The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

If @TaraDublinRocks Didn’t Exist, Would @AmPowerBlog Have to Invent Her?

Posted on | April 6, 2014 | 20 Comments

My friend Donald Douglas may not be the most right-wing professor in California, but he’d certainly be in contention for the prize. In fact, I’m reasonably sure that a majority of university administrators in California would outlaw Professor Douglas’s American Power blog as a “hate crime,” if they could. (“Damn that First Amendment!”)

After Professor Douglas called out the “Tolerance Gestapo” — and some poor fool’s attempt to play ball with the the Gay Mafia shakedown — he found himself in a bizarre Twitter battle with somebody named Tara Dublin. She started out by claiming that Donald was trying to “bait” her, and next thing you know, she went off on a rant that is a classic example of the Last Word Syndrome typical of liberals who presume themselves to be our intellectual and moral superiors.

Of course, I had to throw some gasoline on the burning witch:

 

Check out the whole thing at American Power: “Gay Rights Thought-Enforcer Tara Dublin Can’t Handle the Truth.”

 

Bookmark and Share

Comments

  • MrPaulRevere

    According to this fascist witch, it’s OK to have an opinion as long as you don’t “express” it. Yeah well, to hell with her and the broom she rode in on.

  • Julie Pascal

    What is this weird idea that it’s not a “thought” if someone expresses it… that somehow “speech” is the same thing as assault… is going *beyond* having an opinion into taking an action against someone.

    The only freedom, then, is the freedom we have in secret… the worship we do in secret… the thoughts we have in secret… the lives we live in secret….

    Was the “closet” oppressive or not?

    I’m all for public decorum, but what we can’t *be* publicly is something we can’t be. There is no bizarre standard of the right to keep things private. Here in the South West there is a lot of history about crypto-jews…. it would be like saying, hey, they had religious freedom, after all… they had to have their kids baptized and confirmed and regularly attend mass… but because they were able to be *secretly* Jewish that this was a life of religious freedom.

    There is a large wide divide between public decorum and secrecy. Someone expressing their beliefs and thoughts in a public place is a far cry from shoving it in other peoples faces or hurting anyone by it.

    Try a test… Did someone have to do an internet search to find out what this woman’s opinions were? “She wasn’t just thinking, she PUBLISHED IT ONLINE FOR ALL TO SEE. Can you not make that distinction?”

    It’s like the guy at our church in Florida going on and on and on and on about the nude beach… at some point you got to look at him and say, Steve, next time you go to the beach… turn right instead of left, okay? YOU DON’T HAVE TO GO THERE.

  • Julie Pascal

    It’s like… did this person with the offensive public opinion spam your inbox? Did she walk up to you on the street and hand you a flyer? Was she wearing a raincoat and rip it open before you could shut your eyes? Did she take out a billboard?

    Crying about the harm caused by someone’s public expression when you had to search it out and then you published it all over and ginned up some more hurt and outrage… heck, it’s pretty much exactly like burning down an embassy over a movie no more than 5K people in the history of the universe had ever heard of or watched.

  • DonaldDouglas

    She’s not a very bright woman, and it obviously caught up to her when I spoke of violent leftist action — and proved it — that was outside the reality of her ideological bubble.

  • Julie Pascal

    The thing is, that it’s not just her. In some sense maybe it’s an artifact of the internet. In the main, though, it’s a really weird perversion of any concept of what the 1st Amendment means, of what freedom of speech means. And it’s ubiquitous. It’s not just some not-so-bright person saying a dumb thing.

    It’s not new, either. It couches religious freedom as “what’s true for you” which means, that in order to have religious freedom you’re supposed to reduce your faith to a quaint and personal idiosyncrasy that not even you claim has any meaning.

    And your freedom of conscience is limited to the same meaningless twaddle, your freedom of thought and speech, you can have all of that you could possibly ever need so long as you don’t claim you actually believe any of it or that it has any meaning to you.

    Diversity is anything quaint and colorful and meaningless.

    And expressing your thoughts is assault, and thus not about your *thoughts* at all.

    And it’s not just *her*.

  • concern00

    LGBTQQWTFBBQ protests are always peaceful? WTF?? Another of her ramblings classifies them as a ‘loving’ community.

    What planet does she live on?

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    Um, Tara is from Portland, Oregon.

    I mean, I always thought it wasn’t nice to make fun of people with mental deficiencies. They all aren’t as sharp as the actors on “Portlandia,” you know.

  • http://wizbangblog.com/ Adjoran

    The poor girl. Do you go to the Special Olympics to jeer and boo, too?

    Just because she’s, well, . . . oh, never mind.

  • RKae

    I guess gay men dressed as clown-nuns interrupting religious services, shrieking and throwing condoms is “peaceful.”

  • RKae

    Enjoy that secret you keep in your head, folks! You won’t have it much longer!

    Every day there’s a new article about mind-reading techniques being developed with computers and methods to hook your brain up to the internet; new and exciting ideas about how we can get this whole cyber world to invade your brain!

    …But don’t worry. It won’t be used for evil. …Because eradicating “hateful” thought isn’t evil! It’s VIRTUOUS!

  • Rob Crawford

    Stonewall Riots — peaceful?

  • http://www.journal14.com/ Dana

    Freedom of speech means that the government cannot censor you, but private individuals who speak in public are willingly putting their ideas out in public . . . and sometimes such people won’t get the responses they think they should get.

    It’s time for the lovely Miss Dublin to put on her big girl thong panties, if she wants to speak in public.

  • Bozikek

    I think she means those protests are peaceful relative to their “homelives”.

  • Durasim

    I’m sure Ms. Dublin is enjoying her current job. Her charming personality must keep the tips flowing.

    http://linkis.com/cbsnews.com/news/UOFhw

    “Dublin, a divorced mother of two, was laid off from her dream job as a Portland radio show host in 2009. She found work as a social media analyst early last year, but after eight months was laid off from that job, too.”
    She didn’t last as a “social media analyst”? You don’t say.

  • RS

    What we’re seeing is the beginning of various litmus tests predicated upon what someone believes. Make no mistake. There will be a time when applicants for jobs, college admissions and so forth, will be asked about hot-button topics and their answers will determine whether they are admitted or employed. It’s already begun in some circles. Those who object are being removed and replaced by those who are willing base decisions upon the private beliefs and opinions of applicants.

  • Durasim

    If somebody dares dispute same-sex marriage, then they must be immediately denounced and terminated, and no respectable company or institution may dare to employ them.

    However, should a cadre of teachers publicly minimize and excuse another teacher’s sexual abuse of a student, saying how the abuse wasn’t so bad, why, such teachers must have an incontestable right to simultaneously teach children and publicly excuse the sexual abuse of those children! And how could any of us bigoted peons dare question them?!

    http://theothermccain.com/2013/08/24/family-terrorized-as-michigan-teachers-support-colleague-who-molested-boy/

  • Jeanette Victoria

    I have a sister who is an unhinged progressive who claims that folk on the right think and reason. She also thinks that Obama is Bush lite. liberals don’t think they just emote everywhere and they call that “critical thinking”

  • Pingback: The very obvious question | The First Street Journal.