I love reading about mass shootings on the news. A lot of you might think that I am desperately trying to be edgy, but I am not. The blood and gore aren't really my thing. That's for the teenagers on /pol/. What I enjoy is the discourse.
I love the media frenzy while the corpses are still warm. The Redditors screaming about the dangers of online hate speech. The Twitterati whining about gun control, or lack thereof. The Karens moaning about "divisive algorithms". It's all music to my ears. It makes me giggle, knowing that at the end of the day, these so-called "progressive" normies are powerless to actually change anything. The soycucks can cry all they want. Even the parents of dead children can wave the tiny caskets around every day.
I love the fact that despite all the anger, nothing will happen. Why? Because that's just how the American political process works.
I love the federal judiciary, from the district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court and everything in between. In fact, there's been so much good news over the past six months alone that I didn't have the time to write detailed threads about all the things I wanted to write about. The S.D.N.Y. struck down New York's "online hate speech" law. Another district court held that 18-year-olds had a constitutional right to buy handguns. The Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal law that prevented anyone with a domestic violence restraining order from buying firearms. The Supremes upheld Section 230 in not one but two landmark cases, and did the same by denying cert to a third. A month later, they made it much harder for law enforcement to prosecute online threats. I could go on and on with more examples, but that would bore the goldfish-attention-span denizens of this forum.
I mean, look at the hysterics!
These decisions may or may not make it more difficult to prevent future mass shootings. They were not arbitrary; they were the product of rational, well-developed legal reasoning. For those of you who disagree, keep in mind that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is," not what the law should be. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177 (1803). These cases are a reminder that the Founding Fathers designed the federal judiciary to be a counter-majoritarian institution, and it is beautiful. What does that mean? In simple terms, it means that no amount of whining on the part of normies should influence the reading of the law. And if there's anything that exemplifies normie whining, it is the collective outrage after every mass shooting*. Mass shootings are so common and so normalized, yet so deliciously emotional; they tear at the national psyche like few other crimes.
Every time a mass shooting happens, the frenzy begins anew. The screaming, whining, moaning; but most importantly, the entitlement. We live in an era of entitlement—where some normies apparently believe that the law is there to cater to their feels and their feels only. They believe that the government should be allowed to punish incels for "hate speech," whatever that means; to deprive incels of bodily autonomy by enacting "common sense" gun reform, whatever that means; and to hold tech companies "accountable" for incel content, whatever that means. Unfortunately for these normies, that's not how the law works. The crybaby activist grifters inevitably fail from a combination of legislative gridlock and judicial review. Our harsh legal reality triumphs over their emotions.
Look, just like most people, I simply love to see entitled people being slapped down. So if I get to observe a renewed cycle of normie tears and futile outrage every single time there's another mass shooting, then gee, I guess I do love mass shootings. Because I get to see the beauty of the American political process, fully illustrated in all its glory. Again and again.
I love the First Amendment. I love the Second Amendment. I love Section 230.
______________________________________________________________________
*that fits their narrative (The Nashville school shooting, for example, has been memoryholed because the killer was a troon).
I love the media frenzy while the corpses are still warm. The Redditors screaming about the dangers of online hate speech. The Twitterati whining about gun control, or lack thereof. The Karens moaning about "divisive algorithms". It's all music to my ears. It makes me giggle, knowing that at the end of the day, these so-called "progressive" normies are powerless to actually change anything. The soycucks can cry all they want. Even the parents of dead children can wave the tiny caskets around every day.
I love the fact that despite all the anger, nothing will happen. Why? Because that's just how the American political process works.
I love the federal judiciary, from the district courts to the U.S. Supreme Court and everything in between. In fact, there's been so much good news over the past six months alone that I didn't have the time to write detailed threads about all the things I wanted to write about. The S.D.N.Y. struck down New York's "online hate speech" law. Another district court held that 18-year-olds had a constitutional right to buy handguns. The Fifth Circuit invalidated a federal law that prevented anyone with a domestic violence restraining order from buying firearms. The Supremes upheld Section 230 in not one but two landmark cases, and did the same by denying cert to a third. A month later, they made it much harder for law enforcement to prosecute online threats. I could go on and on with more examples, but that would bore the goldfish-attention-span denizens of this forum.
I mean, look at the hysterics!
These decisions may or may not make it more difficult to prevent future mass shootings. They were not arbitrary; they were the product of rational, well-developed legal reasoning. For those of you who disagree, keep in mind that it is "emphatically the province and duty of the Judicial Department to say what the law is," not what the law should be. Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. at 177 (1803). These cases are a reminder that the Founding Fathers designed the federal judiciary to be a counter-majoritarian institution, and it is beautiful. What does that mean? In simple terms, it means that no amount of whining on the part of normies should influence the reading of the law. And if there's anything that exemplifies normie whining, it is the collective outrage after every mass shooting*. Mass shootings are so common and so normalized, yet so deliciously emotional; they tear at the national psyche like few other crimes.
Every time a mass shooting happens, the frenzy begins anew. The screaming, whining, moaning; but most importantly, the entitlement. We live in an era of entitlement—where some normies apparently believe that the law is there to cater to their feels and their feels only. They believe that the government should be allowed to punish incels for "hate speech," whatever that means; to deprive incels of bodily autonomy by enacting "common sense" gun reform, whatever that means; and to hold tech companies "accountable" for incel content, whatever that means. Unfortunately for these normies, that's not how the law works. The crybaby activist grifters inevitably fail from a combination of legislative gridlock and judicial review. Our harsh legal reality triumphs over their emotions.
Look, just like most people, I simply love to see entitled people being slapped down. So if I get to observe a renewed cycle of normie tears and futile outrage every single time there's another mass shooting, then gee, I guess I do love mass shootings. Because I get to see the beauty of the American political process, fully illustrated in all its glory. Again and again.
I love the First Amendment. I love the Second Amendment. I love Section 230.
______________________________________________________________________
*that fits their narrative (The Nashville school shooting, for example, has been memoryholed because the killer was a troon).
Last edited:
