Mocking Mike Pence’s lady dining rule is “an attack on White Marriage,” Alt-Rightist insists

Guest says:

‘carrying a lighter even though they don’t smoke’ I do that.

“Buy sunglasses” is also on the list I linked. Which would seem normal enough, but sunglasses are associated with gangsters in Japan.

I know Humbug is banned now, but I just want to point to his “of course I’m a Gator, I’m a straight white male” bit and say that, as a straight white male, I have always thought GrimbleGrinch was one of the most absurd, counterintuitive, bass-ackwards ridiculous things I’ve ever seen on the internet.

While the fact that so many other SWBs got SO HET UP about girls being in games (yes I’m being intentionally reductionist, I have class in a few minutes and frankly I don’t give a single flying fuck about Gorbles) that it became a thing makes me incredibly disappointed, the simple fact remains that Groders were never and never will be the majority, no matter how loud they are.

@ I.P.

Well done.

Also: Humbug clearly has never heard of Franz Liszt or Lord Byron if they think groupies are a result of … whatever crap it was they said … Liszt was driving women wild with his music and long flowing locks in the early to mid-19th century, and Byron had women sending him their pubic hairs in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries because of his poetry.

If you’re going for the intense, scholarly look — like Trotsky here — Communist glasses couldn’t hurt.

This example of solidarity between Whites called for a coordinated psychological assault on our sexual ethics.

Dafuq does this even mean? It’s not as though whites or right-wing asswipes have any monopoly on monogamy, after all. But if right-wing white asswipes want to carry it to a ridiculous extreme, hey, they can go right ahead. The rest of us will just keep on pointin’ and laughin’ at how fuddy-duddy and ill-governed they are, and at how incapable they are of governing a country as a result.

A powerful White man with a stable marriage is an indigestible quantity.

Again, LOLwut? If his marriage is so stable, why is a little thing like eating in the presence of a woman not his wife somehow a threat to it? Is his zipper control really so very poor that he feels irresistibly compelled to bend his dinner partner over the table (and all the mucky half-eaten food)?

Any union between Whites, including the private one between a man and a woman, is a possible threat to the neoliberal order.

Oh, numbskull idiotess…I hate to be the one to break it to you, but there are shitloads of happily married progressive white people out here in this lawless land we call Reality. And they don’t have inane rules about no dining with anyone other than your spouse, either.

But I suppose the mere mention of that is a threat to the neo-Nazi order!

Beneath the apparent absurdity of the media reactions is a deadly serious hostility to the foundation of our resistance to our dispossession and historical erasure — the love of one’s own. Our decency frightens our enemies because of its metapolitical implications.

Since when does the alt-Reich do decency? Prudery doesn’t make a person decent. That would entail being able to eat with a person not your spouse, and somehow not end up being sprawled half-naked across a table of mucky half-eaten food with them, you see, and Mikey’s clearly not capable of that, according to his own religiofascist teachings.

And “the love of one’s own” is just a dog-whistle for racism. And white supremacy. I’ve been hearing this shit since the late ’80s and have never been fooled by it. It’s fucking OLD. Get some fresh bullshit already, if bullshit you must.

Transient commissars like Colbert attack the love stories of our people because marriage is the foundational White institution upon which all other White institutions are built.

Yeah, NO. Like said, it’s not something white people have a monopoly on. And there are plenty of institutions, white or otherwise, that are NOT built upon marriage. Democracy, for instance, doesn’t care if you’re white and married, or not.

The oaths we make to one another insures our impudence to survive and our mirth in the face of the abyss that the left insists is our destiny.

LOLwut, again? I’m of the left, and nowhere do I see anyone (at least, among my peers) saying that the abyss is anyone’s destiny. That would be you right-wing panic-button trampolinists, dear. You seem to think that everything would fall apart if white people didn’t get married, make lots of kids, and have ridiculous rules about who to eat with and who not.

And really, if that’s your attitude, then the “abyss” is nothing less than you deserve.

We will continue to realize the promise of generativity hinted in the first simpers of courtship, and we will continue to envision a dawn of our own making. There is nothing more blithe for our morale, nor grave for our enemies, than the love between our people. Out of love for our people, we will strive and sacrifice. We will not rest until we have secured a future for white children. Love is indeed, reactionary.

Yeah, well, if it comforts you, keep pretending that. Truth is, reactionaries know nothing of love. Otherwise, they wouldn’t be reactionaries!

And they wouldn’t need dumb, arbitarary rules about who not to eat dinner with, either.