There’s a Lot of “Douchebags” in This World

I came across this new controversy yesterday of some random lout posing herself in front of the Tomb of the Unknown Soldiers and appearing to shout and flip the bird. Pretty reprehensible, sure, but I’ll never really get the Internet’s penchant for obsessing over random idiots and louts. There’s a whole lot of Lindsey Stones out there in this world, and life’s too short for me to concern myself with them. But then again, maybe there’s not nearly enough public shame in this world for poor behavior, and perhaps we could use a lot more of it.

UPDATE: From Tam:

It’s the difference between lighting up next to a “NO SMOKING” sign, and lighting up next to a “NO SMOKING” sign in a pediatric lung cancer ward. One’s rebellious, the other’s reprehensible.


13 thoughts on “There’s a Lot of “Douchebags” in This World”

    1. That’s utterly appalling.

      Things like this, blatant evidence of an intolerable system, make me wonder how long our low level civil war will stay low level, one way or the other (either side going on a serious offensive).

    2. Wow. Why am I not surprised that a cop gets away with it. And he’s on disability? Unbelievable.

    3. I can’t believe Canton is that dumb. I wouldn’t be surprised if some enterprising lawyer wasn’t finding out Harless’s schedule and rounding up a potential “victim” even as we speak.

      The guy is a six-figure settlement looking for a place to happen.

      1. It’s buying into the general system that Canton has that was dumb. After that, these sorts of decisions are inevitable when executives don’t have a real right to fire someone. Imagine the President not being able to relieve from duty a general or admiral.

  1. Everything is ironic anymore; nothing is actually seriously “meant”, so nothing can -be- reprehensible.

    Tam’s snark is weapons-grade because it comes from sincerely held, well-reasoned positions. Most of what passes for “snark” on the internet is merely ignorant post-modern mockery of such sincerely held and well-reasoned positions; which snark is then deemed proof against offense-taking (and reasoned rebuttal) by its claimed basis in irony.

    “Why so serious?”, “U mad bro?” and all that.


  2. For those unmarried men in her age range, might I recommend that you never have sex with her and never, ever consider marriage to this woman. Think about the very slim chance of a draft coming back and getting called and she is the one who has your back…

    Treachery has its price.

  3. The following was sent to me by my friend Robert Johnson. As a veteran I share his sentiments:–abc-news-money.html

    Robert Johnson, army veteran and military and defense editor at news site, Business Insider, wrote an op-ed, saying he felt “compelled to defend her.”

    “More importantly, if Lindsey Stone wants to rip on the Tomb of the Unknowns, me, my service, or the hundreds of mutilated troops I served with at Walter Reed Medical Center, she should be able to do so without fear of retribution,” Johnson wrote. “Freedom like that is what we fought for, and respecting other opinions is part of what the militray tried to teach all of us who served.”

    1. Without fear of physical violent injury in retribution? Certainly, that is the rule of law I served to protect.

      Without fear of government sanction? Again, certainly, her right to make her opinion known, even through being a douchebag, without censorship is her right as enshrined in the 1st Amendment.

      But without negative consequence? No, full stop.

      Being willing to bear the consequences of one’s freely chosen, however poorly considered actions is the mark of not only the free person this country was formed by but also the mark of a competent adult.

      It is not “retribution” but rather the right of an organization of freely associated adults to act in their own best interests by disassociating themselves from a member who casts them in a bad light. It is not “retribution” for others to equally speak freely with criticism and lawful actions to make their opinion known.

      To call speech, even via lawful action, in reaction to speech “retribution” does not show respect for the right and concept all veterans served to protect.

  4. “But without negative consequence?”

    But, veterans didn’t want to stop at calling her a stupid shit; they wanted her fired from her job. A bit disproportionate, I’d say, and a bit over-worshipful of their own importance.

    If she had been caught being in someway dishonest, or threatening direct harm to others, that would be one thing. She just being an asshole doesn’t demand that everyone who ever wore the uniform try to out-asshole her.

    1. So why didn’t her employer keep her?

      She can say what she wants; we can say what we want; it wasn’t our call.

Comments are closed.