Leftist Grievance Poker..

How the Left Loonies Justify their Flagrant Ignorance and Superior Stupidity.

This is exactly how those weirdos behave. It is even worse when those blind sighted bigots are feminists. That puts a completely different spin on it but the manic duplication of action and thought is still rivalled by their actions.

However those sexist bigots, feminasties, have just one single sex to malign, badger and abuse. Their justification is the imaginary “power” that men have over women. If that explanation is somewhat limited in what they really do and what disgusting methods they go to to destroy any and every male, regardless of colour, or behaviour or mentality or condition or even political outlook. They just do not give a damn as they label each and every male in exactly the same way.

One has yet to explain the obvious stupidity and the existence of male feminists. That is apparently, unexplainable. Surely there can be no one THAT stupid, but yes there is..


According to left-wing thinking, disputes over right and wrong are best determined not by examining facts and evidence but by STUDYING the relative power of the parties involved.
This explains why leftists generally side with poor Palestinians over wealthy Israel, regardless of the history of their conflict, which overwhelmingly demonstrates Palestinian hostility. It also explains why leftists were so delighted with Julia Gillard’s absurd misogyny speech in 2012. To them, it wasn’t a venal exercise in political distraction; rather, it was a powerless woman (who just happened to be Prime Minister at the time) putting powerful male Tony Abbott in his place.
It’s all more than a little ridiculous, because arguments become subject to change depending on the identities of those in conflict. Gillard’s speech resonated with the left because she was denouncing a white western male. If she’d been addressing an impoverished Papua New Guinean tribesman, however, regardless of how he viewed women, Gillard would be seen as the more privileged of the two and therefore wrong.
Poor trumps rich. Black trumps white. FEMALE trumps male. Former George W. Bush speechwriter David Frum neatly described this simple two-stage process last week: “1. Identify the bearer of privilege. 2. Hold the privilege-bearer responsible.”
In practice, of course, it can get a little complicated playing leftist grievance poker, although it’s intriguing to consider that somewhere out there is a blind African quadruple amputee AIDS-afflicted lesbian who can WIN any argument just by walking into the room. You know, if she could walk.
Matters become even more vexing if an individual’s place on the perceived grievance ladder changes, as when, say, a working class girl (Margaret Thatcher) becomes the British Prime Minister. Or an Aboriginal leader (Noel Pearson) promotes CAPITALISM. Or a gay man (Bjorn Lomborg) attacks global warming alarmism. Or a Somalian woman who suffered genital mutilation (Ayaan Hirsi Ali) turns against Islam.
Oh, Islam. How the left so cravenly folds when that particular grievance card hits the table. Following the Charlie Hebdomassacre earlier this year, when Islamic brothers Said and Cherif Kouachi stormed the offices of FRENCH magazine Charlie Hebdo and murdered eleven staffers, New York artist Melanie West offered an impeccably moronic left-wing argument excusing the killers. 
“Christianity is a religion that features a lot of people with a lot of global dominance, while on the other side, Islam is a faith that has been bludgeoned in order to justify the pillaging and imperial slaughter of the East,” West wrote. “Within that context, a Western body blatantly disrespecting Islam (like when drawing the Prophet Muhammad) is dropping arrows from the top. They are driving salt into the wound. They’re punching down, and they shouldn’t be surprised when people get desperate and punch back.”
Last week ITALIAN police charged 15 Muslim asylum seekers with murder after they allegedly threw 12 Christian asylum seekers to the deaths from the boat they shared off the Sicilian coast. Presumably, according to West’s thesis, the victims had it coming due to the massive global dominance of Christian Nigerians and Ghanaians.
Cartoonist Garry Trudeau, who “draws” the punishingly leaden Doonesbury strip, lately went even further than West, essentially blaming the Hebdo staffers for their own murders. “Traditionally, satire has comforted the afflicted while afflicting the comfortable. Satire punches up, against authority of all kinds, the little guy against the powerful,” Trudeau said after receiving a lifetime award for filling three-panel spaces in broadsheet newspapers.
“Great FRENCH satirists like Molière and Daumier always punched up, holding up the self-satisfied and hypocritical to ridicule. Ridiculing the non-privileged is almost never funny – it’s just mean. By punching downward, by attacking a powerless, disenfranchised minority with crude, vulgar drawings closer to graffiti than cartoons, Charlie wandered into the realm of hate speech.”
US columnist Mark Steyn’s response: “If Trudeau were to hand, I might be minded to try a little punching up myself.” Quite so. A little impact therapy might jolt Trudeau and his worthless kind out of their “up and down” grievance pondering and allow them to consider the relative power imbalance between people armed with pens and two murderous assailants armed with AK-47s.
New York Times columnist Ross Douthat put things more gently over the weekend. “While power flows from pre-existing privilege, it also grows from the barrel of a gun, and the willingness to deal out violence changes power dynamics, even when it doesn’t have a truly revolutionary outcome,” he wrote.
“The terrorist’s veto on portrayals of Islam is itself a very real form of power, and as long as journalists who challenge it end up dead, the idea that they are ‘up’ and their targets are ‘down’ reflects a denial of life-and-death reality.
“Or, to take a related example, the hundreds of white women recently raped by Pakistani gangs in England’s industrial north were theoretically higher on a ladder of privilege than their assailants. But the gangs’ actual power over their victims was only enhanced by that notional ladder, because multicultural pieties were part of what induced the authorities to look the other way.”
Stephane Chabonnier was among the Charlie Hebdo staff who suffered re-education at the hands of a “powerless, disenfranchised minority” back in January. Two days before he was killed, Chabonnier finished a book containing these words: “The suggestion that you can laugh at everything, except certain aspects of Islam, because Muslims are much more susceptible than the rest of the population, what is that, if not discrimination? It’s time to finish with this disgusting white, left-wing bourgeois intellectual paternalism.”
Leftists should defer to this view. After all, Charbonnier is dead, and therefore less privileged than even the poorest and most disadvantaged living person.

Write a Reply or Comment

Your email address will not be published.