Running out of invectives and bad words …

I’ve noted many times that all humans have a point of diminishing astonishment.

The more pervasive something becomes, the less impact it has.  The surprise, any shock value, and any reaction to whatever it is diminishes the more you see of it. 

It then has to move a whole magnitude to be noticeable. But some things have a finite limit; there’s no way to move another magnitude.  Incremental moves simply don’t cut it.   

That’s the big problem with name calling and cursing.  There are only so many horrible things to call someone before you run out of stuff. And only so many bad words, too. 

It’s like hearing a three-year-old say “asshole”; at first you’re shocked, but then you realize people say that all the time – now even on shows running on basic cable. Maybe once it was a bad word, yet now, not so much. It’s lost its impact.    

In today’s political environment, the principle is the same.

Those on the left, in particular, are desperately searching for new things to disparage people they hate.  They already used up homophobe, xenophobe, and misogynist early on.  Now, however, they’ve overused bigot, racist, white supremacist, fascist, and Nazi, to the point that where these once had real meanings and emotional impact, they’re just words today.

Someone uses those today and you think: what a clueless asshole. 

They’ve also run the ever-popular “anti” into the ground:  anti-gay, anti-women, anti-poor, anti-children, anti-science, anti-immigrant, and whatever else they can attach an “anti” to.

That’s just way too many “anti” whatevers to keep track of; the result is a collective yawn as it all becomes just more white noise.  Especially when they can’t defend any of these charges with concrete proof – it’s just more name calling.  And just more of what everyone’s heard already.

So the left and their pals in Hollywood and the media moved on to bad words in their latest campaigns of shock and awe.    

George Carlin, years ago, had a great bit: “The Seven Words You Can Never Say On Television.” While they’ve not exhausted all those quite yet, they're off to a good start.  

They've skipped past "mother******" probably because that would be be seen as cultural appropriation. I've noticed they've also not used "c***sucker" (although Stephen Colbert came close), maybe because that would be considered disparaging to some of their base.    

Let's go with “shit,” one of the basic building blocks of cursing. 

There was a time, believe it or not, when you never heard that word on TV, except for movies and series running on cable networks. Sure, you said it when you stubbed your toe or hit your thumb with a hammer, but that was you, not some network anchor on live TV. 

However, after Trump in a meeting used the phrase “shitholes” to describe – accurately, I might add – certain countries around the less-developed world, shit was everywhere on cable news and opinion shows. Talking heads couldn’t wait to say shit on air as often as possible. Like little kids.  

Now, nobody gives a shit about hearing someone say shit on TV.   

   

The gold standard for bad words used to be fuck.  And, of course, its derivatives.

A few years back liberals and Democrats were aghast when Dick Cheney told Patrick Leahy “go fuck yourself.” (Which was well deserved.) Now we have Robert De Niro at an awards ceremony proudly and repeatedly saying “fuck Trump” to the cheers of the audience. 

Democrat Senator Kirstin Gillibrand may have set a new record for her use of fuck and its derivatives in a speech not long ago.  And most recently, some unnamed Congressional intern shouted “Mr. President, fuck you!” in the hallway as Trump passed by on his way to a meeting.

Fuck is now on its way to losing its shock value.  That’s sad.  But overuse does that. 

So the left is forced to plumb new depths.  They are doing so eagerly.  Comedians and celebrities are now exploring the infamous four-letter “c” word as an alternative. Unfortunately for them, that one can only be applied properly to women. Nonetheless, there’s been a outbreak of the c-word being applied to women like Melania Trump and others deemed horrible humans by the left.

This from folks who claim to be the champions for treating women with respect.   

My, my. How times have changed. 

At some point, the left will have to reboot the invectives and bad words and start over. They’ve worn out the usual ones. They’ll have to go back to the basics.   

Maybe calling someone stinky-butt or a poopy-head is poised for a comeback. Might as well, since these are about as meaningful as what the left is using today. 

A brutally honest conversation about illegal immigration …

We have a legal right to decide who gets to come into our country. Much less stay. It’s not a civil-rights issue. It’s not a question of international law. 

And we’re not legally required to adhere to a poem on the Statue of Liberty.  I find it rich that many advocates for illegal immigrants quote that poem as if it has the weight of law.

It’s a poem, for God’s sake.

Even more disingenuous are those who quote the Bible to claim we have a moral obligation to give a free pass to illegal immigrants. 

Spare me the pontificating.  Especially when many of the same people openly ridicule and revile anyone else who uses the Bible as a guide to how they should conduct themselves. Then when they act on their beliefs, what’s in the Bible doesn’t matter at all. 

Ask the folks at Chick-fil-A. Or Hobby Lobby. Or the Little Sisters of the Poor.  Or the bakers in Colorado.  Or just about anyone else these nouveau-righteous prigs have attacked. 

Hypocrites. No, I take that back – assholes.  But I digress.        

It makes me crazy when Democrats, liberals, and their pals in the media – all of whom couldn't otherwise care less about “morality” most of the time – claim the whole question of what to do about illegal immigration is one of morality. 

Keeping would-be illegal immigrants out is immoral; kicking out those here illegally already is also immoral. Yet protecting violent illegal immigrant criminals from deportation is moral. 

Talk about selective morality. 

Then there’s their Orwellian use of weasel words like “undocumented” to describe people here illegally. As if being here illegally is simply a matter of missing the proper papers.

By their standards, I can call myself an “undocumented” airline pilot and be allowed to pilot a 747, even though I have no formal training, have no pilot’s license, and no legal right to do so.  But hey, it’s just a matter of paperwork, right? Merely a technicality. 

Calling illegal immigrants simply “undocumented” is dishonest. They didn’t lose their paperwork. Their dog didn’t eat their immigration forms. And their documents aren’t still sitting somewhere, left behind by accident. So stop pretending their illegality is just a technicality.

They are here illegally. That makes them criminals, regardless of why they came here.  Building a border wall is akin to locking your doors to keep other criminals out. When our law enforcement catches a criminal, they arrest them and then prosecute them. I fail to see why illegal immigrants should be treated any differently.      

That’s why I have such a hard time with the whole immigration debate.  If I felt that illegal immigrants crossed our border not knowing they were committing a crime, I might feel different. But the hard truth is they know they are committing a crime; they just hope to get away with it.  That’s no different than a run-of-the-mill criminal.  So why do they expect special treatment? 

The media can show all the tear-jerker videos of illegals being deported and leaving behind their bawling broods. They can tell stories about someone who has never broken any other laws, but because they came here illegally years ago is afraid of being deported.  They can go on and on about the plight of children brought here illegally by their parents.  They can show caravans of migrants hoping to gain asylum, including the mothers hoping to drop their anchor baby here instead of Mexico.      

I don’t care. 

I have lost any sympathy whatsoever those already here illegally. If someone has been living and working here for years and never applied for US citizenship, time’s up. Get out.

I especially abhor many of those now using their kids, or some kid that may or may not be theirs, as a get-in-the-US-for-free card. Make no mistake: that was their plan from the get-go.  They counted on politicians and our media to make the case for them, using kids as hostages.       

Democrats and the media are doing their part to further these immigrants’ plan. Both are publicly horrified we’re separating those same kids from their parents – or someone claiming to be their parents – when they try to breach our borders. We’re obviously monsters.   

How can we be so cruel? How can we be so heartless? After all these kids have been through to get here: the hardships, the life-threatening travel, the scrounging for food, water and shelter, the dangers they faced – how can we possibly take them away from the adults they traveled with?

Simple. Those adults put those children in danger. They don’t deserve to have custody of any kids anymore. They’ve shown they are clearly irresponsible. When anyone is that negligent of the welfare of children, possibly even their own, they can’t be trusted.

If they weren’t illegal immigrants trying to get in, and just another ordinary American parent, Child Services agencies across the country would take those kids away from them, too, for putting children through all that. Think about that for a moment.   

Those adults knew perfectly well what they were doing and therefore should be held solely responsible for the consequences. They knew the peril they put the children in to get here. They knew what would happen when they got to our border. And they didn’t care. They hoped they could use a child as a shield to bypass our border enforcement laws. 

It was callous and calculated.  Just as it is now when Democrats and the media make it seem that Maria and Pepe had no idea they would be separated from the kids they brought. I’m sorry for the children caught up in this, but the adults who brought them are entirely to blame.  

The adults knew the law. All of them did before they started trekking toward our border.

There are few innocent adults here in all this – just people trying to use children as pawns. We can’t allow anyone to use children that way.  Forget the sob stories and the made-up propaganda about “child prisons” and realize what many of these people really are: hostage takers. 

