat the lesson; that is how life works. It will continue to beat us about the head & shoulders with the same lesson, over and over again, until we learn it.

Related: A Final Plea to Never-Trumpers, by/from Dennis Prager.

Most of you are simply too intelligent, too idealistic and too self-questioning not to have at least on occasion had second thoughts. If you understand — and I cannot believe that most of you don’t — how destructive another four years of any Democrat in the White House, let alone the truly corrupt Hillary Clinton, would be, it is inconceivable that you have never questioned your Never-Trump position. Never-Trump, after all, is not the same as Never-Question.

Trump, Clinton and the Culture of Deference, Shelby Steele, WSJ.

Deference has been codified in American life as political correctness. And political correctness functions like a despotic regime. It is an oppressiveness that spreads its edicts further and further into the crevices of everyday life. We resent it, yet for the most part we at least tolerate its demands. But it means that we live in a society that is ever willing to cast judgment on us, to shame us in the name of a politics we don’t really believe in. It means our decency requires a degree of self-betrayal.

The problem with female voters –well, one of the main problems, anyway — is that they can’t separate the personal from the general. I remember an old joke about a minister preaching a Sunday sermon. He says “the problem is, too many people in this fallen world– especially women– take general observations to be personal attacks.” His wife jumps up and yells “no I don’t!”

I had this argument with Obama-voting chicks last time around, and I’m still having it with Hillary-voting chicks. I will concede, for the sake of argument, that it would be “good” for “us” to have a Black President, a Woman President, a Gay President, whatever. But… why this particular one? You’re not just voting for “the black guy;” you’re voting for a corrupt anti-American nobody with a backstory murkier and more changeable than a comic book villain. You’ll have an easier time getting a valid birth certificate out of a Venezuelan shortstop than this guy, and that’s just the start of all the problems with Mr. never-held-a-real-job. But, you voted for that particular black guy, and now how’s that working out? Are race relations better, or worse? How about the economy? Foreign policy?

I don’t want Hillary Clinton to be President because she makes Lucrezia Borgia look sane, reasonable, and responsible. That’s it. I tell all the chick voters out there, “this has nothing to do with you, any more than the fact that Hitler was a white male has anything to do with me.” The personal is political – that’s the entire woman weltanschauung in four words. Or, for simplicity’s sake, these four: Me me me me.

Vote Trump today, then let’s get to work on repealing the 19th Amendment.
- Severian | 11/08/2016 @ 07:00
Yes I’ve noticed this. You could say…a dead battery may simply be a dead battery, or it could mean your alternator’s ready to go. And one personal anecdote about one or the other (or something else), with some female hormones mixed in, will bring on these cries of “Not true!!” Followed by the anecdote. Followed by…so what she should do is [blank] because that worked in my case.

I usually follow up these things with a note to the effect that, because the gender barrier is being erased and men are starting to act more like women, it is wrong and unfair to generalize against women. In this respect, though, it still seems to work.

The irony is, if you really do accept this is about a culture war and we’re going to try to defeat the “grab ’em by the pussy” locker-room talk culture of Trump…the finish line should’ve been crossed when he apologized. I don’t see anyone trying to seriously assert there was something insincere about the apology, after all. And such a decisive victory! “Trump became President, but there’s no way he would’ve made it if he didn’t apologize for this reprehensible conduct.” Nor do I see anyone seriously asserting that Donald Trump’s behavior is going to improve if he loses the election. Logically, if the end goal is to improve Trump’s behavior, the most effective strategy is to elevate him to the office of President of the United States, where he will be tattled-on if he so much as dares to eat his salad with his dinner fork.

Electing Hillary, on the other hand, is the most effective strategy for keeping everybody’s behavior as execrable as may be potentially managed. Republicans, democrats, Trump, Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, female “comediennes,” the press…
- mkfreeberg | 11/08/2016 @ 07:16
Agreed that men are almost as bad as women now, especially the younger generation. I like to talk about pop culture a lot in my classes, and it always goes something like this:

Me: What does it say about our culture that everyone loves The Walking Dead or Game of Thrones?
Kid 1: Hey, I love TWD!
Kid 2: GoT is awesome!!
Me: Right, I don’t care, I’m not asking whether they are good or bad shows. I am asking what it says about our culture that this particular show is being made, and is extremely popular, at this moment?
Kid 1: But TWD rules!
Kid 2: Yeah, but season 6 sucked.
Kid 1: Na ah!
Kid 2: Ah ha!
Me [face in palm]: Ok, forget TWD. Let’s look at history. Consider Elvis….
Kid 1: Elvis sucked. Zeppelin rules!
Kid 2: No way dude! Ozzy!!!

