Tuesday, February 15, 2022

One of the best things about being a New Prolife Catholic

Is the joy that comes with the Left's assurance we need only care about human suffering when it doesn't hinder the leftwing narrative.  Any calls for unconditional love or empathy for our neighbors are subordinate to the opportunity to exploit their suffering to validate a particular leftwing agenda.  See how fun it is:

Yep.  The story is old, last year I believe. It was a survey that found unusually high numbers of white college students were lying about their ethnicity.  Odd, if you accept various leftwing talking points like White Privilege, Systemic Racism, and the 1619 Project spin on American history.  After all, if white Americans are wallowing in white privilege, why would so many lie about not being white?  

As can be expected, the story itself was swept under the carpet by the Praetorian Press in no time flat.  And that was by those few outlets that bothered to carry it at all.  Nonetheless, the story seems plausible.  When my oldest - a straight A college student - was given a website for scholarships and grants, there were thousands available.  After he entered gender (male) and race (white), however, the options dropped to only a few hundred or so.  

Mark happily spews contempt on the possible injustices with the usual false accusation of racism and bigotry as the motivation behind any concern  After all, what's false accusation and character assassination for a New Prolife Catholic? That there could be suffering or unfair treatment of young white Americans doesn't appear to get near Mark's radar.   

Why? Because the Left has perfected the call to ignore human suffering and misery, even death, unless it can be exploited to buttress the pertinent leftwing narrative. And if the suffering challenges a leftwing narrative?  Hell.  That's not even worth discussing. 


  1. I'm guessing that Mark came across this tweet from Sam Rocha, since Sam went on a multi-day crusade against Father Schmidt where he posted every "objectionable" tweet that Father Schmidt ever mdade, including this one. A big part of the new proflie movement is a feedback loop where its members assure each other that they are the most moral people to have ever existed, but anyone they don't like is an enemy to all of them.

    It's hard to tell exactly what happened, since Twitter is almost designed to prevent clear communication. But as far as I can tell somehow Sam Rocha came across Father Schmidt posting a tweet saying something to the extent of that Joe Rogan shouldn't be fired just for using the N-word. From that point Sam was convinced that Father Schmidt was an irredeemable racist and spent several days attacking the priest and anyone who defended him. Many of the offending tweets were like this one, related to race but saying things which were obviously true (though against the left wing narrative.) Many were completely unrelated to race but simply showed an affinity for conservative viewpoints (ex. retweeting someone who said "Let's Go Brandon," tweets about parents having rights to educate their children, questions about the safety of COVID vaccines for young children.) The most ridiculous piece of "evidence" for Father Schmidt being racist was that he retweeted something that criticize Sam Rocha.

    But it really didn't matter what Sam Rocha actually posted. What mattered was that he made a huge number of tweets on the issue (we're talking 40 or so over the course of a few days) and so he clearly signaled to his followers that he was the good guy and the priest was evil. Thus anything that Father Schmidt did or anything his defenders did (for example, just saying that Sam Rocha should not make such wild claims in public before trying to sort things out privately) became more evidence of their evil.

    I'm guessing that's the frame that Mark Shea found this tweet, and so of course he viewed as equivalent to someone joining the KKK. If pressed he will say that Sam has done all the work of proving the accusations, despite the fact that I doubt if Mark has looked at more than a couple of the offending tweets. Mark has done the exact same sort of thing himself, most notably when he would "prove" that guns are evil by posting long lists of links to crimes that used guns, even though many of the things he linked actually had nothing to do with guns.

    1. Wow. Yeah that sounds logical and what I would bet on.

      Got to admit, nowadays it almost seems like Catholics are disappointed they got left out of the Salem Witch Trials the first and are determined to use social media to finally get in on the fun this time.

    2. I can believe that. Sam is a slippery little fellow, professor though he is. He dons the appearance of 'let's all be friends' but is slick in his partisanship. Also, he identifies strongly with his Latino heritage, and has no particular love for the US or us white Americans. So I can see him framing anything that challenges anti-white racism as itself racist. It goes without saying that Mark would happily run with such an idea and take it to the next level.

    3. I seem to recall he was one of the Vox Nova crew a dozen years back. I think they eventually passed it on to a different and smaller crew who arranged for it to be hosted at Patheos. My vague recollection is he was the least abrasive person there. It seems to me one of their number recently died at a fairly young age.

      I see from perusing his website that he's ensconced in a teacher-training faculty but doesn't actually offer any courses or publications on teaching techniques. So, the vocational training of his charges is neglected and he's free from the rigors of the philosophy faculty. Shouldn't be happening.

    4. I know he's a professor, but never paid attention to what - if anything - he taught. I just know he came off like 'let's all be reasonable', but had a slick way of trying to play nice with one hand while jabbing with rhetorical daggers with the other.


Let me know your thoughts