Wednesday, October 3, 2018

Coming out of the Socialist closet

Mark comes out in full.  I said I would only visit Mark's pages regarding the Kavanaugh character assassination.  Yes.  But I didn't know Mark had a twitter feed.  I went there and my eye did behold true evil.  The Father of Lies is welcome there, so I will not return.  Still, it was there that this little bit was seen:

Clearly it is Mark's infantile, yet typical, mockery of those who point out that if you praise socialism, and endorses almost to a letter most of the policies and narratives of the political Left with all of its emboldened calls for a new socialist state, then you're a socialist.  Like many (not all) liberals, Mark deals with facts through mockery, name calling, insults, childish rhetoric, or flat our accusations.  Much to the praise and adoration of many of his regular followers.

Bonus observation, speaking of which.  My boys pointed out that conservatives usually spend their time pointing out what is wrong with liberal policies and what works with conservative policies.  Whether they are correct or not, that's what they do.  They point to liberals and say, "You're doing this or pushing that, and it's wrong."

Liberals, on the other hand, almost never defend their own policies, or even spend much time attacking conservative policies.  They just assume liberalism is scientifically proven to always work, therefore anyone who disagrees must be a homophobic, racist, sexist, child killing, murderous, Nazi, ignorant, moronic bigot and serial rapist.  Those who defy the Left are liars or have ulterior motives by definition because obviously liberalism and socialism work every time.  The real reason they aren't liberal is because they are racists, sexists and want to murder children.  Yep, that's a trend I've noticed, too:

Note there is no haggling with facts, only judging the hearts and motives of those who question presumption of guilt

Bonus historical point: socialism doesn't work. Historically it has led to three results: 1) the totalitarian terror states of the last century, 2) a nihilistic, narcissistic, drugged out civilization of moral narcolepsy, which only seems content with crushing the last shards of Christianity before it becomes the northwestern-most region of Islamic civilization, and 3)  third world cesspools of dictatorships, crushing poverty, starvation, and uncontrollable misery.  And yet, to question it means you hate puppies and molest teddy bears, or so goes the typical line of reasoning as exemplified on Mark's twitter feed.

I will never go to Mark's twitter feed again, I don't care what the topic.


  1. I knew he had a twitter feed but for the longest time it was pretty much deserted with only a scattering of old tweets here and there.

    I don't know when, how or why but it apparently became much more active and it looks like he's on there about as often as facebook.

    SOME times you can find a leftist that will make arguments. You treasure those. Most you feel like you're arguing with toddlers who think things can be true if you scream loud enough.

    1. Yes, I'm reminded of Illithid from Patheos. Even though he's pretty flag waving partisan, he typically engaged like an adult and tried to discuss the topic at hand. A rare exception, certainly at Patheos. But as for Mark's twitter, I felt unclean just reading it. Compared to that, I could visit his blog ten times a day.

  2. I wonder if Shea's "Mutual Adoration" with John C Wright has crumbled. No slight on John C Wright... he seems more than willing to be amicable towards people who hold different views from him. But Shea's catapulting of himself to the socio-political extreme, combined with his tendency of paroxysm when confronting dissent (even towards those he used to consider friends) makes me think he would be just as vitriolic towards Wright as he is towards Feser.

    1. Mark tends to avoid confronting his friends if at all possible. He will typically let others assail them, but usually won't take part himself. That's long been one of his more unfortunate traits as a Christian apologist: it often depends on whether or not Mark likes or admires you as to whether he will attack you or give you a pass - no matter what you say or do. I've seen him literally accuse people of his usual 'increase slaughter' rhetoric over something like the death penalty or gun control, only to praise a friend or buddy for saying the same thing. Likewise I've seen him praise openly (and potentially active) homosexuals as saints, or give kudos to comedians who advocate intrinsic evil or even blasphemous images, simply because he likes or admires them. At the same time, he will attack someone as a bigot or racist or homophobe, sommeone who may actually say what Mark has said, but Mark doesn't hold that person in regard, or know anything about the person.


Let me know your thoughts