Over my life, there have been many instances that parallel what we see everyday in the news. When I was in college, a girl who I hooked up with on a one night stand accused me of rape. Not outright. There were no charges or investigations, but she wrote about the instance in a short story writing class....
Then there was the time I settled a sexual harassment allegation at my office. This was around 8 years ago, and it wasn’t a gropy feely harassment. It was verbal, and it was just as bad. I would call my female assistant “hot pants” or “sex pants” when I was yelling to her from the other side of the office. Something I thought was funny at the time....
And then there’s the infidelity. I have been unfaithful to every wife and girlfriend I have ever had....
I am part of the problem. We all are. But I am also part of the solution....
December 14, 2017
Morgan Spurlock goes proactive in The Reckoning and declares "I am Part of the Problem."
"As I sit around watching hero after hero, man after man, fall at the realization of their past indiscretions, I don’t sit by and wonder 'who will be next?' I wonder, 'when will they come for me?'..."
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
311 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 311 of 311the proponents of the 60s Sexual Revolution have realized its created quite a mess and are trying to reintroduce a moral code without reference to Judeo-Christian mores. In other words, they're reinventing the wheel.
it's not going well.
Marriage for the win.
Self-moderation and responsible behavior are prerequisites for liberty. Commitment helps. That, or the force of National Socialism, Communism, Maoism, Fascism, etc.
reintroduce a moral code without reference to Judeo-Christian mores
A Pro-Choice religious/moral/legal philosophy, which is logically and actually selective and opportunistic. The progressive corruption and dysfunction was not only predictable but inevitable.
Our little would be Maoists are going to discover the limits of their nonsensical, arbitrary, politically motivated, anti-intellectual and illogical crusade soin enough.
Meanwhile, the islamists continue with nary of peep of criticism from these "brave" feminists.
Unexpectedly.
I wonder how many of these men that hate women so much that they assault/abuse them are the product of mothers that taught them to hate women with cruel child-rearing practices? Women that emotionally or physically abuse their children could be creating the next generation of rapists - AT THIS VERY MOMENT.
Lets have The Reckoning deal with it at the source.
The other scientific consensus in the universities, interestingly, is the matter of lookism, and its close cousin, ageism.
Note how many of Weinsteins accusers called him "disgusting". This was an expression of their culturally determined bigotry, wasn't it? There is no doubt that their lack of sexual interest, and even odium, was in itself deplorable.
This certainly could not stand examination in a modern university.
“the proponents of the 60s Sexual Revolution have realized its created quite a mess and are trying to reintroduce a moral code without reference to Judeo-Christian mores. In other words, they're reinventing the wheel.”
Sexual harrassment, assault, molestation and adultery has been around for many hundreds of years, the Sexual Revolution didn’t invent bad behavior, it was already there.
What the feminists are calling for is for men to behave like gentlemen. that's fine, but the same women laugh at the idea of behaving like ladies. no, no, women can be sluts, can wear and act however they please and how dare you shame them! if you demand that one sex behave with propriety and the other gets to behave any damn way they please and don't you dare judge - that's Third Wave feminism.
Rene = man
Renee = woman
Many, many millions of years and over many many species.
My male cat keeps trying to rape my female cat.
But as per Google and the universities this is wrong.
right Inga, and nobody thought those behaviors were wrong or punished them until the 1960s.
and women in the South never ever wrongly accused black men of rape.
If my cat were human he would certainly be in prison.
Overblown reactions and fear mongering as to what is happening in this societal change (The Reckoning) won’t help.
What's to worry ? It's only Men. Feminists were equally cavalier about the Vietnam-era draft.
"Do men here feel that this change wasn’t needed? That there wasn’t a problem? That we should just go on as we were?"
I can only speak for myself, I don't give a shit, I don't treat women badly, it's why I get laid. There is not such thing as group guilt.
My example isn't over blown, ever been involved in a law suit? They can and usually cost your ass. Of course you could staple flyers on telephone poles, with images of your son saying "I AM NOT A RAPIST!". Good luck.
“If my cat were human he would certainly be in prison.”
LOL! Good thing humans don’t respond to sexual stimuli the same way Tom cats and Tabbies do....right?
