Na Und?

Sarah Hoyt writes, it’s time to weaponize “so what?”

Dennis Prager is also a fan of that question.

I am aware that we’ll never get rid of every busybody and every delicate flower. They’re human. Hell, sometimes even those of us very opposed to crazy legislation, say “there ought to be a law.” For instance I… No, wait, I can’t remember any instances, certainly not recently. But hey. I probably could, at least for five minutes.

But there is absolutely no reason to give them power. Either legislative, executive or judicial power. Or even power over our neighborhoods, our businesses, or you know, our pets, our sons, or our streets.

For too long we’ve run on “If someone squawks loud enough we’ll do that.”

It’s time to stop it. The wheel isn’t even squeaky. It’s just making noise to get attention.

It’s time to weaponize “So what?”

“I don’t like your car/dog/kid/business/idea/book/etc.” The answer to that, the civilized and decent answer should be “so what?”

“You culturally appropriated your book/music/dress/food” “So what?”

Unless I’m materially harming someone, if they squawk the answer should be so what.

We’re getting “good mannered” into tyranny.

Would-be totalitarians piggy-back on both busybodies and delicate flowers and if we let them will control every aspect of our lives. (See, France, our leader in this.) Our main defense, perhaps our only one is “So what?”

You don’t want to tear down those rules

Sarah Hoyt has a “Man For All Seasons devil speech”.

Outsourced Violence

So far as we know there was never ANY large scale matriarchal society.  EVER.  Not over six thousand years ago, not ever.  Granted, that is the pre-history, and there are no clear narratives.  But absent Gimbutas dreaming that bull’s heads were uteri, there really is not even a glimmer of a trace of a guess that women were ever in charge.  Those vaunted amazons of the steppes turn out to be teen boys, not women at all (now we can analyze DNA from old bones.)

Yes, there have been female fighters throughout history.  They are outliers.  Most “female military” is either honor guard or largely ornamental until the 20th century and the existence of weapons that don’t rely on upper body strength alone.

Which brings us to the reason large scale (there were isolated tribe, yes, in special circumstances) matriarchies are unlikely in the extreme in our past or our future: women aren’t as strong as men.  They just aren’t.

Over the weekend, I watched a weedy teen male whose waist I could encircle with ONE arm lift a cabinet I couldn’t budge.

Sure I’m middle aged, and would have at least lifted it somewhat 30 years ago.  BUT moving it around like it was nothing?  No.

Because 99.9% of men are stronger than all but 1% of women.  Period.  (Barring illness or other impairment.)

So, how was it possible that in prehistory, with no other improvement to human strength, women would rule?

It wasn’t.  The only way women can rule is to convince men to use their muscles on THEIR behalf, which honestly, one way or another, history shows we’ve managed.

So no, we haven’t been afraid of men for six thousand years.  We’ve cooperated in an unstable but so far successful project called civilization. As long as some men will defend women, the bad men who’d make us afraid are kept under control.

But that requires that women don’t go bad en masse, and don’t use the apparatus of a bloated state to oppress all men.

Actress (I think) chickie wants to have all men afraid of every woman.  That’s because her head is stuffed with fecaliths and she doesn’t realize that women can only have power in society by consent of men.  That women’s violence is outsourced to the apparatus of the state.

Make every man afraid of every woman, and the apparatus comes apart.  The center does not hold.  Those big burly men you want to arrest random men on your behalf?  They will instead beat you to near death, tell you to put a burka on and cook them dinner.

This is where this ends.  Using the apparatus of state violence for “advantage” and “to make men afraid has only one end.  The society these idiots want is not even possible, let alone stable.

The end is a return to barbarism, and in barbarism, women are prisoners and chattels, as they’ve always been.

And when male barbarity turns round on you, where will you hide, all the rules of chivalry being flat?

 

Kavanaugh Clean-up

The Black Men Who Identify with Brett Kavanaugh Understand the Stakes

The people aiming to throw out due process will be the ones hurt the most by its absence. To be sure, black victims of lynch mobs weren’t given due process, and it’s been a long battle to guarantee those rights to everyone. It’s a battle that’s still going on.

