Because Katy Perry Doesn’t Do That Much Politics, Really

I try to be civil. I truly do.

But John Fugelsang is the one person on this entire planet that saves Samantha Bee from the title of “Most Vapid Pundit On Planet Earth”.

Seriously – Fugelsang, whose qualifications as a public intellectual seem to begin and end at “hairdo”, has already earned himself a Berg’s Law, and just keeps getting worse.

Image may contain: 1 person, text

To which one responds “Only in America can you be pro-gun-control, pro-“campaign finance reform”, turn a blind eye to intellectual censorship and oppression on campus (and, increasingly, elsewhere), pretend “Antifa” is no big deal, oppose school vouchers and homeschooling, propose or support “Climate Nuremberg Tribunals” for scientific skeptics, and still call your self “pro-choice” with one cerebral lobe tied behind one’s back to make it fair.

10 thoughts on “Because Katy Perry Doesn’t Do That Much Politics, Really

  1. He’s the product of a de-frocked priest and a fallen nun….what do you expect?

  2. There once was a time that college taught critical reasoning and I could respect someone who could make a rational argument for a position opposite the once I’ve taken. However, these days these days there’s almost nobody on the left who can make a coherent argument.

    For example, how is rejecting nuclear deterrence a “pro-life” position? Arbitrarily and voluntarily surrendering the option of self defense may well save the lives of those in aggressor countries, but it sure doesn’t help the country giving up the weapons beyond the extent of making fools like Fugelsang feel good about themselves.

    What is it about Leftists and the need to feel good about themselves by virtue signaling on positions are that intellectually unsupportable? Are they really that insecure?

  3. Not insecure, just stupid. The result of a failed liberal education which no longer teaches logic and reasoning.

  4. I don’t think that liberals hold human life to be sacred. Actual instances of human beings don’t seem to interest them much, outside of the people that they know (for the most part). They do not view people as being moral agents. They are objects, not subjects, of the natural world, and the natural world is all that there is.
    The care that is taken to insure a criminal is guilty of committing a capital crime is incredible. The death penalty is not designed to be applied arbitrarily, but arbitrarily killing human beings is the keystone of the abortion rights movement. The concept of a legal person is arbitrary. The decision to abort is arbitrary. People who deny the existence of free will prioritize the concept of choice.
    the pro-life people are far more diverse in their ideas about personhood and abortion than the pro-abortion people. They are the absolutists.

  5. The man needs to be reminded that in Rwanda, they didn’t have many guns, land mines, drones, or nukes, and they still managed to have one of the biggest genocides known to history. Human condition, not human tools, are to blame.

    Nice slander on his part assuming people are “pro-war” or “pro-torture”. Um, no. The ugly reality is that sometimes an unjust peace is more terrifying than war.

  6. “Only in America can you be pro-gun-control, pro-“campaign finance reform”, turn a blind eye to intellectual censorship and oppression on campus (and, increasingly, elsewhere), pretend “Antifa” is no big deal, oppose school vouchers and homeschooling, propose or support “Climate Nuremberg Tribunals” for scientific skeptics, and still call your self “pro-choice” with one cerebral lobe tied behind one’s back to make it fair.

    This presumes he is stupid/vapid. The other option, which I am far more inclined to use (because it doesn’t give someone the out of merely being stupid), is that he knows damn well what a contradiction his expressed viewpoint presents. And he just doesn’t care, because the ends justify the means of pushing the progressive leftist agenda forward.

    To an leftist ideologue, there is no such thing as scruples.

  7. BC, you are correct. It is all about the slogans and the wordplay, not the content or context.

  8. Pingback: In The Mailbox: 01.19.17 : The Other McCain

Leave a Reply