“Feminists were equally cavalier about the Vietnam-era draft.”
Speaking of the draft, women should be made to register, just like men. Those days should be over too.
“My example isn't over blown, ever been involved in a law suit? They can and usually cost your ass. Of course you could staple flyers on telephone poles, with images of your son saying "I AM NOT A RAPIST!". Good luck.”
A law suit won’t always be necessary, that’s a last resort scenario.
"Speaking of the draft, women should be made to register, just like men."
Yes, when and if the draft is instituted only women should be drafted for the next 100 years. It's only fair, plus it would be very anti- patriarchy like.
Oh those wonderful Duke Lacrosse players.... let's refresh people's memories
"The team's co-captains have acknowledged hiring the stripper and serving alcohol but have denied that anyone was sexually assaulted at the party.
On Wednesday, authorities unsealed documents from a search warrant for McFadyen's residence, stating that less than two hours after the alleged rape, McFadyen sent an e-mail saying he was planning an encore to "tonights (sic) show." The message, addressed "To whom it may concern," said, "however there will be no nudity."
"I plan on killing the bitches as soon as the(y) walk in and proceeding to cut their skin off," wrote McFadyen, a 6-foot-6, 225-pound Atlantic Coast Conference honor roll player who was one of five Duke players from the exclusive Delbarton School in Morristown, N.J., adding in vulgar terms that he would find the act sexually satisfying. The e-mail was signed with McFadyen's jersey number, 41.
The email is a riff of the movie American Psycho's style which the team members found funny and took turns emulating.
It's interesting to note people believe it's good to ruin 50 people's lives because a they blow off steam with a stripper show and enjoy dark humor. Any justification to attack the enemy. I can't figure out why if they think these are the appropriate outcomes they aren't trying to codify them into law instead of relying on rogue prosecutors and unethical college professors and administrators.
But really the key is serving alcohol. The Horror.
"humans don't respond to sexual stimuli the same way.."
Don't they?
Cultures prevent this, but should they?
Is that healthy?
Is it not unnatural?
Is that the patriarchy?
I would be impressed if you examined the question.
Buwaya, we don't think of animals as moral agents, do we? If I put a T-bone steak on the floor and tell my dog not to eat it and then leave the room, I guarantee the steak will be gone within 10 seconds. I might then call him a bad dog, but really, he's just a dog acting like a dog.
we do not consider cats guilty of rape anymore than we think of mountain lions who kill pets or the occasional hiker as murderers. They are animals following their instincts. that analogy doesn't work.
Rene Magritte = artist
"A law suit won’t always be necessary, that’s a last resort scenario."
Yes because the media always returns to help after the damage is done. Maybe CNN or The NYT or WAPO or Rolling Stone will come to his defense, oh wait!
But are humans truly moral agents?
Humans also have instincts.
And humans have evolved behaviors no less than animals.
And, of course, Democrat Senator Tom Carper has admitted to smacking his wife around way back when and the lefties, all of them, knew about it for decades and DID NOTHING.
And Carper is sitting right there, comfy as can be, in his safe, warm democrat Senate seat.
The good news for Carper is that at least he didn't manslaughter a gal to death.....yet.
But then again, his name isn't Kennedy and he isn't married to a Kennedy so he probably, probably, wouldn't be able to get away with that.
Probably.
A female cat in heat will accept coitus with any number of male cats. I doubt that a non-estrous female cat would tolerate sexual advances.
I see what you're getting at, Buwaya. cultures, laws, civilization prevent us from acting on our instincts, but in the 60s, those rules and mores were declared repressive by the left. they tossed them aside, and are now trying to deal with the rmess that resulted. and since the Left is the Left, their proposed solutions will only make things worse.
I am part of the problem. We all are.
#notme
Our cats are "fixed" and the female certainly does not tolerate "advances", hence, sometimes, catfights.
This situation, besides being housecats in the first place, is culturally imposed (by human culture) on the cats.
exiled: "and women in the South never ever wrongly accused black men of rape."
Imagine my surprise when the lefties turned like a vengeance on "To Kill A Mockingbird" and dumped poor "Atticus Finch" into the dustbin of history for the characters refusal to "believe the woman"!!
