Aristocracy of Outrage

Ezra Levant evaluates the new social hierarchy:

[First, the background:] Faith McGregor is the lesbian who doesn’t like the girly cuts that they do at a salon. She wants the boy’s hairdo. … Omar Mahrouk is the owner of the Terminal Barber Shop in Toronto. He follows Shariah law, so he thinks women have cooties. As Mahrouk and the other barbers there say, they don’t believe in touching women other than their own wives. … Mahrouk’s view is illiberal. But in Canada we believe in property rights and freedom of association — and in this case, freedom of religion, too. … McGregor ran to the Human Rights Tribunal and demanded that Mahrouk give her a haircut.

[…]

Oh, McGregor is politically correct. But just not politically correct enough. It’s like poker.

A white, Christian male has the lowest hand — it’s like he’s got just one high card, maybe an ace. So almost everyone trumps him.

A white woman is just a bit higher — like a pair of twos. Enough to beat a white man, but not much more.

A gay man is like having two pairs in poker.

A gay woman — a lesbian like McGregor — is like having three of a kind.

A black lesbian is a full house — pretty tough to beat.

Unless she’s also in a wheelchair, which means she’s pretty much a straight flush.

The only person who could trump that would be a royal flush. If the late Sammy Davis Jr. — who was black, Jewish and half-blind — were to convert to Islam and discover he was 1/64th Aboriginal.

So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?

(via)

(It’s been nothing but crash-phase democracy self-cannibalization everywhere I’ve looked today.)

February 28, 2014admin 20 Comments »
FILED UNDER :Discriminations , Pass the popcorn

TAGGED WITH : , , ,

20 Responses to this entry

  • VXXC Says:

    Can’t be argued with.

    Democracy Failed, ruin voters and the Left are to blame.

    It’s Their Fault

    [Reply]

    Posted on February 28th, 2014 at 11:27 am Reply | Quote
  • Dan Says:

    They came to some quiet resolution in mediation, the outcome of which is annoyingly not disclosed.

    http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/02/22/rights-complaint-against-muslim-barber-who-refused-to-give-woman-haircut-quietly-resolved/

    Can someone figure out what the outcome was?

    [Reply]

    Lesser Bull Reply:

    He agreed to cut her hair wearing gloves, she agreed to leave a tip.

    Statesmanship.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    Yup, this is something they want to resolve quietly. Keep the serpent from devouring itself as long as possible.

    [Reply]

    Moe McLendon Reply:

    They resolved it quietly between themselves without violence? Man, modern society is so broken.

    [Reply]

    admin Reply:

    If they had indeed “resolved it quietly between themselves without violence” the words “Human Rights Tribunal” would not have been part of the story.

    [Reply]

    Karl F. Boetel Reply:

    It was important to keep this quiet — to keep the long con running.

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    That’s a woman?

    [Reply]

    Handle Reply:

    I guess at the ‘has two X chromosome’ level. But I thought the same thing, “She probably had to tell them she was a female as soon as she walked in the door in a deliberate effort to bait them and stir up a fuss in the first place. Otherwise she could have gone in, gotten her hair cut, and left, without hardly any of those barbers suspecting they were violating Koranic law.”

    Which raises an obvious question. If the Koran implies that men are not to touch women to whom they are not married or related, for what I imagine is a sexuality-motivated rationale, then what about a very male-looking Lesbian for whom there is no danger whatsoever because of mutual revulsion?

    [Reply]

    spandrell Reply:

    Oh there’s plenty of Islamic jurists or whatever they’re called who would like to explain their views on the subject. c.f. this: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2012/04/23/the_ayatollah_under_the_bedsheets

    Judaism and Islam both have this annoying legalism in common. Jews tend to like working in law, why don’t Muslims? Not many lawyers out there that I know.

    Handle Reply:

    @spandrell:

    Two reasons.

    1. Because law is a competitive and selective field. Not everyone who is argumentative and enjoys spinning what they imagine to be clever theological webs, and encouraged by their easily-impressed subculture to do so, is actually capable of being a successful attorney which means you have to be able to reliably beat very able and worthy opponents. You have to have the right stuff.

    A great example of a kind of Potemkin-village or pastiche of imitation ‘Talmudism-for-the-dull’ is what you would see in Black protestant churches in the American South and Midwest.