However, at least in these cases, there was a standard that was being violated. What would those who would eliminate that standard offer in its place?


No, Kavanaugh Didn’t Lie

The media is now engaged in a full-court press to establish that Kavanaugh drank to excess — when he admitted in his testimony that he drank to excess.
[snip]
His specific denial is that he never blacked out. So far, in all the people who knew him who have emerged to say he slurred his words or stumbled when he’d been drinking, no one has credibly alleged that Kavanaugh told them after a bout of drinking that he had no idea where he was or what he did the night before.

The other charges of lying are picayune. A cluster concerns his high-school yearbook and his allegedly dishonest explanation of the slang terms “boof” and “Devil’s Triangle.” His critics say those terms refer to sex acts, whereas Kavanaugh says they refer to flatulence and a drinking game, respectively.

The evidence suggests that he’s right. A history of farting — yes, there is such a thing — notes that “boof” was one slang word for flatulence, and former classmates of Kavanaugh’s wrote a letter saying that they played Devil’s Triangle, and explained how it was done.


The Complete Case for Kavanaugh

by David French, at NRO
A lengthy article, that ends up by saying:

The evidence indicates that Brett Kavanaugh faced false or mistaken claims, responded to those claims with understandable and appropriate emotion, and contested them with truthful testimony. He should be confirmed, and if he’s confirmed expect him to serve until he retires with dignity, intellectual rigor, and the same deep commitment to judicial ethics that we’ve seen throughout his entire career on the federal bench.


Democrats, It’s Time to Recognize That Your Kavanaugh Playbook Didn’t Work

I’d like to think it worked against them.


Rich Lowry’s brilliant column this week: Atticus Finch Was on the Wrong Side. It soooo catches the hypocritical Left in the hypocrisy that cannot be helped if you are an acolyte of the Alinsky School of Public Mayhemery.


NRO Editorials:

Do the Right Thing, Jeff Flake. From the editorial:

Democrats are, predictably, complaining that the FBI investigation was too limited in duration and scope. But since there is no evidence for Ford’s account beyond her own memory — and she herself testified before the Senate last week under oath — there wasn’t much for the FBI to probe.


From the editorial:

None of the people Ford identifies as witnesses to her story say that they recall the party. (Another perjury charge against Kavanaugh is that he exaggerates how exculpatory these witnesses are, but this makes him guilty of slight error, not deceit.) As a report outlined by Judiciary Committee outside counsel Rachel Mitchell makes clear, Ford has repeatedly changed some key details of her account and cannot remember others. (If Kavanaugh had similar slip-ups, the critics would be crying “perjury” about that too.) Mitchell argues that Ford’s allegation does not meet even a preponderance-of-the-evidence standard.


Victor Davis Hanson weighed in with a brilliant analysis, that the Left’s antics and tactics polluting America’s campuses have now come to Capitol Hill. From his piece:

On campus, all can present equally valid narratives. What privileges one story over another is not necessarily any semblance to reality, at least as established by evidence and facts. Instead, powerful victimizers supposedly “construct” truths based on their own self-interests. As a result, self-described victims of historical biases are under no obligation to play by what they consider to be rigged rules of facts, evidence, or testimony.

The women who have known Kavanaugh all his life came out swinging on his behalf. Alexandra DeSanctis recounts some remembrances of a decidedly decent guy. From her report:


Jonah Goldberg says lefties should be thrilled that a “strict constructionist” such as Brett Kavanaugh is appointed to SCOTUS. From his column:

Justice Antonin Scalia, a conservative to the core, hated flag burning just as much as those on the right who favored banning it, but he ruled it constitutionally protected free speech all the same. On criminal procedure, he was often the defendant’s best friend on the Court. Neil Gorsuch, appointed by Trump, is another conservative in the Scalia mold, and in one of his first decisions he joined with the four liberals to deliver a defeat to the Trump administration in Sessions v. Dimaya, an immigration case. Kavanaugh himself threw out one of the first Obamacare lawsuits — hardly the act of a rank partisan.