To propose that there is no moral agency in humans because we are no different from other animals is ludicrous. But this kind of thinking has led to a gradual but marked decline in civilized behavior. To assert that human beings have no capacity for self control but are at the mercy of their instincts is rationalization.
The 1960s left had no real concept of sociobiology, and when that became a thing they hated the idea of it so much that they physically attacked E.O.Wilson.
exiledonmainstreet: "I see what you're getting at, Buwaya. cultures, laws, civilization prevent us from acting on our instincts, but in the 60s, those rules and mores were declared repressive by the left. they tossed them aside, and are now trying to deal with the rmess that resulted. and since the Left is the Left, their proposed solutions will only make things worse"
Correct.
No one is saying that evil or wrongdoing or criminality or sin was invented by the sexual revolution in the US in the 60s. Only a fool would argue this and only a bigger fool would even attempt to say that was the point (hint: Inga).
What the lefties did instead was tell everyone that ALL societal structures, fair or not and with flaws, created over millenia of human experience and based on our understanding of human nature had to go baby!
There was a "new generation with a new explanation" baby!!
The lefties were going to create a new utopia where "if it feels good, do it!" and there are no consequences!!
Woohoo!
Lots of mass graves lie down that path, but each generation has to learn that lesson for itself.
Talk about human nature and the human condition!
We have individuals defending violence against women as 'dark humor' and yet they don't think they're part of the problem. You play with fire, you get burnt. Take responsibility for your faults. Stop making excuses.
I think it's apparent we have a long way to go, if we want to make any progress.
#notme the men cry #notme
meh...
If you are Mike Pence don't worry, God Bless him.
If you want try defending misogyny as humor. Well. You're part of the problem. Sorry.
#notme where is my trophy.
Really? Wow, what a fast typist I must be! Renee/Inga
No.
It's that you two are cut from the same, miserable cloth.
buwaya: "The 1960s left had no real concept of sociobiology, and when that became a thing they hated the idea of it so much that they physically attacked E.O.Wilson"
The lefties of the 60's were so stupid that they helped reintroduce conditions that had been wiped out hundreds of years ago!
Having lived in the SF Bay Area in the late 60's and early 70's I can recall the resurgence of Hand Foot and Mouth disease because these "enlightened" lefty morons thought they could repeal basic sanitation requirements and outcomes because "free love" and "share everything" baby! Even toothbrushes.
Geniuses.
We have individuals defending violence against women as 'dark humor'
Renee, they are defending humor regarding violence against women as "dark humor".
The thing you learn in improv class and classes about writing: anything can be funny. Anything.
We have individuals defending violence against women as 'dark humor' and yet they don't think they're part of the problem. You play with fire, you get burnt. Take responsibility for your faults. Stop making excuses.
Fuck you.
I'm not defending anything.
I simply refuse to be lumped into a group of assholes when I've done nothing wrong.
Renee: "We have individuals defending violence against women as 'dark humor'..."
The party of Ted Kennedy and Tom Carper would like to take a moment to lecture everyone on violence against women.
Please, do go on....
I don't want to get in a big fight, but Renee and Inga are not the same person, both have rich histories here, and they don't always have the same position on things.
And, oh yeah, the party of Standing Ovations for convicted child sodomizers would also like to lecture you a bit more.
I mean, why wouldn't they. As Peter Strzok was quoted as saying, if you go to a Walmart you can just "SMELL the Trump support".
We have individuals defending violence against women as 'dark humor'
Emails are "violence against women"? Return to your last educational institution and demand a refund.
If you want try defending misogyny as humor. Well. You're part of the problem. Sorry.
Translation: My problem is anything I don't like.
Response: It sure is.
We moved from assault to coercion to harassment to whatever the most easily offended woman in the room wants pretty quickly. It sure is hard to understand why people are talking about where this ends rather than where it is this moment.
I think it's apparent we have a long way to go,
And thank god since your oppressive vision would suck. I have every expectation people will reject your little Stasi fantasies.
I find that humor sick, Renee, but I don't believe men - particularly college-age jocks, who are not famous for their maturity and exquisite taste -should have their lives ruined because they enjoy sick humor.
