The article itself is whatever. She establishes her progressive bona fides and then proceeds to marvel at the well-dressed, mannnerly Republican she’s planning on marrying. She closes practically begging to be forgiven:
When I talk like this, it’s obvious that there is still a part of me that is a little idealistic, that wants to save the world. But what’s wrong with wanting a little less hate in the world, and a little more love? Even for those that you disagree with.
We’re an Apple family. My wife and I have been using Macs exclusively for years (saving the Dell laptop I have from work). We use iPhones. We even have a Time Machine. We’ve all but decided to swap out our old Roku for an Apple TV. We’re not techies; neither of us could tell you how Apple works versus how PC’s work. It’s all wizardry as far as we’re concerned. Our preferance for Macs is probably an aesthetic thing. We just like them.
How many executions in Saudi Arabia do you suppose have been recorded on an iPhone? Do you ever wonder about things like that?
Or take the United Arab Emirates, a country you visited less than six months ago, in order to open up markets to your product. Did you know that they still punish homosexual acts with imprisonment, fines, chemical castration, and even death?
If you know these things, do you care?
If you do care, do you just not care enough to forgo the potential profits?
Because I’m rapidly approaching the conclusion that your opposition is but a nexus of bandwagon-jumping and empty posturing. I’m considering the notion that you like to stand up for your political ideals when its convenient and risk-free. Harder to meet with the Sheikh of Dubai when you got a fatwa hangin’ on your head, huh?
Hypocrisy is an easy charge to bring. We are all of us guilty of not following our principles perfectly in every instance. But to meet with a head of a goverment that castrates gays in December, and to issue a cri de couer against a state religious freedom law, that could be used to discriminate against gays, the following March constitutes a level of hypocrisy that fairly begs to be called out.
Thus, Mr. Cook, your moral preening on this issue is repellent. Your self-righteousness is nauseating. And I would kindly ask that if you are prepared to leave your politics at the door when doing business in sharia states, perhaps you will be good enough to do the same to your fellow countrymen.
Otherwise, Mr. Cook, I may just decide to replace my MacMini with a System76 Meerkat, my iPhone with a Samsung Galaxy, and to get that Roku 3 instead. If Mozilla can be purged, so can my house.
Ace has a nice good long post (which are always the best posts at Ace) on the staggering inanity of deciding that this:
is sexual assault. His response, appropriately, is to troll the trollers:
Many movements or eras — most, probably — enter a decadent phase at some point. I don’t know of a textbook definition of a decadent phase, but my off-the-cuff attempt is this:
a period marked by extremely minor variations on art or thought that has gone before, of recycling, of re-using old tropes rather than creating new ideas;
a period marked not by accumulation or creation of capital, whether monetary capital or capital of another kind, such as intellectual or influential or philosophical, but instead marked by the use/spending of previously acquired capital without replenishing same;
a period of sloth, whether sloth in intellect or sloth in industriousness, and a concomitant lowering of standards so that what little new work is done can be credited as good, important, or noble, albeit by a greatly reduced standard;
It is one thing to argue that a woman can and must enjoy the same public rights as a man, to vote, to engage in business, to work in trades and corporations, to pursue scholarly research. It is another to go around naming as rape or assault things which meet no known definition of these terms.
Rape is, as feminists tell us, and act of violence. In order for violence to be violence, it must be well, violent. Surprise is not violence. Spontaneity is not violence. Violence requires that harm should occur. No harm, no foul.
Claiming “sexual assault” is not “rape” as some do, doesn’t save the classification. Sexual Assault serves as the misdemeanor to Rape’s felony. It’s a way of making a rape accusation without actual rape occurring (or, dealing with a sexual crime other than rape). The nature of the accusation is the same. And an assault, to be an assault, requires violence, and violence requires harm. This did not happen.
Obviously, under normal circumstances a man who went about kissing random women on the street, without their consent, would find himself in trouble. But there are circumstances, certain exponentially joyful occasions, when such activities are seen as a natural irruption of said joy. It takes a particular kind of inhuman joylessness to insist upon malicious intent, absent any evidence, and in the face of the actual woman’s remembrance of the event.
And that’s the point. This is not the attempt to rescue an give voice to a silent victim. The “victim” in this case is studiously ignored, encased in a bubble of “rape culture” so that nothing she says needs be given any credence. The point is for we, the Modern, to invent New and Exciting Understandings, Attack Archaic Formulations, Provoke Significant Dialogue. It is a parlor game for parlor stakes, which exists to prick the vanity of its participants, and no other reason. What was actually going on in Times Square on V-J Day matters not at all; what matters is how We Conceptualize it According to Our Own Dogma.
Which is what you do when you’ve run out of ideas.
Twitter is not for the slow of wit, nor for the rushed to judgement…
It was desegregation that caused white America to believe that the government had stopped “protecting” them, and so they needed guns.
The mind scarcely has the courage to boggle.
Presumably white Americans slaughtered the Indians with racially-insensitive discourse. And that business at the O.K. Corral? Involved some brutal Dodgeball hits, and unfortunately inspired the St. Valentine’s Day Snowball Fight.
We blame the Right. The killer may have been some Tea Party type. Because, you know, they’re so prone to violence.
We blame Pop Culture. This guy was trying to be Batman, because Batman is known for his skill with a shotgun. Violent images make people violent. Or maybe it was the music that he listened to, or the video games he played.
We blame the lack of regulation of the weapon. Guns make people use them. Never mind that making guns completely illegal stands about as good a chance of working as making heroin illegal has; if there were no guns, dangerous psychotics would have to use their fists. Or, you know, make a bomb out of fertilizer.
They cannot accept the plain truth that things like this are beyond their ability to prevent. Their ideology compels them to pretend that with just the right regulatory cocktail, these things would disappear. They probably privately suspect otherwise, but never mind. The creed must be proclaimed allowed, lest someone question your devotion to Social Justice.
In the meantime, 13 are dead and we still don’t know why. I fear we never will.