The polygraph hoopla brought on by Ford’s accusation of Kavanaugh gets a dose of reality from Jibran Kahn. From the start of his piece:

Polygraphs have featured heavily in the discussion because the accuser, Christine Blasey Ford, took one (albeit with a very unusual set of questions). And why shouldn’t they? We’ve all seen spy films and crime dramas with truth-detecting polygraphs, the scourge of the guilty, which only psychopaths have a chance to thwart; their efficacy is broadly accepted, much like the harmlessness of sugar or the fact that lightning never strikes the same place twice. The power of the polygraph is widely believed, and on a bipartisan basis. Jeff Sessions has called for their use in the White House as a way to catch leakers, and Kamala Harris highlighted Ford’s polygraph and Kavanaugh’s lack of one. There is, however, a hitch. Despite the senators’ endorsement, psychologists have argued for decades that polygraphs are built on pseudoscience, and the Supreme Court was aware of this consensus by 1998


Lots more where these came from.

Ritual Defamation

This practice is in the news of late. If you saw any of the Kavanaugh hearings, you saw it in action.

The Practice of Ritual Defamation

How values, opinions and beliefs are controlled in democratic societies.

Laird Wilcox
1990

Defamation is the destruction or attempted destruction of the reputation, status, character or standing in the community of a person or group of persons by unfair, wrongful, or malicious speech or publication. For the purposes of this essay, the central element is defamation in retaliation for the real or imagined attitudes, opinions or beliefs of the victim, with the intention of silencing or neutralizing his or her influence, and/or making an example of them so as to discourage similar independence and “insensitivity” or non-observance of taboos. It is different in nature and degree from simple criticism or disagreement in that it is aggressive, organized and skillfully applied, often by an organization or representative of a special interest group, and in that it consists of several characteristic elements.

Ritual Defamation is not ritualistic because it follows any prescribed religious or mystical doctrine, nor is it embraced in any particular document or scripture. Rather, it is ritualistic because it follows a predictable, stereotyped pattern which embraces a number of elements, as in a ritual.

The elements of a Ritual Defamation are these:

  1. In a ritual defamation the victim must have violated a particular taboo in some way, usually by expressing or identifying with a forbidden attitude, opinion or belief. It is not necessary that he “do” anything about it or undertake any particular course of action, only that he engage in some form of communication or expression.
  2. The method of attack in a ritual defamation is to assail the character of the victim, and never to offer more than a perfunctory challenge to the particular attitudes, opinions or beliefs expressed or implied. Character assassination is its primary tool.
  3. An important rule in ritual defamation is to avoid engaging in any kind of debate over the truthfulness or reasonableness of what has been expressed, only condemn it. To debate opens the issue up for examination and discussion of its merits, and to consider the evidence that may support it, which is just what the ritual defamer is trying to avoid. The primary goal of a ritual defamation is censorship and repression.
  4. The victim is often somebody in the public eye – someone who is vulnerable to public opinion – although perhaps in a very modest way. It could be a schoolteacher, writer, businessman, minor official, or merely an outspoken citizen. Visibility enhances vulnerability to ritual defamation.
  5. An attempt, often successful, is made to involve others in the defamation. In the case of a public official, other public officials will be urged to denounce the offender. In the case of a student, other students will be called upon, and so on.
  6. In order for a ritual defamation to be effective, the victim must be dehumanized to the extent that he becomes identical with the offending attitude, opinion or belief, and in a manner which distorts it to the point where it appears at its most extreme. For example, a victim who is defamed as a “subversive” will be identified with the worst images of subversion, such as espionage, terrorism or treason. A victim defamed as a “pervert” will be identified with the worst images of perversion, including child molestation and rape. A victim defamed as a “racist” or “anti-Semitic” will be identified with the worst images of racism or anti-Semitism, such as lynchings or gas chambers.
  7. Also to be successful, a ritual defamation must bring pressure and humiliation on the victim from every quarter, including family and friends. If the victim has school children, they may be taunted and ridiculed as a consequence of adverse publicity. If they are employed, they may be fired from their job. If the victim belongs to clubs or associations, other members may be urged to expel them.
  8. Any explanation the victim may offer, including the claim of being misunderstood, is considered irrelevant. To claim truth as a defense for a politically incorrect value, opinion or belief is interpreted as defiance and only compounds the problem. Ritual defamation is often not necessarily an issue of being wrong or incorrect but rather of “insensitivity” and failing to observe social taboos.

