Love in the Time of Cancel Culture

This post may contain affiliate links. Please read our disclosure for more information.

When I met Mrs. Groovy, she was the typical Manhattanite. She had a very cosmopolitan worldview and was a strong believer in energetic government. In other words, she was a communist who didn’t know she was a communist.

As a freedomist, of course, I had every right to “cancel” the pre-Mrs. Groovy from my life. A number of her beliefs were unambiguously hostile to the inalienable rights that I hold dear and are enshrined in our Constitution. But thanks to my growing appreciation of human frailty, I didn’t cancel the pre-Mrs. Groovy. And it was the best decision I ever made. My life today would be decidedly worse off if I didn’t marry a commie from New York.

Quick aside: Cancel culture works both ways, of course. As an unbeknownst communist, the pre-Mrs. Groovy had every right to cancel me from her life. Many of my beliefs were unambiguously hostile to the rights that she held dear and were enshrined in her cosmopolitan worldview. Now, I like to think that her marrying a freedomist from Long Island was the best decision of her life. But that’s something she’ll have to confirm.

Human Frailty and Politics

Most people aren’t built for abstract thought. They have neither the time nor mental bandwidth to develop a coherent and just catechism for life. So most people have little choice but to outsource a good chunk of their thinking. They take their cues on how to act and what to value from others.

Now a question: What happens when a good person, either out of necessity, laziness, or ignorance, outsources his or her thinking to bad or confused people? If you answered that our good person will, unfortunately, do things which are detrimental to him or her, or detrimental to others, go straight to the head of the class.

And that’s the inherent flaw of letting others think for you. The quality of your thinking is very much dependent on the quality of your thought subcontractors.

I first recognized this phenomenon about halfway through my public service career. I was a good person who wanted to do good things, but I would come to work and be a bum. During the typical eight-hour workday, I would only give the taxpayers about two hours of moderately conscientious work. And I behaved poorly toward the taxpayers because that’s how my thought subcontractors at my government job said I should behave. Older and more senior co-workers let it be known that only “suckers” gave it their all at work, and because, like most people, I wanted to fit in, I submitted to that twisted sentiment.

The good news is that once I realized my thought subcontractors at work were losers, I stopped using them to guide my workplace conduct, and I behaved much more ethically at work during the last half of my public service career.

The good news also is that once I had this epiphany—that good people could be terrible at outsourcing their thinking—I began to question the quality of my thought subcontractors in other aspects of my life. Were the people I read, listened to, and watched above reproach? Was their guidance making me healthy, wealthy, and wise? Was their guidance making me more sympathetic toward my fellow man or less? And much to my chagrin, I came to the realization that many of my thought subcontractors were wanting. Their concern for me was entirely predicated on my utility for them. I existed only to be manipulated—to make sure I embraced the “right” institutions and values, consumed the “right” things in the “right” amounts, and, above all, voted for the “right” politicians.

Now another question: If I realized rather late in life, and largely by dumb luck, that one’s thought subcontractors could be terrible, could I rightfully deem another person persona non grata merely because he or she has failed to realize that his or her thought subcontractors might be terrible as well? I don’t think so. Shunning people for that failure strikes me as incredibly shortsighted. After all, we aren’t taught in school how to question the quality of our thought subcontractors and why we should. So we’re all naturally handicapped when it comes to outsourcing our thinking. Our default position is to assume that our parents, friends, co-workers, teachers, favorite entertainers, and preferred talking heads know what the hell is going on and are worthy of following.

