Someone should point out to the cartoonist that guns are an evolved issue and that it is easy to demonstrate the gun is civilization. Furthermore at the time of the wooly mammoth weapons of the day were spears, bow and arrows, and clubs. It would appear the cartoonist would prefer we revert to such primitive times. I find this very confusing. But then, I frequently find people with crazy ideas confusing.
There is no cause for confusion here. This sort of thing should be crystal clear to you, and readily predictable.
The Left, which is to say the authoritarian mind, has always considered its top down system of pressure, intimidation and control to be “innovation”. That is of course the selling point, the bait, the lie, the way to bring the proud and the ignorant into the fold.
THEY innovate, and so if you oppose them you oppose innovation, experimentation, evolution, progress, the search for truth and justice, and everything else that is good in the world. That makes you a throwback, a fuddy duddy, an old fool getting in the way, and in Obama’s words, “gumming up the works”.
That cheap trick is as old as the hills. What part of it is confusing?
I will be pleased to disappoint them.
I suppose it is necessary to finish up by saying that because we are old, and because we in our reactionary way oppose the “innovations” of the authoritarian system, because we cling to the “worn out notions of individualism” then the solution (or should I say “Final Solution”) to our insolence and stupidity is that we should be swept away like garbage in the streets. The sooner the better and good riddance.
We’ve seen all of this over and over and over throughout history, and so again; where is there any cause for confusion?
Mammoths didn’t go extinct because they couldn’t evolve. Another species came along. Guess who.
Dirty, rotten, sexist, violent men and their weapons-as-penis-extensions killing and causing extinctions since the Stone Age, you mean? (Sorry, but if you mean to sway anyone on the Left, well, that would be their reaction).
Would they dare say that about an “indigenous” people?
Generally no, but those who may have contributed to the extinction of the mammoth don’t currently have a political advocacy group, so they may be fair game if a way can be found to use them to promote the narrative. It’s all about the narrative.
White Northern Europeans are of course “indigenous” to Northern Europe, but they don’t get to call themselves “indigenous” of course. Same goes for Semitic Jews in the Middle East. That wouldn’t help the narrative.
Long ago (10 years in blog years) a blogger named Egregious Charles once said that any bad thing is called by a name that includes white men. North American megafauna gone extinct? The fault of hunting pressure from Early Man. Terrorism around the world in one direction only? Extreme religious fundamentalism. But this only works one way. Prehistoric rock art was done by aboriginal peoples, which Lyle notes does not include white people. I can’t think of any exceptions.
Lyle, I think the answer is “generally yes” because leftists believe that they can say what they want because their intentions are pure. Witness Bloomberg arguing for disarming people based on age and race, and getting away with it.