An interesting aspect of ritual defamation as a practice is its universality. It is not specific to any value, opinion or belief or to any group or subculture. It may be used for or against any political, ethnic, national or religious group. It may, for example, by anti-Semites against Jews, or by Jews against anti-Semites; by rightists against leftists or by leftists against rightists, and so on.

The power of ritual defamation lies entirely in its capacity to intimidate and terrorize. It embraces some elements of primitive superstitious belief, as in a “curse” or “hex.” It plays into the subconscious fear most people have of being abandoned or rejected by the tribe or by society and being cut off from social and psychological support systems.

The weakness of ritual defamation lies in its tendency toward overkill and in its obvious maliciousness. Occasionally a ritual defamation will fail because of poor planning and failure to correctly judge the vulnerability of the victim or because its viciousness inadvertently generates sympathy.

It’s important to recognize and identify the patterns of a ritual defamation. Like all propaganda and disinformation campaigns it is accomplished primarily through the manipulation of words and symbols. It is not used to persuade, but to punish. Although it may have cognitive elements, its thrust is primarily emotional. Ritual Defamation is used to hurt, to intimidate, to destroy, and to persecute, and to avoid the dialogue, debate and discussion upon which a free society depends. On those grounds it must be opposed no matter who tries to justify its use.

The Orville episode, “Majority Rule”, presented an example of ritual defamation. In this case, it was presented as completely spontaneous. I’m not sure if it’s any better when a round of ritual defamation arises spontaneously, as opposed to being directed by some entity pulling the strings.

How to survive a social media mob attack

From John Hawkins at PJ Media.

1. Don’t apologize to the mob
I believe in apologies so much that there’s a chapter in my book 101 Things All Young Adults Should Know that talks about the importance of being willing to say you’re sorry when you mess up. Of course, that’s with your friends, your family, your co-workers, or maybe the person whose shoe you accidentally stepped on.

When social media mobs start yowling for blood because they don’t like a joke you told or they’re offended by some common sentiment you utter, the first thought you may have is, “If I apologize, maybe all of this will go away.” Unfortunately, that is not how it works. To the contrary, an apology is taken as an admission of guilt and evidence that their pressure is working. It’s not about getting an apology for these people; it’s about people with meaningless lives getting a sense of accomplishment by punishing you. Don’t give them the satisfaction. The people who do the best in these situations are inevitably the ones who don’t apologize, aren’t ashamed, and don’t back up one inch.

2. Be prepared to take some losses
The world is full of cowards and people who go along with the crowd. Some of them may be your online “friends,” your social media networks, or even your boss. When the New York Times did a hit piece on me, Twitter pulled all the web page Twitter accounts I own (@rightwingnews, @GrumpySloth1, @Linkiestblog, etc.) without explanation. There was no violation of its rules. Twitter just went along with the crowd. The reality is that people in the middle of social media firestorms do sometimes lose jobs or take temporary hits at their businesses. That may be a shock to the system, but in MOST CASES it’s not really that big of a deal. You lose your job, then you look around and find another one. It may be a setback, usually a minor one, but rarely is it the end of the world. So don’t withdraw from society. Don’t quit. Don’t resign. If other people want to sell you down the river, fine, but don’t do the work of the mob for all of them.

3. Don’t try to reason with them
Social media mobs are made up of outrage junkies. For them, attempting to deal out punishment to someone online lifts their mood and gives meaning to their pointless lives. They don’t care about being fair, about your perspective, or about trying to reach some kind of mutually beneficial understanding. They want to ritually flog you and they expect to take joy in your suffering. The more you suffer, the better they like it. Debate is not suffering. Explaining your thinking is not suffering. Having a discussion with other humans requires a certain amount of good faith that they were are willing to listen, respect your opinion, and change their minds. That’s highly unlikely to happen with members of a social outrage mob. Mute them, block them, or even tell them to screw off if you like, but you’re probably wasting your time trying to have a rational conversation with these people.