If they are actually raping and cutting up women, I'll throw the switch on the electric chair myself. But you want to punish them for WORDS you don't like. You're fine with ruining the lives of men, not because of what they did (nothing illegal) tbut because they have nasty senses of humor. that's totalitarian.
it's perfectly legal to form "The Society to Cut Up Men" - SCUM. it's quite another thing to shoot Andy Warhol.
"I am part of the problem. We all are."
No. No we all are not. You speak for yourself not anyone else.
Rene. Try being more of a lady.
The SCUM manifesto is apparently required reading, or at least heavily cited in Womens Studies programs across the US. If she had lived, and not foolishly signed away the rights, V.Solanas would have made a comfortable living.
maybee is right. I don't understand why it is always assumed that two commenters who line up on the same side of an issue, particularly if they are on the left, are the same person. Renee is Catholic and I believe that she's coming at this from that angle. Inga is standard issue feminist and leftist. Theyve both arrived at the same authoritarian conclusion that words are as bad as deeds and should be punished, but not for the same reasons.
And Brett Easton Ellis was the hot thing in New York literary/progressive circles thirty years ago.
His stuff too is (or recently was) very common in universities.
Remember when Lenny Bruce was a leftist hero and free speech martyr? Nowadays, he'd cause riots at Berkeley.
This is so much less interesting now that I realize it's Morgan Spurlock (whoever that is), not Morgan Freeman.
And that stuff in the Duke kids email is certainly snark about what the university was making them read. This was, after all, the epitome of modern English literature.
“They've both arrived at the same authoritarian conclusion that words are as bad as deeds and should be punished, but not for the same reasons.”
Don’t attempt to speak for me. Deeds are far worse than mere words and the punishment should reflect that.
Inga: "Deeds are far worse than mere words and the punishment should reflect that."
That is not the case in any lefty controlled institution.
Anywhere.
At any time.
Keep pretending otherwise but the evidence over the last couple if hundred years is irrefutably overwhelming.
Unlike you, we dont pretend history started anew this morning.
I have finally reached the blessed state of not caring about anything the she troll says anymore. It's a good feeling people, you should aspire to it.
calling for is for men to behave like gentlemen
Most men are gentlemen. And most women are ladies. The male and female chauvinist pigs are few and far between, but they are enabled, even normalized, through a religious/moral/legal code that denies individual dignity and intrinsic value of human life, denies civil rights and human rights.
here's a modest proposal: we can keep these sick, disgusting males off our campuses and out of the workplace by administering a simple test.
as part of the college admissions and job interview process, we will read sick jokes to males and gauge their reactions.
"what do you call a one-legged woman?"
"Eileen."
"What do you call a woman with no arms or legs?"
"Patty"
if they laugh, or even smile slightly, you know they are violent, sexist, ableist pigs and should spend the rest of their lives cleaning toilets.
If they frown and exclaim "I am deeply offended by that disgusting sexist joke!" They might pass muster, although there are other tests they will have to pass before we can ensure that their toxic masculinity will not infect our safe spaces. they have to show disgust and revulsion when shown pictures of assault rifles and Trump rallies, for instance.
Inga, men are punished for words on American campuses everyday. (So are women, come to think of it. Just try inviting Ann Coulter to give a speech in Madison.). Ben Shapiro, an Orthodox Jew who is about 5 ft. Tall, has to pay colleges big fees for "security" because his words drive leftists to commit violent acts. and his words are considered far worse then their actions. you are willfully ignoring a basic tenet of the left: that word and thought crimes= actual violence.
exiledonmainstreet said...
If they laugh, or even smile slightly, you know they are violent, sexist, ableist pigs and should spend the rest of their lives cleaning toilets.
Men are replicants.
Twenty years ago colleges made kids read the SCUM manifesto and Brett Easton Ellis, and not the Iliad.
These days, from my inside reports, they dont even do that.
Really, the worst thing about US colleges is not the ideological atmosphere but the intellectual atmosphere, such as it is. They rage about stupid things because all they know are stupid things.
Nothing strikes me as more 'beta' than calling other men "beta" all of the time.
Renee said...
I think it's apparent we have a long way to go, if we want to make any progress.
No. We have a long way to go if we want perfection. To make any progress, we only have to go the slightest distance, as long as it is in the direction of progress.
tim in vermont said...