I’m not saying, of course, that having terrible thought subcontractors is always a “get out of jail for free” pass. If you have terrible thought subcontractors who say it’s okay to kick sleeping dogs, and you go around kicking sleeping dogs, you should be shunned. In other words, there’s a big difference between consilio malum, wrong by design, and accidens malum, wrong by ignorance. Hurling racial slurs, treating waitresses like dirt, mugging elderly people—things such as these are consilio malum. There’s no question that the direct result of these actions is a world with more ugliness than necessary, and anyone who engages in such actions forfeits the slightest bit of understanding. On the other hand, maxing out credit cards, consuming too much television, having a child out-of-wedlock—things such as these are accidens malum. Sure, anyone who engages in these actions is complicating his or her life and the lives of others. But the link between these actions and increased world ugliness is much more tenuous. Ugliness may appear on the horizon, or it may not. And because these actions don’t automatically increase world ugliness, the perpetrators of such actions deserve a little charity. They more than likely engage in such actions out of ignorance, and it’s entirely possible that they would stop engaging in such actions the moment they were afforded better thought subcontractors.

Pre-Mrs. Groovy was very much like me. If the pre-Mrs. Groovy visited injury upon anyone, including herself, it was entirely the result of accidens malum. Pre-Mrs. Groovy never purposely hurt anyone. She was one of the kindest people I ever met. And she was especially kind to recused animals, low-status workers, and old people.

Now, when I took stock of the pre-Mrs. Groovy, here’s what a saw:

1. A kind, amazing chick.
2. A kind, amazing chick who was willing to take a flier on me and all my faults—which made her even more kind and even more amazing.

The only thing we disagreed about was politics. She voted D and I voted R. But she didn’t vote D out of malice. She voted D because her thought subcontractors said voting D would make the world better.

I thus had a choice: “Cancel” my potential soulmate because she had lousy thought subcontractors when it came to politics, or cut my potential soulmate some slack and see what kind of life we could build for ourselves together?

Since the pre-Mrs. Groovy is now the one-and-only Mrs. Groovy, and has been the latter for almost 19 years, you know what choice I made. And as I pointed out at the beginning of this post, it was the best decision in my life.

I was very much a work-in-progress when I met the pre-Mrs. Groovy. But of all my faults, I never devolved into a deranged tribalist. I had my epiphany regarding human frailty and the inability of even good people to ward off terrible thought subcontractors, and I suggest you do the same. Don’t cancel good people over politics—especially if those good people are family, friends, or potential soulmates. Our sociopath politicians, whether they have a D or an R in front of their names, aren’t worth it, and you’re needlessly sabotaging your chances of experiencing true happiness in this world. True happiness isn’t tribal politics, 24-7. True happiness is enjoying the mundane in the company of good people. It’s card night with the gang, it’s driving mom and dad to their second Covid shot appointment, and it’s sitting on the couch watching television as your favorite commie uses you as a backstop for her pillow and her weary head—you get the idea. A wise soul keeps as many good people in his or her life as possible.

Twelve Signs You Might Have Terrible Thought Subcontractors

Okay, that’s my spiel on why I think cancel culture is dumb and why you shouldn’t let politics interfere with your quest for romance. What I want to do now is twofold. First, for a little fun, I want to present you with 12 signs that you might need to ditch your current thought subcontractors. Then, to satisfy my ridiculous need to tilt at windmills,  I want to convince my single progressive friends that they’re way too haughty when it comes to politics. I know it’s an exercise in futility, but I want my single progressive friends to find their soulmates too. So I’m going to show them that their political poop stinks just as much as anyone else’s political poop, and they’re acting incredibly foolish when they “cancel” potential soulmates for wearing a MAGA hat or for failing to instantly accept whatever new social taboo our perpetually aggrieved Marxist professors invent. Here we go.

If any of the following apply to you, it’s time to seriously reaccess your thought subcontractors.

1. You’re living paycheck to paycheck.
2. You’re not engaged at work; you only do enough not to get fired.
3. You routinely wake up on Sunday with a hangover.
4. You eat fast food more than once a week.
5. You can’t walk up a couple of flights of stairs without huffing and puffing.
6. You never read, watch, or listen to anything that challenges your worldview.
7. You never create anything with your own hands.
8. You don’t relish the simple joys of life—walking in the park, having a catch, calling an old friend, etc.
9. You think the institution of marriage is archaic.
10. You’re an inveterate complainer or excuse-maker.
11. You think your problems can be solved in Washington DC or your state’s capital.
12. You see racism everywhere.