If we send a message that it’s okay, we’ll put more innocent children at risk. As it is, the threat of separating children from the adults they’re travelling with should be a powerful deterrent to anyone who cares about the welfare and safety of those children. 

We should not be afraid to continue the practice.  Separating those children from those adults may make for heart-wrenching video, but it’s often in the best interests of the children. 

The bigger problem is continually waffling on how we enforce our immigration laws. It’s the perpetual ambiguity that encourages more illegal immigration.      

As harsh as this sounds, highly publicized zero tolerance is the only answer.

We can’t leave any doubt about what will happen. It needs to be crystal clear that you simply can’t cross our border illegally.  I say turn back at the border anyone trying to cross illegally – adults with children, pregnant mothers, unaccompanied minors, whoever – and particularly anyone faking demands for asylum when they’ve already been offered asylum elsewhere. 

Like Mexico. Which many of them were.    

Illegals already here screwed the pooch and diminished any compassion I might have had. 

They’ve done this by demanding rights they don’t have and don’t deserve. They’ve forged documents to get benefits to which they are not entitled. They’ve belied their real feelings about assimilating into America by insisting we must adapt to them, not they to us.  

They see no need to learn English, or to follow our laws, and many of them publicly and openly mock us for thinking we can ever kick them out. That's chutzpah. 

Which prompts me to ask: Who the Hell do they think they are? 

Spineless Republicans are too afraid to deal with this. They’re afraid Hispanics will not vote for them if we actually enforce our immigration laws. 

Hispanics here illegally won’t, of course. 

But maybe Republicans should talk to Hispanics other than bullshit-artist activists like Jorge Ramos, Congressman Luis V. Gutiérrez, the propagandists in the media, and others.

Any number of recent polls show that a majority of Hispanics here legally, especially immigrants who went through the legal process to become citizens, are opposed to illegal immigration and amnesty for illegal immigrants, and support cracking down on illegal immigration. Almost 74% are opposed to sanctuary city laws that protect violent illegals from deportation. 

And here’s why: they think too many illegal immigrants are gaming the system, burdening public schools, draining public assistance programs, reducing wages, and taking jobs away from citizens. They can’t understand why people who come here illegally should be praised and given a pass for no other reason than they refused to respect and follow our immigration laws.

Doubt this? Talk to some Hispanics who are US citizens or in the process of becoming one. They’re fed up, too.  Many want the border wall as much as Trump and a lot of other Americans, for many of the same reasons. 

It’s not about race, to them; it’s about fairness and equal justice under the law.  

We need to fix our immigration system, that’s true. But when we start the process, we need to put the priority on equal justice and fairness to our own citizens first. 

There’s absolutely no reason to give preferential treatment to any illegal immigrants. 

The paradox of tolerance ...

I recently read something so apparent yet overlooked.

An author discussed his view of the conflict between relativism and tolerance, in the context of our current society. (Bear with me, this will go somewhere.)  

Relativism – grossly oversimplified – asserts that morality and what’s right or wrong are only artificial constructs relative to specific cultures and societies and are often based on circumstances unique to each. Therefore, anybody’s interpretation of morality, for example, largely depends on who they are as a product of their specific culture or society.

In essence, all mature cultures and societies have evolved their own set of rules and taboos over time that work for the people within them. What’s acceptable and the norm in one may be anathema to others, while what’s acceptable and the norm in others may be anathema to them. It’s a mistake to judge another’s culture and values solely by those of your own, in other words. 

Tolerance, greatly simplified, promotes the acceptance of the validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values. Validity does not necessarily mean agreement; it just implies others’ beliefs and values should be respected.    

The two seem complimentary.  And haven’t both been taught as cultural ideals to us generation after generation?  Especially tolerance for people from other cultures, and people with beliefs that differ from your own?  If you don’t you’re a bigot, right?

But what happens when tolerance is not a two-way street? 

What if a person’s concept of intolerance is shaped only by their own values and their personal beliefs? What happens when one side refuses to accept or even acknowledge the possible validity of another’s values?  Does that make them the intolerant one? 

I think it does. Tolerance too often becomes simply a matter of perspective: I’m tolerant because my beliefs and values are right; you’re intolerant because you don’t agree with me.        

