"We said all there is to say..."

(Equalist)

Okay, okay, okay... I suspect I get it. 

I should stop browsing social media, becoming flustered or disappointed, then responding here. It makes nonsense. We all agree - people are mostly stupid. I see that now, and I hear your voices. I've learned my lesson. 

The prudish liberals have irked me lately, but that's because I have so precious few conservative friends, for whatever reason I still very much enjoy arguing with them. Arguing with liberals only confuses them and makes me feel sad. They are attuned to arguing with conservatives exclusively, such that ending up in an argument with another takes them by surprise. If there is one thing that liberals no longer want it is surprises. Stupefaction is no fun for the losing party. They're used to being right - anyone that argues is evil, like... conservative-evil. It doesn't matter what you want to conserve. The attempt to conserve liberal ideals is depraved - it's a form of ver. obsolescence.

My Latin friends will see that joke one way, my tech friends another.

So, I relinquish my squatter rights on Facebook, as well as my squirter rights on many other sites. Being a liberal doesn't work or matter any more. I will shuffle my allegiances towards the neo- of the next. 

I have to be careful, though. To disagree with liberals makes them believe that you support Trump. They only seem to understand rightness and wrongness - theirs and yours. The more you question, the more you are just Making America Great Again.

Who knows what socially restorative slogan they'll concoct soon. 

Barack / Hope - Trump / Make. 

It almost boggles my mind that when I tried to find an online image of Trump, emulating the HOPE image of Obama with the MAKE tagline it's not there. Has NOBODY been paying attention to the convenient abbreviation of thought in the form of slogans, the war of noun and verb?

(Hope)

Where is the Trump - Make response to the above image?

I guess the cleverest designers in America have forgotten or overlooked the secondary definition of the word:

Make (noun) - the manufacturer or trade name of a particular product. (example: TRUMO)

There are days I wish I was a graphic designer, other days I nap. Trump has made nothing of value that I can buy - the Trumpiest outcome of bad Coca-Colonialism. You can not love the choreographed success of Michael Jackson and still wonder where and why Trump succeeds in this culture. The Kardashian vote has spoken; they will speak again.

The simple term, MAKE, is more cutting than any of the accusations made about him otherwise.

Wouldn't it be ironic if irony was dead, or on the make?

The American mind is no longer tuned to hearing opposing arguments from their own side (irony). It is best not to confuse anyone in this post-polar-partisan-paradox-period. 

This is the best America bothered with:

(Poop)

Moving on:

Yes, automatic guns are stupid. Vegas is the American translation for Jesus. Who would have guessed that selling automatic guns freely could ever cause a problem there? I mean, whom. I would have never imagined that letting civilians buy automatic weapons would not work out perfectly for everybody. Wasn't that the argument? All that it takes is good guys with guns. All of it, mind numbingly bad. The arguments are even worse than the behavior. Then, we just contend with the sound and result of gunfire. 

And yes, Tom Petty. I grew up loving his albums, particularly Damn the Torpedoes and the few albums that came before and after. He was the south's Bob Dylan, for a brief time. He knew how to tell stories in song and he knew how to be a rock and roll star.

Now, he gone.

I liked Gloria Steinem. She was a fun feminist to listen to, at times. The image below does not represent anything she ever said or wrote, but I found it online and liked it, and fondly remembered the pro-abortion era of Steinem.

I know I said I would stop this just above. That was then, this is here.

I liked Germaine Greer more than Steinem. What a woman. That's who you want on your side, GG. I know I want her on mine.

The town hall in which she eviscerates Normal Mailer should be required viewing for today's sex tyrannists. That was my Battle of the Sexes - Greer won. She was clearly the smartest person in the room, consistently offering the best arguments, and with a confident flair that was inspiring, if not more than inspiration. There for a brief moment in the 60s and 70s it seemed as if a dialogue was forming. By the 80s there was much needed listening happening, by the 90s the jihadists had taken over the feminist conversation. The Cher Guevaras won. 

Now, I just want them all to have equality in space away from me.

To watch the clips of her, Greer, arguing with Norman Mailer... it was interesting and exciting in my early years. I loved her, and anybody else that had such great counter punches for that rotten old oaf, Mailer.

I read The Naked and the Dead.  It lacked many things, like nudity.


If you watch that video above (there may be better recorded clips online), she openly accuses him of latent homosexuality, to give you an idea just how much the times have changed. Women somehow lost the ability to be the reactive sex in the battle for the rights of others. This is natural I suppose, white women enjoyed far more equality than did women of color.

Dave Chapelle responded well to a white woman lodging her public complaint of "equal suffering" towards him: You was in on the heist, you just didn't like your cut. 

Men regularly praise comedians yet live guardedly watchful lives, afraid to say anything that might be funny without an apology in advance, as if there is a special category of human that speaks their truths for them, willing to tow the strictly aggrieved line, wherever it may lead. They all have wives and girlfriends, I guess. Who knows. I fail to understand what it is they believe any more, except perhaps that all of life should have an HR department they can run to when it's time to tattle-tale.

Their grievance: comedic ambiguity used freely in conversation by a person of obvious guilt.    

Being for equality is not enough - you must be willing to examine the reasons for inequality as well as the veracity of the claims. Our contemporaries seem content to do neither or both, though they bite when the firing is hot.

Useless. 

As for the feminists: the second-wave comprised the most compelling conversations and arguments. Once they allowed the Andrea Dworkins to start telling women why they should or shouldn't enjoy sex then many lost the purpose, essence, and point of how and where equality meets freedom: in consensual adult choice.

I use none of those words lightly. I have argued unselfishly for the pro-sex feminists and always will. I'll also argue for the anti-sex feminists if they demonstrate damage, beyond having to suffer the private or public joy of others. So far, no takers.

Being offended is never good enough.

The ever advancing cults of masculinity, femininity, and the betweens is a turn off. We need more moderate voices. All I hear is the nothing hum of liberal correction, anti-compelling. When did everybody stop arguing for everybody? How do we return to that point in the conversation, without employing patriotism, prejudice, or worse?


When did romance become silence, love rape, and consent complaint?

Something inside of you is feeling like I do, we said all there is to say. - Tom Petty 

Loneliness is never more cruel than when it is felt in close propinquity with someone who has ceased to communicate. - Germaine Greer

Steinem did not write this, but who cares, she was once an undercover Bunny:

.