Progressives Be Not Proud

Progressives aren’t always on the side of angels. They don’t have a monopoly on virtue. And because of this, they’re in no position to cancel anyone over politics.

But lest you doubt the veracity of the previous paragraph, here are five examples that prove progressive political poop stinks just as much as anyone else’s political poop.

Paycheck Slavery

Who owns your paycheck? You or the government? In a free country, you would own the vast majority of your income (at least 75 percent), and you would have the legal right to tell covetous politicians and their covetous supporters to shove it.

Progressives, however, beg to differ. As firm believers in prioritizing government wants over individual wants, they love the notion of democracy when it comes to taxation, and they would never agree to constitutional limits on what portion of your income the feds, states, and local governments can lawfully confiscate.

Now, to show you that democracy isn’t always the friend of liberty, especially when it comes to taxation, I want you to think of women’s suffrage, Jim Crow, and gay marriage. At various points in our nation’s history, the majority of voters believed that women weren’t fit for voting, blacks weren’t fit for riding in the front of the bus, and gay soulmates weren’t fit for marriage. But thankfully, the better angels of our nature prevailed, and we realized that making women, blacks, and gays second-class citizens was an affront to liberty. So we usurped majority rule (i.e. democracy) and no longer allowed the voters to decide who votes, who rides in the front of the bus, and who gets married.

Well, the same analysis applies to taxation. At some point, if the tax bite reaches above a certain threshold, taxation becomes synonymous with slavery. You toil and stress and earn bread and someone else decides who eats it. And because paycheck slavery is an affront to liberty, what is deemed a permissible level of taxation shouldn’t be decided by vote. Majority rule is just as hamfisted and dangerous mediating taxation as it is mediating civil rights.

Again, progressives love democracy when it comes to taxation. The last thing they want is constitutional limits on the government’s ability to tax away your income. They know their grip on the levers of governmental power is growing, and they know their ability to sow dependency, envy, and resentment amongst the voters is growing too. So getting 51 percent of the voters to vote for “tax the rich” policies will become easier and easier. And the end result of not usurping majority rule when it comes to taxation is depressingly clear: Progressives will soon own our government, progressives will soon own your paycheck, and progressives will soon own you.

Progressive Crow

Progressives fancy themselves as very anti-racist and very anti-sexist. But this badge of virtue is mocked by their implacable support of legal discrimination in favor of blacks, Hispanics, and women (i.e., affirmative action). In other words, progressives have no problem with legalized bigotry, as long as it’s directed at the people they don’t like (i.e., whites, males, and to a lesser extent, Asians).

Quick aside: And don’t fall for progressive rationalizations that attempt to put a pretty face on their flavor of bigotry (i.e., diversity, equity, privilege, implicit bias, etc.). The Constitution says a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law is inalienable. It doesn’t say a citizen’s right to equal protection of the law is inalienable as long as our progressive overlords agree. 

Due Process for Some but Not Others

At one time, progressives believed that all accused, even the most heinous and overtly guilty, had a constitutional right to due process. But that noble belief is now out the window—at least on college campuses and in the workplace, anyway. We are now in the era of “believe all women,” and progressives have no problem with men being booted from college or being denied promotions because a woman stepped forward and merely accused them of sexual misconduct. Yep, evidence and facts are now tools of patriarchal oppression. And, besides, women never make mistakes, and women never lie. So why maintain procedures and rules that give men the right to properly defend themselves and increase the likelihood that only the truly guilty are convicted?

Quick aside: Progressives, of course, counter that due process only pertains to the courtroom. And that’s a fair point. But here’s a question for my progressive friends: Would you be okay if “believe all men” became a mantra on college campuses and in the workplace and women’s lives were being ruined by impossible to corroborate accusations of sexual misconduct from men? I could be wrong, but something tells me you’d be appalled by that situation.