This is precisely how extreme intolerance under the guise of tolerance can rear its ugly head.  That’s when the name-calling and sometimes violence start. 

That’s why those fighting so hard – sometimes violently – to oppose anyone spreading “intolerance” seem to be the ones far more intolerant than the people they’re attacking.

We see that in our politics all too often these days. Nobody seems willing to entertain the possibility other views might be valid or should be respected at all. Some don’t even want those views to be publicly expressed, much less discussed rationally, because those views have already been judged wrong by them, according to their standards. 

We’re in an era where we’ve divided ourselves into what might be called microcultures – each with its own value system that transcends our broader traditional American culture.  

Consequently, tolerance or intolerance are increasingly in the eye of the beholder, dependent on what their microculture dictates.  Cultural and racial diversity might be the popular cause these days, but diversity of opinions – or even the tolerance of diverse opinions, is becoming less and less welcome among many of these microcultures.  Their opinions must be right and righteous because everyone in their microculture agrees on them; therefore, anyone who disagrees is wrong and possibly evil.    

So much for relativism. And so much for accepting the possible validity of differing beliefs and values without judging these solely against your own beliefs and values.

Within certain microcultures, supporting existing laws that prohibit illegal immigration is intolerant; opposing enforcing those same laws exhibits tolerance.  Sheltering and protecting from deportation violent criminals here illegally is tolerant; favoring deportation of those same violent criminals is intolerant. Encouraging the immigration of people from cultures and religions that support female genital mutilation, the killing of homosexuals, the killing of Christians and Jews, and forced marriages of children to adult men, is a sign of tolerance; anyone who simply questions why we’d want to bring in those people whose values are so alien to ours, is intolerant.

It’s all been decided. So shut up. 

This is just nuts. This is one-way tolerance. 

There is real, objective intolerance in the world everyone can agree on.  Nobody disagrees that neo-Nazis and white supremacists are intolerant. Nobody wants to listen to their hateful rhetoric against Jews, blacks, homosexuals, immigrants, or whomever.  But they have a legal right under our Constitution to express their views as long as they are not inciting violence.   

Yet when they are physically attacked by armed protestors who want to silence them in the name of fighting intolerance, who are the intolerant?

Shift scenarios for a moment.  At the rally in DC following Trump’s inauguration, those opposed to Trump talked about blowing up the White House. Later, an actor mused about assassinating Trump.  A comedian held up an image of her holding a severed head intended to look like Trump. They said Trump deserved it because of his intolerance toward women, blacks, immigrants, Muslims, homosexuals, the transgendered, single mothers, and the poor, among others.

They said they were standing up against his intolerance.        

People who hated Trump – including the media – didn’t see a problem. By their standards, within their own microculture, this was all fair game.  Yet nobody physically attacked them to prevent them from expressing those hateful and clearly intolerant opinions, did they? If someone had, they would have been crucified for being intolerant of perfectly acceptable views.        

What is tolerance and what isn’t shouldn’t depend entirely on your own values. When someone uses opposition to intolerance as a weapon for their own intolerance, it’s wrong. 

      

Consider the antifa movement. Black-clad anarchists emerge to prevent anyone hearing any message they find intolerant. But who are they to decide what’s acceptable and what isn’t?  Who made them the sole arbiter of what’s allowed and what isn’t?

They gave themselves that role. Supporters of Black Lives Matter have done the same.

Antifa and BLM aren’t alone in deciding what is right and what is wrong. In the name of tolerance, there are now speech codes and prohibited words on college campuses. Administrators and activist groups are shutting down speakers who question open borders, transgender rights, identity politics, and of course racial or gender quotas, among other things. 

Those speakers are deemed “haters” and intolerant. And to protect their students and others from hearing a view that may differ from their own, they are not allowed on campus. 

Speakers have been prevented from fulfilling speaking engagements because they might espouse “intolerant” views. Riots have happened with property damage, assaults on police, and physical attacks on speakers in the name of supporting tolerance.

Meanwhile, speakers who openly promote assassinating police, are in favor of segregating dormitories for black students, support banning whites from certain campus events solely on the basis of their race, blame Jews for all the problems in the Middle East, and cheer for Islamic terrorists who kill innocent women and children, are welcomed with open arms.

Because that’s what tolerance is all about.       

This is positively Orwellian. 

And that, in a nutshell, is the paradox of tolerance.