Kate Paulk opines on the right not to be offended

Over at Mad Genius Club Kate Paulk has an essay up called Oh Dear that takes aim at an SJW clown that seems to think that humans have a right not to be offended. I’m wondering, do they not teach the definition of “right” to people anymore? A right is something you can use force to protect. I have a right to life, if you try to infringe on my right to life I can kill you to enforce that right that I have, that is what self defense is. I have a right to my property and if you seek to take it from me by force I can defend myself from you and usually this does encompass the use of lethal force if necessary to stop you. This is what is means for something to be a right. I am owed it and can use force to secure it. So I can only assume that Kate’s target is ok with the Charlie Hebdo massacres, or that her target is an idiot, possibly both. Kate also has something to say about the Hugo awards.

There must be something in the water. Or something. Because the stupid is out in force right now – and yes this will be somewhat political because it all relates to the attempts from multiple directions (most of them either Jihadist or from one of the Holy Glittery Hoo Haas of the Social Justice Whiner crowd) to silence opinions they don’t like.

Now, I personally don’t care what opinion anyone holds. I’m not going to tell anyone they can’t voice said opinion here. We don’t close comments because we “don’t need the grief” (there’s a link to the piece that says this further down thread). And we’ve banned… oh, I don’t know, maybe half a dozen people since the Mad Genius Club got started, and at least half of them are aliases of everyone’s least favorite social disease aka Yama.

If you voice an opinion that seems off, you’re going to get challenged, and if it strikes someone as really dumb, it’s going to get laughed at. That’s a risk that comes with free speech.

Anyway, that said, on to the idiocy exhibits.

First up we have the East German who christened me and Sarah the Worst People in the World because we said it’s a bad idea to expel people from civilization because they hold the “wrong” views. One would think that someone old enough to have grown up in Communist East Germany would understand abuse of power and have some notion of what freedom is all about, but apparently not, to judge from her opwhining on this years Hugos. I do love how the things she likes being on the ballots and a pretty high chance of one of them winning is just fine, but the prospect of something that doesn’t appeal to her being on the ballots – and the overwhelming tilt that’s demonstrated by the difficulty of getting something on said ballot that isn’t a literary SJW wet dream, much less something like that winning – has her in palpitations.

I may be the World’s Worst Person again for saying this, of course. And for pointing out the sheer banal idiocy of her approving commentary on how the Hugos aren’t supposed to reflect commercial success and then referring to bestseller lists (which are often more of an indicator of what’s being pushed, although occasionally something manages to bypass the push and sneak on there) as a proxy for sales. Let’s put it the simple way: if the Hugo award winners and the books that sell lots of copies have nothing in common, then the Hugo is nothing more than a remarkably appropriate figurine for a masturbatory award.

Let’s go even further. This was not always the case. I remember borrowing books from the local library proudly proclaiming that they’d sold millions of copies, and won the Hugo and Nebula. The only time that’s going to happen now is if they give the award to someone like Rowling or Pratchett – in which case it’s more of an “oh shit, this is embarrassing, better give them a sympathy vote or something”.

Idiot exhibit number two is arguably worse. This um… lady (because calling her what I’d like to call her involves far too many four letter words of the sort I try not to use in public – and you folk know what my in public language is like) seems to think that “free speech” means “not offending people” and that – as a corollary – not being offended is a human right.

Um. Yeah. She says about people who are responding angrily to her: “They seem to make no distinction between free speech and hate speech, and they seem to believe that freedom of speech includes the freedom to say anything. “

Lady, that’s exactly what freedom of speech means. It does not mean the right to have no consequences when you speak unwisely – but you still have the right to speak. She goes on to mention “the human rights to dignity, respect, honor, and non-discrimination” which has me wondering just what she’s on – other than bullshit, of course. She’s on a really strong vein of that.

Read the rest