4. Don’t take it personally
I will always remember talking to an extraordinarily beautiful woman who was getting trolled over something she had written. One of her trolls had told her that her ears looked weird and apparently, that was a soft spot for her and she was worried about it. So, here we had a stunningly, amazingly beautiful woman with very normal looking ears upset over a random fake comment. Incidentally, this is common. When mobs form, their goal is to hurt and insult you in every way possible and they do. They will attack your looks, your style, your personality, your motives, your family, your everything — and you can have hundreds of people (and/or multiple accounts controlled by the same people) liking really bizarre comments about you that have no bearing in reality. Worse yet, you will typically find that most of your friends WILL NOT rise to your defense. Most will figure you made your bed, so why should they lie in it with you? All this is to be expected. Just let it roll off your back like water off a duck because it really doesn’t have anything to do with you personally. Outrage junkies always need a new fix and whether it’s you or someone else, they just want that sweet outrage.

5. Nothing lasts forever
When hundreds of comments from hate-filled strangers are pouring in, time seems to slow down. Punctuate that with a few death threats and it seems like the attacks are going to last forever. Happily, they don’t. Today these troglodytes are outraged at you, coming up with dumb insults, and then getting all 30 of their fake accounts to like their comment. Tomorrow they will be pissed off at someone else. In a week, most of them will have forgotten your name and whatever you said that made them react like you just nuked Finland. They may hang in a bit longer if whatever set them off stays in the news or they think they have a chance to get you fired, but these are short attention span failures who love to find something new to be upset about. If it bugs you, just log off for a while and go do something more productive than social media, aka almost everything.

 
And remember, SJWs always lie. They’re not interested in truth, or in reason, or in fairness. They’re interested in beating the opposition to a pulp.

Discrimination, Prejudice, and Racism

Walter Williams comments:

So much of our reasoning about race is both emotional and faulty. In ordinary, as well as professional, conversation, we use terms such as discrimination, prejudice, racial preferences and racism interchangeably, as if they referred to the same behavior. We can avoid many pitfalls of misguided thinking about race by establishing operational definitions so as to not confuse one behavior with another.

Discrimination can be operationally defined as an act of choice. Our entire lives are spent choosing to do or not to do thousands of activities. Choosing requires non-choosing. When you chose to read this column, you discriminated against other possible uses of your time. When you chose a spouse, you discriminated against other people. When I chose Mrs. Williams, I systematically discriminated against other women. Much of it was racial. Namely, I discriminated against white women, Asian women, fat women and women with criminal backgrounds. In a word, I didn’t offer every woman an equal opportunity, and they didn’t offer me an equal opportunity.

One might be tempted to argue that racial discrimination in marriage is trivial and does not have important social consequences, but it does. When high-IQ and high-income people marry other high-IQ and high-income people, and to the extent there is a racial correlation between these characteristics, racial discrimination in mate selection enhances the inequality in the population’s intelligence and income distribution. There would be greater income equality if high-IQ and high-income people married low-IQ and low-income people. But I imagine that most people would be horrified by the suggestion of a mandate to require the same.

Prejudice is a perfectly useful term, but it is used improperly. Its Latin root is praejudicium — meaning prejudgment. Prejudice can be operationally defined as making decisions on the basis of incomplete information. Because the acquisition of information entails costs, we all seek to economize on information cost. Sometimes we use cheap-to-observe physical attributes as proxies for some other attribute more costlier to observe. The cheaply observed fact that a person is a male or female can serve as a proxy for an unobserved attribute such as strength, aggressiveness or speed in running.

