According to oft-repeated lore, the concerned citizens who read sites such as this feature a variety of profiles and purposes. These include:
✅ Parent’s Basement
✅ Nazi Grand Wizard
✅ Scummy Nordic
✅ Anime Masturbator
We hope to have provided quality rhetoric to all these cohorts. Though one cohort that has been egregiously underserved here is boxing fans. And that’s not going to change. Though in the course of our data mining operations, a trolley occasionally surfaces bearing a few nuggets of sport.
This is a piece applauding the physical waning of two pugilists whose moral infirmities render them very ungood boxers, for certain. I can’t really comment on their ring skills since the last boxing match I watched was Sugar Ray Leonard v. Roberto Duran, and I doubt either of the men in this story can unseat those champions. So we’ll focus instead on what external issues has the sports writer so vexed.
He (Pacquiao) voiced a reprehensible opinion in the gay marriage debate…
You’d think some sheepishness might seep into the reprehensible/repugnant usage guide. Perhaps a caveat to not overuse to the point of saturation. We all know what happened to teen, after all. Though apparently reflection isn’t a corresponding trait of moral preeners. And so R and R, two previously viable adjectives, are destined for the mockery trash heap as: things most believe, but none are permitted to express.
And what was this flailing Filipino’s reprehensible opinion?
“It’s common sense,” Pacquiao told a Filipino television station. “Will you see any animals where male is to male and female is to female? The animals are better. They know how to distinguish, male or female. If we approve male on male and female on female, then man is worse than animal.”
This followed by a series of quoted fulminations from vapid celebrity-dom assuring readers that this bland observation represents a klaxon to conspicuous pant-shitting.
Though all of this has been prelude to the relevant point. That being the left’s demonstrated competence in consolidating victories. The floundering mainstream right could learn volumes from their opposition in this regard. Consider what the boxer actually stated and ask what percentage of the world’s population agrees implicitly with it. Probably 90% at least. Yet the tactic is to draw a line on the ground (though not in chalk!) and scream hysterical obloquy at the bovine majority standing to its right. Finding discomfort in being so demeaned the crowd starts shuffling across and soon enough are bleating at the ones still repeating their own sentiments from 10 minutes prior.
It’s quite remarkable to trace the tracks of the herd. As a grade school boy of my vintage, it was a recess delight to play “smear the queer.” The commencement of which was bellowed out before teachers looking on with equanimity. I presume today our little scrum would be hosed down with hollow-points from several converging National Guard units.
The tacit adult approval–well beyond the comprehension of school boys–was not that queers were literally to be smeared, but that homosex was a repulsive, aberrant, and socially undesirable activity. Until very few years ago, this was an utterly uncontroversial position. As such, Pacquiao’s animal analogy wouldn’t have risen beyond tautology. Yes, male animals don’t try to fuck other males, and the sun doesn’t try to rise in the west. Thanks for the tips.
But planting reprehensible in the fertile soil of eagerly resodded minds isn’t the only area where liberalism excels. It also cultivates a lush tribalism within its menagerie of constituents, while simultaneously stamping at the thinnest shoots on the right. This being a cartoonish hypocrisy that conservative media outlets counter by aiding the left in their efforts.
Though what I find even more grating than the bought-and-paid-for cuckservatism of a National Review are the individuals who defend it by disavowing plainly successful tactics of the left. I have heard innumerable sniffs from those ostensibly on the right who claim that tribal appeals are the tools of liberalism, and thus beneath them to deploy. Well you’re certainly an honorable loser. I hope Chinese historians will footnote that.
For tribalism is a formidable tool in competitive environments such as real life. Even more so when your enemy disavows their own. If an opponent brings a gun to the fight, the result is foreordained if you show up with a tablespoon. This is about as exotic an observation as animals mating by opposite sex. I presume readers will deem it appropriately reprehensible.