Reaching out to the marginalized

All right, I give up. Being the sort of rigid self-absorbed promethean neopelagain racist bigot that I am, I have long refused to heed Pope Francis the Merciful’s merciful call to mercifully show merciful mercy to the most marginalized in our society. But I can resist no longer, I have had a conversion of heart and will now identify the most hated and reviled demographic in my country and “reach out” to them.

After only a cursory inquiry, it’s clear which demographic group is the most vindictively hated in America, namely WASPs.

So alright people, let’s get on board with the Pope’s message. In order to evangelize to these people, we must first express solidarity with them, and repent of the many sins we’ve committed against them. Henceforth we must be unequivocal in not allowing Hispanics (a group obsequiesly praised in our society) to take their jobs and make them foreigners in their own lands. We certainly cannot allow black criminals and grievance mongerers (a group that receives even more obsequies praise than the Hispanics) to destroy their communities. And it must henceforth be absolutely out of the question to allow Muslims (whose wonderfulness outshines even racial minorities in the eyes of our elites) to terrorize them.

Once we have thus shown ourselves their friends, we can help bring them to the fullness of truth in the Catholic Church, in which alone (at least, when we’re better) they can escape the suicidal tendencies which have plagued WASPs from the countries beginning.

Standard

A reasoned analysis of bullying in schools

First of all, in discussing bullying, a distinction needs to be made between physical bullying and kids making fun of each other.

As for the latter, it’s not something that should be a serious concern to any reasonable person. Kids have always made fun of each other, and they always will. It’s venially sinful, and teachers should correct it if they witness individual instances of it, but it’s not something to be worried about, and certainly not something to mount massive campaigns over.

The former sort of bullying (physically abusing one’s classmates) is a bit more concerning, and should warrant corporal punishment, but it again is not a matter which should warrant existential concern. Kids (particularly young boys) always have gotten into fights and always will.

Standard

“If we don’t let refugees in ISIS will have won” and other absurd babbling

I’ve often heard this line from those on the left (and from that portion of the right which is retarded). That if we don’t allow ourselves to be invaded by millions of refugees, we’ll be giving ISIS victory. There are three possibilities here:

A. The people saying this are retarded,
B. This phrase has some meaning, or
C. This phrase is just a slogan, no more meaningful than “marriage is about hearts not parts” or any other leftist idiocies

Now, A is out, because the people saying this aren’t retarded, at least not all of them are. So let’s explore option B:

First, let’s consider the literal meaning of the phrase, that if we don’t take in “refugees” ISIS will successfully establish a caliphate in Iraq and Syria. There is absolutely no logical connection between “Europe rejecting Muslim invaders” and “ISIS winning the Iraq and Syria civil wars”, so unless option A is actually correct, this can’t be what they mean.

But perhaps they mean that if we don’t submit to invasion, ISIS will win the ideological war, that is they will accomplish their propaganda goals. Well, ISIS’s goal in terms of getting people to believe a certain way is to get everyone to be a Salafi Muslim (or dead). So is it a reasonable opinion that us excluding the invaders will result in us all becoming Salafists, well no, it’s not, at all. So that’s out.

Now, is there any other possible meaning of “win” that they could be using? Certainly, there are a bunch, one can win a bet, which is N/A, one can win an argument, which isn’t it either, one can win a board game, which also is completely irrelevant, and there are a bunch of other meanings of “win”, none of which make “If we don’t let refugees in ISIS will have won” a reasonable statement.

So then, it seems that both A and B are out, so it must be C, this phrase is not intended to have an actual meaning in the English language, but exists only as a means of confusing the masses and shouting down sane policy proposals.

Standard