They just can’t — CAN NOT — grok that a discussion of the relevance of a phenomenon is completely unrelated to an opinion about whether that phenomenon “rules” or “sucks.” So I bust out some piece of pop culture from 1895 and make them read it, and when I go to analyze it with them, all I get is…. wait for it…. wait for it…. “is this gonna be on the test?”

“Objectivity” is meaningless.
- Severian | 11/08/2016 @ 08:19
“The problem with female voters –well, one of the main problems, anyway — is that they can’t separate the personal from the general.”

Yup. In my town, they’re lining up to go place there “I Voted Today” on the grave stone of Susan B. Anthony. Not realizing the HUGE hypocrisy.

http://www.democratandchronicle.com/story/news/2016/11/08/hundreds-flock-to-susan-b-anthonys-grave/93431564/

Fist, Suzy baby was a Republican and I’m gonn’a go out on a limb that the women folk getting all teary eyed about voting for Shillary are Dems. (Also, Anthony was an abolitionist and we ALL know which political side was very much in favor of keeping slavery, forming the KKK and voted against the civil rights acts, twice). So it’s not so much that they get to vote for a vagina but rather the vagina belongs to the correct political party – theirs. I’m sure they weren’t getting all weepy eyed when one Sarah Palin was on the ticket 8 years ago as a Republican. But maybe I missed the story that year from our local, liberal rag.

Secondly, I’m pretty sure we’re supposed to judge people by the content of their character and not the content of their pants. And any rational, thinking person, including women voters, would by now be running to the polls to NOT vote for Hillary and her baggage…na, her ship full of controversy, scandals, lies and outright incompetence.

Lastly, I’m pretty sure Christopher Stevens, Sean Smith, Tyrone Woods and Glen Doherty had mothers. Maybe sisters or wives, girlfriends or even daughters. Hillary could give two shits about those women.
But vote for Hillary!!! Vagina!!!

So, let’s see how this plays out. If the Disgusting One wins, that will speak volumes about what women hold dear in voting for a president. (And Anthony rolls over in her grave.)

Or Trump wins and restores some sanity for women’s progress.
- tim | 11/08/2016 @ 10:55
“Objectivity” is meaningless.

Is [em] THAT [/em] going to be on the test?
- P_Ang | 11/08/2016 @ 11:19
Oh come on, it says I can use XHTML code right above the comment box…sigh.
- P_Ang | 11/08/2016 @ 11:20
First, Suzy baby was a Republican … (Also, Anthony was an abolitionist …

And strike three, she was pro-life.

It’s right out of the old socialist/radical playbook as described by Orwell and his Minitrue: empty the word of its proper meaning and hang it on what you’re already doing, and then object that your opponent hates the thing the word really means. Pick a word, any word – “feminism” is an easy example, and one that we’ve explored hereabouts when challenged by Sperg Central Command. “So, you disagree with equality for women?” No, we disagree with the misandry and bullying of people who then lie and call it “feminism.”

(beat) … but feminism MEANS equality for all! So, you disagree with equality for women?

Radical Feminists have done this not only with the term “Feminism,” but also with the name “Susan B Anthony” – emptied of everything she stood for, that she wanted to protect with her vote, to participate in her country’s political life, until just the vote thing remains and all the stuff she’d vote about is lost to the memory hole.

I didn’t agree with Trump’s nomination, but I am not sorry he won – if you’re about to run out of gas while crossing Death Valley, you don’t quibble over the brand name on the last service station for 100 miles.
- nightfly | 11/10/2016 @ 12:55

Leave a Reply

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Recent

Items of Interest

Monthly Archives

What They Say

Links

Winning Arguments vs. Solving ProblemsTuesday, November 8th, 2016

Winning Arguments vs. Solving Problems
Tuesday, November 8th, 2016