Nothing strikes me as more 'beta' than calling other men "beta" all of the time.
That's a very meta-beta comment.
Or is it beta-meta?
Buwaya argues: Really, the worst thing about US colleges is not the ideological atmosphere but the intellectual atmosphere, such as it is. They rage about stupid things because all they know are stupid things.
You're a fair dinkum thinkum, buwaya. ;-)
In universities today, among both students and staff, activism has replaced intellectual exercise.
I am part of the problem. We all are.
Fuck you very much, Morgan. I seem to have gone my entire adult life somehow knowing that calling a co-worker "sexy pants" or some such is wholly inappropriate. Call me crazy, but you might just be an asshole and assholes like you are the problem.
The solution, Morgan, is to stop being an asshole yourself and not to raise little assholes that will follow in your asshole footsteps .
Exiled:
I'll agree to your modest proposal, if it works both ways. For example, we tell the women the same jokes. If they reply "That's not funny!", she immediately graduates with a degree in Women's Studies, saving society 4 years of wasted time "educating" her when she clearly already mastered the subject.
You could also tell them these jokes:
"What do you call a man with no arms and no legs in front of your house?"
"Matt."
"What do you call a man with no arms and no legs in the ocean?"
"Bob."
If she yells "That's not funny!" to the Eileen and Patty jokes, and laughs at the Matt and Bob jokes, she gets her Master's in Women's Studies.
I found both jokes funny but, then, I find most jokes funny.
Wow, Quinn! Your versions are even funnier! :-D
In universities today, among both students and staff, activism has replaced intellectual exercise.
A consequence of expanding enrollment and affirmative action. Let's face it, figuring out reasons to hate others is easy. Understanding 18th century philosophy in a different language or chemical engineering in any language is hard. People who can't keep up aren't going to sit in the tough classes and fail. They're going to find something they can be successful in.
In my day math and science majors who couldn't hack it became psychology or education majors.
He's saying this stuff just to get laid.
"what do you call a one-legged woman?"
"Eileen."
I've got your offensive right here.....
What do you call a one legged woman in Japan?
Irene.
Thanks mockturtle! Two more for you:
"What do you call a man with no arms and no legs water-skiing?"
"Skip."
"What do you call a man with no arms and no legs in a pile of leaves?"
"Russell."
Thank you! I'm here all week! Try the vodka!
Gahrie: RACIST, SEXIST!RACIST! SEXIST!
there. I've just earned my M.A. In Women's Studies!
and why do they call it a Masters Degree anyway? sexist AND offensive to African Americans.
Can I get a non-participation trophy?
Per Rick: A consequence of expanding enrollment and affirmative action. Let's face it, figuring out reasons to hate others is easy. Understanding 18th century philosophy in a different language or chemical engineering in any language is hard. People who can't keep up aren't going to sit in the tough classes and fail. They're going to find something they can be successful in.
I don't think that's the whole story. At some point--in the late 60's--many a college instructor [as well as some high school teachers] decided it was cool to be one of the young rebels rather than one of the wise elders. Alas, many parents made this same tragic mistake. No one wanted to grow up.
and why do they call it a Masters Degree anyway? sexist AND offensive to African Americans.
Indeed. But your undergraduate degree is even worse...it's a Bachelor's.
(Bachelors were originally knights with no estates)
Who is this guy? What a sob sister.
A law suit won’t always be necessary, that’s a last resort scenario.
Right... Anyone who doesn't immediately file a lawsuit will be deemed guilty as charged.
Otherwise they'd file a lawsuit, they'll tell us.
Not to mention Inga's approach turns justice on its head: you are now guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. Any idea how you prove you didn't do something?
Imagine if you could be charged with shoplifting on the say-so of another and if you disagreed, you'd have to sue your accuser to be found "not guilty".
This is what's being proposed.
Um, no, Morgan, we are NOT all part of ofthe problem. Your dirtvaggery is yours to own, not to share.
What do you call a dog with no legs?
Doesn't matter, he won't come when you call him.
That's a very meta-beta comment.
Yes, that's an idea that is impossible to express in English.
This is the sort of thing you see from a man who knows stories about him are about to hit the press, and this way it's not a huge surprise.