In the late 1990s, a black taxi commissioner in Washington, D.C., warned cabbies against going into low-income black neighborhoods and picking up “dangerous-looking” passengers whom she described as young black males dressed a certain way. Some pizza deliverers in St. Louis who were black complained about delivering pizzas to black neighborhoods for fear of being assaulted or robbed. In 1993, the Rev. Jesse Jackson was reported as saying that he is relieved when he learns that youthful footsteps walking behind him at night are white and not black.

Here’s the question: Does the wariness of Washington’s predominantly black cabbies to pick up “dangerous-looking” black males or black pizza deliverers’ not wanting to deliver to some black neighborhoods or Rev. Jackson’s feeling a sense of relief when the youthful footsteps behind him are those of white youngsters instead of black say anything unambiguous about whether cabbies, pizza deliverers and Jackson like or dislike blacks? It’s a vital and often overlooked point — namely, that watching a person’s prejudicial (prejudging) behavior alone can tell us nothing unambiguous about that person’s racial tastes or preferences.

Consider policing. Suppose a chief of police is trying to capture culprits who break in to autos to steal electronic equipment. Suppose further that you see him focusing most of his investigative resources on young males between the ages of 15 and 25. He spends none of his investigative resources on females of any age and very few on men who are 40 or older. By watching his “profiling” behavior — prejudging behavior — would you conclude that he likes females and older males and dislikes males between the ages of 15 and 25? I think that it would take outright idiocy to reach such a conclusion. The police chief is simply playing the odds based on the evidence he has gathered through experience that breaking in to autos tends to be a young man’s fancy.

KavaYashi Maru

Jonah Goldberg has a piece titled, “The Price of Victory“. Essentially, whoever won was going to pay a very high price.  The culture war will only escalate from here.

Along the way, he cites some tweets from PoliMath:

Here’s a #TerribleOpinion for you:
1) I think Kavanaugh is likely innocent
2) It may be better for the country (and SCOTUS) if he withdraw
3) He can’t do that w/o essentially committing reputational and career suicide
4) No one should ever have to be in that position
5) Assuming innocence, we as a culture have absolutely no path for Kavanaugh to take. If he withdraws for the good of the country, his career is over. His family will be vilified. Big chunks of the cultural left will parade his head on a pike for YEARS.
6) that is all bad

7) My ideal scenario is for Kavanaugh to withdraw on the condition that Senate Dems take out a full page groveling apology to him and his family in the NYT.
Then Dems can get what they want, but only if they can give up the cultural political win it would have provided them.

8) I don’t think you can overstate how furious the right is at Kavanaugh’s treatment.
The first allegation caused pause among center-right.
The second *looked* like a political calculation.
But people (esp the media) taking the Avenati thing seriously blew it all apart.

Last thing: For Kavanaugh to withdraw, you would have to convince the right that the *next* nominee would be treated fairly.
That is impossible.
The die is cast, the ship has sailed, the right firmly believes the next nominee will see the same vilification.

The right was willing to at least consider the first allegation, despite the way the timing of the whole thing stank to high heaven. When a second and third came along, not only did the timing stink, they lacked even the credibility the first had. What’s more, Kavanaugh had already been through six full-field FBI background investigations.

While I’ve never been through such an investigation myself, although at one point it was a possibility, I’ve heard quite a bit about them.

FBI agents interview everyone they can find who’s been in the live of the target of the investigation. And they ask the people they interview if they can think of anyone else who might have something to contribute. Then everything that is said, good, bad, indifferent, unhinged — everything — is put in the file. This is the “raw” file. They don’t try to assess truth, falsity, or even credibility.

I work at what amounts to the complaint department for any matters regarding water quality in my city. We get phone calls whenever the water is misbehaving. If it’s discolored, we get calls. If it smells bad, we get calls. If it crawls from the glass and chases the customer around the kitchen, we get calls.

I personally have dealt with at least two people who were convinced their neighbors were poisoning their water. One of them claimed the neighbor was spraying plutonium on her roof. My staff has dealt with their own callers who have been a step away from reality. Imagine the FBI doing a background check on someone who lived next to one of these people. What do you imagine they told the FBI about their neighbors?

And it would wind up in the background file.