    I’ve seen it in person, and it’s … darkly enlightening. Their talented 10% can become respected preachers or politicians (difference?) for their own communities in their own churches, and they imagine themselves to be smart so long as they stay focused on their local experience of relative status, but they only very rarely are able to compete in the big leagues when they have to face off against the other groups’ 10%’ers.

    This is one of the utilitarian tragedies of affirmative action, because you take an individual who could be feeling at those rewarding superior status points by being a respected professional in their own community – black lawyers and black doctors for blacks, etc. which is how it used to be done. But now you cream the community of its very best (leaving it even worse off than it was before), and you take those people and artificially elevate them to places where they sit at the very bottom of the pile, which is incredibly depressing and humiliating, and where they feel inferior and fail and drop-out.

    Of course for every artificially elevated NAM there is an artificially demoted white or asian person, so the creaming effect is less effective, and their breeding communities benefit and continue to be able to produce higher quality kids than they otherwise would with a fully merit-based system.

    2. Smart Muslim immigrants come into more objective and universal fields like science, medicine, computers, etc. where their foreign training can be applied to jobs abroad. That’s not possible with law, which is highly local and particularized. Second, law is a particularly insulated cartel and protected even from ‘native’ entry. Even as an American attorney barred in one state, it can be very difficult to move and set up shop in another state, and often requires taking another bar exam. Crossing an international border, say, into Canada, is even harder, even though the system is very similar. Finally, there are very few non-natives who are able to master the language to the degree necessary to be competitive.

    So, a lot of Muslims aren’t that smart, and the smart ones tend to be recent immigrants who naturally favor skill-sets of global application. You will start to see a lot more muslim lawyers as the immigrant doctors and programmers and scientists have native-born kids. But I wouldn’t expect many of these kids to remain devout muslims, or hold it as anything more than a kind of self-identity and group affiliation but without any genuine piety or adherence to orthodoxy.

    Posted on February 28th, 2014 at 4:27 pm Reply | Quote
  • SOBL Says:

    The listing in the post is also the hierarchy of who gets the last spot at Harvard.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 1st, 2014 at 1:44 am Reply | Quote
  • R7 Rocket Says:

    The Cathedral’s Sacred Pet List

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 1st, 2014 at 7:10 pm Reply | Quote
  • nyan_sandwich Says:

    That someone would deliberately go to a muslim barber as a lesbian woman, and then go the the humans rights tribunal when they refused. I’m not an islamophile, but man that rustles my jimmies. That was pure malice; there is no other interpretation. She should be in jail, and the laws she used repealed.

    These human rights laws are nominally to protect oppressed groups from being denied services and dignity, but in this case it’s pretty clear that the law is on the side of the oppressor. Aristocracy of Outrage indeed.

    Speaking of which, I assume the title is modeled after Rand’s “Aristocracy of Pull”. The parallels are striking. Rand was quite the impressive thinker.

    [Reply]

    Thales Reply:

    Ah, but as the Internet teaches us daily, trolling remains quite legal.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 1st, 2014 at 10:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Thales Says:

    As a lad decades ago, my friend and I would oft try to sort out the PC victim hierarchy for shits and giggles. It’s good to see that my pick, Black Handicapped Lesbian, is still the clear winner after all these years…

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 2nd, 2014 at 3:56 am Reply | Quote
  • C. Y. Chen Says:

    “So which is a better hand: A lesbian who wants a haircut or a Muslim who doesn’t want to give it to her?”

    I guess we’ll have to use the official privilege-determining calculator.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 2nd, 2014 at 11:11 am Reply | Quote
  • Different T Says:

    Connecticut Senator Chris Coons just said the US is going to need to look at offering asylum to the LGBT community in Uganda.

    Targeted importing of homosexuals from an African country with ~7% HIV rate.

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 2nd, 2014 at 1:41 pm Reply | Quote
  • Hawk Spitui Says:

    OT: Walter Russell Mead gives the Cathedral another good reaming…
    http://www.the-american-interest.com/blog/2014/03/01/putin-smashes-washingtons-cocoon/

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 2nd, 2014 at 7:01 pm Reply | Quote
  • Nick B. Steves Says:

    Cannot he just give her a really bad haircut and then say oops and promptly offer a refund?

    Cannot the anti-sodomite baker just substitute salt for sugar in the frosting of the Gay Nuptial cake and then say oops and promptly offer a refund?

    [Reply]

    Posted on March 4th, 2014 at 11:41 pm Reply | Quote

Leave a comment