No, Spurlock, we are not the problem. You are the problem.
“Not to mention Inga's approach turns justice on its head: you are now guilty until proven innocent in a court of law. Any idea how you prove you didn't do something?”
I didn’t say you’re guilty if someone accuses you, why would you assume that is my stance? If many women accuse you and they all have similar stories the likelihood of guilt is increased, but a man has a right to defend himself and get his day in court of need be. Women for years didn’t come forward and report, so should they go back to being silent? What is your solution?
"I didn’t say you’re guilty if someone accuses you, why would you assume that is my stance?"
Wow, do you have gall.
Because that was effectively your position on Moore.
"If many women accuse you and they all have similar stories the likelihood of guilt is increased"
Wrong. So utterly wrong. The only thing many women accusing a man proves is that someone would profit greatly from that man being destroyed.
You know, like Democrats have profited from many accusations against Moore.
“Because that was effectively your position on Moore.”
9 women. Not just one. Moore was running for a Federal Office. He could’ve testified under oath to his innocence BEFORE the election, he declined.
I mean, what exactly was the point in accusations of "he asked me out when I was 18 years old"? There is absolutely nothing wrong with that, especially when, as reported, it was with her parent's consent. There really is nothing wrong with 14 either, with parent's consent!
When my father and mother met in Havana, he was 21 and she was 14. She would run home from school every day so she could pretend to ignore him (that's her version of the story - he passed away in 1994.). From the day they started officially dating to the day they were married, they were never allowed to be alone for a moment without a chaperone - in fact, my mother says the only time she disrespected her father was when he wouldn't let them go get an ice cream down the street without a chaperone when the wedding was only a week away. Her father won the argument. THAT is what always protected the 14 and 16 year old girls and was intended to keep them virgins - meaning SAFE - until they were married or at least older. Which is apparently what we all want now. I'm old enough to remember otherwise.
The Left has cheerfully done its best to destroy cultural institutions like religion and chaperones and marriage that presented any option that could be considered more virtuous than what their basest instincts would find more interesting.
Now they're finally coming around to realize why all those rules existed in the first place. And they'll replace all those rules, but with 12 more ounces of hate per serving.
The 1970's was a bit too soon after the deliberate breakdown of the institutions was underway to instantly reverse 4000 years of human history where a pretty girl of 16 that wasn't married was an old maid in pretty much every human culture.
Am I the only person who ever watched Fiddler on the Roof?
Or Gone With The Wind?
By the hysterical and utterly ahistorical rules applied to Roy Moore by the vast bulk of your "many accusations", I wouldn't exist, nor my 3 brothers and sisters or my parent's 40 year marriage that ended in his death. So - kiss my ass.
When I saw 284 comments, I knew it was an Inga thread.
In my day math and science majors who couldn't hack it became psychology or education majors.
In my day, Zoology and Chemistry majors hated premeds because we got all the As.
Hardly worth it now.
“The Left has cheerfully done its best to destroy cultural institutions like religion and chaperones and marriage that presented any option that could be considered more virtuous than what their basest instincts would find more interesting.”
The Family Values movement of the Right certainly has had it’s fair share of moral failures.
He could’ve testified under oath to his innocence BEFORE the election, he declined.
Someone needs a refresher course on now our justice system works....
"The Family Values movement of the Right certainly has had it’s fair share of moral failures."
All humans have moral failures. The Family Values movement understood that better than you do.
You know what's the worst moral failure of all?
Teaching that moral failure isn't failure at all, and virtue is the true failure.
The Family Values movement never did that. Your side has been cheering moral failure on for my entire lifetime, until 5 weeks ago.
When I saw 284 comments, I knew it was an Inga thread.
Time Magazine will probably name her 'Troll of the Year'.
“Someone needs a refresher course on now our justice system works....“,
Gahrie,
Allred was trying to get him to testify against under oath.
“Gloria Allred, the attorney representing one of Roy Moore's accusers, is demanding that he testify under oath about sexual misconduct allegations against him in exchange for handing over a key piece of evidence to third-party experts.”
The Hill
Right, and 6 months later we'd find out the attorney interrogating Moore under oath sent texts saying "Jones should've won 1,200,000 to 0."
Inga says guilty until proven innocent. Screw the Constitution and all the civil rights it provides -- it's the reckoning!
Regarding women who married young, there is a city in South Africa called Ladysmith. It is named for the wife of Sir Harry Smith, Governor of the Cape Colony from 1847 to 1852. Harry Smith had an extensive military career, including service as a junior office during Wellington's Peninsular Campaign, in the US at the Battle of Bladensburg (and the burning of Washington, DC), and ultimately at Waterloo. She was with him throughout the Peninsular Campaign and at Waterloo. The two were married when she was just 14 years old.
Georgette Heyer wrote a wonderful, though necessarily fictionalized, biography of this beautiful and courageous woman titled The Spanish Bride, which one can buy through the Althouse Amazon portal.
@Qwinn: "Your side has been cheering moral failure."
Which is why the Reckoning is already turning back into the Narrative. The left can't face a true Reckoning, because it would expose the utter bankruptcy of all lefty leaders, with the possible exception of O, for the last generation: Bill, Hill, Ted, and in media, Charlie and Travis, and Harvey--for starters. Going back to JFK and LBJ, at least. It would expose the fact that they have been peddling condescending nonsense, in their usual shameless power-hungry fashion, for a generation. Moral failure has been their MO: a tool in the denial of character, the undermining of standards, the transvaluation of values. Gerry Studds got an ovation. Alcee Hastings got voted into office. Ted K was a lion of the Senate. They stood up for Polanski: anal rape of a drugged young girl was nothing to them.
These people now presume to lecture us.
Christians frequently fall short. Christianity is not a religion for the perfect, but for the fallen. you'd think Inga, who calls herself a Christian, would understand one of the fundamental tenets of Christianity- everyone sins and Gods forgiveness is available for those who repent. she doesn't get it because leftism is really her religion and there is no forgiveness in leftism. Hillary said conservatives are not only deplorable but irredeemable. well, if someone is irredeemable, then there's not much you can do with such a person. Or rather, leftists know exactly what to do wth such people, which is why 100 million people judged irredeemable by them were murdered by leftist governments during the 20th century.
The memetic system of "the left" is very likely Satanic work. This is well understood in conservative Catholic circles, and is often alluded to in testimony from Marian apparitions especially.
There is, after all, a rather supernatural aspect to the flows of ideas, immaterial and inexplicable as mass phenomena. Why an idea catches on this year and not last year, why values suddenly flip, and good becomes evil and vice versa, is not really under human control.
Pope John Paul II was very sympathetic to this view.
Exiled reminds us: Christians frequently fall short. Christianity is not a religion for the perfect, but for the fallen.
Mark 2:17: "When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance. "
I'm currently re-reading C.S. Lewis' The Screwtape Letters. What a gem!
"I'm finally ready to listen." Well, isn't that special. He sounds like an awful person, not only in his behavior toward women, but his oh so humble attempt to deflect blame.
I've known feminist men like him who lick their lips while recounting all the ways they've been terrible to women.
Morgan URL k, fatuosjackalope, first he had that film about supersizing that WA stupider than the mouth of the flint river, than CNN gave him a talkshow he did something stupid thing in pakiatab
Inga: "Gahrie, Allred was trying to get him to testify against under oath"
LOL
That's not how any of this works.
I resent this Spurlock slime telling me that I am part of the problem. Some of us have NEVER engaged in the kind of sexual misconduct that Spurlock confesses.
I suspect it makes him feel better to believe that we all do the same thing, but we don't. He is a slime ball. I wish we had stocks like in the old days for people like him so his victims could publicly pelt him with tomatoes etc.
Time Magazine will probably name her 'Troll of the Year'.
All five of Time's readers will be enraptured.
Matt Damon gets it:
“The Louis C.K. thing, I don’t know all the details. I don’t do deep dives on this, but I did see his statement, which kind of, which [was] arresting to me. When he came out and said, “I did this. I did these things. These women are all telling the truth.” And I just remember thinking, “Well, that’s the sign of somebody who — well, we can work with that.”
No idea what the guy did, but he’s obviously rehabable because he validated anything the women would care to say about him.
I am part of the problem. We all are.
No. You are. Leave the rest of us out of it.
Post a Comment