Compelled Speech

You can’t compel students to say a prayer or recite the pledge of allegiance in school, nor can you force an atheist to say “God bless you” whenever a Christian, Jew, or Muslim sneezes in his or her presence, but it’s perfectly okay, according to progressives, to compel pronouns. In other words, if a man identifies as a woman and puts on a dress, you better play along and address him with female pronouns. And if you fail to play along, progressives will gleefully unleash their Red Guard SJWs upon your uppity soul.

The Dehumanization of White People

The Japanese didn’t rape Nanking because they were Asians. The Hutu didn’t commit genocide in Rwanda because they were black. And the Spanish didn’t colonize nearly everything south of the Rio Grande because they were Hispanic. The Japanese, Hutu, and Spanish did these horrible things, and continue to do horrible things today, because they were and are human beings—you know, the “most volatile, evil, disgusting things on the planet.”

Likewise, white people didn’t do horrible things in the past because they were white. Nor do they do horrible things today because they are white. White people did horrible things in the past, and continue to do horrible things today, because they were and are human too.

Progressives, of course, don’t see things this way. They really believe that there’s something peculiar about white people—that they have a monopoly on evil. And this twisted belief that whites are morally inferior to all other races became acutely evident in the wake of George Floyd’s largely self-inflicted death.* Consider the following:

Yep, believing that white people are the cause of all suffering in America and on earth is very fashionable in progressive circles these days. That’s why white people are the official villains of every institution dominated by progressives (i.e., big education, big journalism, big entertainment, big business, big tech, big government, etc.). And that’s why progressives are on a messianic quest to purge as much “whiteness” from this country as they can.

Quick aside: Does anyone besides me find it odd that progressives are adamantly opposed to getting the gayness out of gay people (i.e., gay conversion therapy) but are perfectly okay with getting the “whiteness” out of white people?

Make no mistake: You vote Democrat, the party of progressivism, you’re voting for politicians who are the ideological cousins of Jim Crow segregationists. Jim Crow segregationists of years past believed it was okay to treat black Americans like crap because black Americans were “intellectually inferior” to white Americans, and Democrats today believe it’s okay to treat white Americans like crap because white Americans are “morally inferior” to black Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Asian Americans.

Another quick aside: I also find it odd that progressives are adamantly opposed to the notion that intelligence is largely inherited (see the criticism section of The Bell Curve’s Wikipedia entry) but are perfectly okay with the notion, at least when it comes to white people, that guilt is completely inherited. I guess there’s no intelligence gene but there is an oppression gene. And I guess that’s why progressives don’t believe in redemption for white people (white racial attitudes today are no different than white racial attitudes in the 1950s), and why progressives don’t begrudge the looting and rioting that took place all across America in the wake of George Floyd’s largely self-inflicted death* (an alleged crime by a single white against a single minority is an unmitigated crime by all whites against all minorities). 

*George Floyd’s death: I firmly believe that George Floyd’s death resulted more from his drug consumption and his obstinance than from the cop’s knee. And I firmly believe this because I’ve learned to firmly distrust whatever narrative our liberal media are pushing—especially when it comes to incidents where tragedy befalls a minority and white people are seemingly at fault. They got the Duke Lacrosse story wrong. They got the Mike Brown story wrong. They got the Trayvon Martin story wrong. They got the Freddie Gray story wrong. They got the Nick Sandmann story wrong. They got the Jussie Smollett story wrong. They got the Jacob Blake story wrong. And they got the Breonna Taylor story wrong. So what are the odds that our liberal media got the George Floyd story right? It’s possible, of course, but I doubt it. Their anti-white, anti-cop bias makes objective reporting extremely difficult for them. 

Final Thoughts

Okay, groovy freedomist. That’s all I got. What say you? Is it about time we smite cancel culture? Or is walking on eggshells and constantly bowing down to self-righteous freaks a good thing for society? And what about my 12 signs and my proof that progressive political poop stinks just as much as anyone else’s political poop? Let me know what you think when you get a chance. Peace.