The point here is not just to point out that the FBI doesn’t try to reach conclusions about the contents of the raw file, but to make the point that the more people come forward to accuse Kavanaugh of sexual misconduct, the more it destroys any credibilty that might otherwise attach. It’s vaguely possible that one instance, one time, three and a half decades ago, might have escaped this background check process. It’s much less likely two would. When we get to three, with the third involving a rape factory, it’s just not conceivable that the FBI would have missed it.

Maybe the first has some truth to it, but when everyone involved in bringing these accusations seems to accept the lot of the accusations as Gospel, they sacrifice any credibility they have.

Women and Other Hazardous Materials

If you don’t think women are explosive, try dropping one.–Gerald F. Lieberman (1923–1986), U.S. freelance writer

Men who interact with women may find themselves tasked with defending themselves against charges from too long ago to properly evaluate. As long as “Beleeeve Da Woman” is the mantra of the day, men, and people who want to protect their men, are starting to look at strategies for warding off harm.

Megan Fox at Pajamas Media has some tips on this very topic.

A long time ago the worst you had to worry about was a girl trapping your son by getting pregnant. Now it’s much worse. Here are a few ideas with which to move forward in this terrifying #MeToo era.

1. Take him to church and make sure the lessons stick
Make sure your son knows how to treat others, what his moral obligations to himself and his family are, and to follow God’s laws in regards to dating and marriage. Try to impart the importance of saving sex for marriage. What can happen to him if he fails to do that (poverty, child support, disease, death, false rape charge) isn’t worth it.

2. Train him to document any unusual circumstance
If something happens to your son at school or elsewhere involving a girl that might be misconstrued or even if he just feels uncomfortable with it, teach him to email it to himself with details, dates, and witnesses. These emails are admissible in court. It will also solve the problem of not being able to remember details years later if accused.

3. Teach your son to assume he will one day have a position of high importance and encourage him to live accordingly
This is the Mike Pence school of behavior that will serve him well. Do not be alone with a woman who is not your wife if you are married. If you are not married, then try to have witnesses when dealing with women. Double-dating may soon be the only smart thing for a man to do when looking for a mate to protect himself from dangerous women who would like to hurt him. Teach him that anything he might say or do today could affect him and cost him a job 30 years from now. Show him what’s happening to Brett Kavanaugh. Teach him to choose his friends wisely, to stay sober, and to stay away from shenanigans that could come back and haunt him.

4. Don’t trust women
Sorry to say it, but my sex offends and horrifies me. Between Stormy Daniels and Ford, women are a disgrace. Contrary to the saccharine platitude that “women don’t lie,” women lie all the time. They lie like crazy. The younger they are, the more they lie and scheme. It’s probably the rage of hormones and insecurity that contribute to it, but most women lie and scheme. Teach your sons to search out morally upstanding girls and to avoid drama queens. The religious ones are usually better. Stay very far away from party girls and girls who use drugs or drink underage. Those girls are momentarily fun, but ultimately trouble. Teach him to stay away from those girls.

Even if a man does all these things there’s no guarantee some lying hussy won’t try to screw up his life over a romantic poem, but it should help to give him evidence with which to fight back.

Rule 4, and the “Mike Pence” section of Rule 3 may cause some howls of outrage. Women will not be invited to one-on-one meetings with male co-workers or supervisors. Any job that requires a team of two people will not have mixed sexes, or at the very least, men will have the absolute right to demand a male partner on the team.
Women will be presumed untrustworthy until proved otherwise over a very long period of time.

This will reduce the opportunities for work and advancement in professional life. It will hurt the majority of women who would never commit lawfare against a male. But those women, by not objecting to their sisters’ abuse of power, will have brought this on themselves.

The Real History of Anita Hill

The kind of dirty trick being pulled in the Kavanaugh nomination began with Anita Hill. People are posting memes on social media claiming to believe Anita Hill, but it should be remembered, Anita Hill wasn’t that believable back in her day. From PowerLine:

THE FIRST TIME WAS FARCE, TOO

The Democrats’ current attack on Judge Brett Kavanaugh obviously recalls their failed assault on Clarence Thomas, who has gone on to a distinguished career as an intellectual leader of the Supreme Court. Memories fade, and I had forgotten some of what Hans Bader details at Liberty Unyielding. I remember this much: the Thomas hearing was televised and gripped the nation. At the time, most Americans concluded that Anita Hill, who accused Thomas of making inappropriate sexual references while she worked for him, was lying, and Thomas was confirmed by a Democrat-majority Senate. Over time, the Democrats kept hammering away, and now their press adjunct pretends that Hill somehow carried the day.

 

Bias-tinted Glasses

Dennis Prager loves acronyms. In fact, you might even say he’s biased in favor of acronyms. Some years ago, he came up with “NARWIPDE” which stands for (an adverb I don’t remember) Assuming Racism Where It Probably Doesn’t Exist.

Now Time Magazine says colleges are teaching NABWIPDE; B = “Bias”. Or more precisely, NABWIRDE; R = “Really”.

 

Source: How Colleges Teach Students to See Bias When There Is None | Time

….
The key feature of academic diversity ideology is the assertion that to be a member of an ever-growing number of favored victim groups at a college today is to be the target of pervasive bigotry on campus — despite, well, being favored. Taught by a metastasizing campus-diversity bureaucracy to believe that they are subject to an existential threat from circumambient bias, students equate nonconforming ideas with “hate speech,” and “hate speech” with conduct that should be punished, censored and repelled with force if necessary. This victimology fuels the efforts to shut down speech that challenges campus orthodoxies. Dozens of times in the past several years alone, classrooms have been invaded; professors, accosted and even assaulted; and outside speakers, silenced.

While these tactics have famously been directed at conservatives, that is not exclusively the case, as senior fellow at the Public Policy Center Stanley Kurtz has documented for National Review Online. It has happened year after year, recently.

In October 2017, protesters at Columbia University temporarily occupied a class and accused a professor who is an LGBTQ rights advocate and one of the school’s premier proponents of the idea that campuses are pervaded by rape culture of creating a “dangerous environment for students, including queer students.”

That same month, shouting activists prevented University of Oregon President Michael Schill from delivering his State of the University Speech. Schill’s merely pro forma support for free speech was enabling “fascism and white supremacy,” according to the student protesters.

[snip]

The belief that college campuses today pose an existential threat to females and students of color is just as lunatic as the belief that Judge Brett Kavanaugh is a murderer or that an Establishment lawyer was signaling her white supremacy affiliation on live TV. American universities are among the most tolerant environments in history towards humanity’s traditionally oppressed groups. Far from discriminating against what admissions officers call “underrepresented minorities,” or “URMs,” every selective college today employs large racial admissions preferences to engineer what they call a “diverse” student body — and they twist themselves into knots to hire qualified minority staff members who haven’t already been snapped up by better-endowed schools. Professors want all their students to succeed, particularly females and “underrepresented minorities.”

But the resulting campus culture often coaches students to see bias where none exists. That delusion continues once they leave school. The result is a growing society-wide intolerance for speakers and ideas that fail to conform to an increasingly exacting code of political correctness, on the ground that such non-conforming speech harms favored victim groups.

The right has its shrill manias— whether the unseemly obsession with Hillary Clinton and her emails, the corrosive Trump-fueled calumny that federal law enforcement agencies have been corrupted by political bias, and the dangerous Trump-induced crusade to turn those agencies into instruments of political revenge. But until now, the notion that silencing non-conforming speech is a legitimate response to disagreement has come overwhelmingly from campuses and other progressive institutions — from Google to the New Yorker. Were Trump to seize the same weapons, arrogating to himself the power to define and punish “hate speech,” the danger of such precedents might become clearer to all.

The new censorship is an outgrowth of the twin ideas that race and gender are the most important features of a human being, and that American society is one long assault on various identity groups defined by race and gender. Until these key tenets of academic identity politics are rebutted, we can expect to see more of the hysteria that characterized the Kavanaugh hearings — and less ability to talk across ideological divides.