ConservaTibbs

Nothing is ever good enough for these people

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 17 Aug 2026 08:02:38 GMT

When U.S. Senator Jim Banks announced on X (formerly Twitter) that President Trump agreed to send aid to Indiana after severe storms and flooding in the Hoosier state, MAGA idiots swarmed the comments and damned Senator Banks for “betraying” President Trump and “stabbing him in the back.” I have said it before and I will say it again: This is what a cult looks like.

First, they started whining about the “SAVE Act” and whining that Senator Banks was not doing enough or was even opposed to it. This is obviously absurd. Senator Banks is a sponsor of the SAVE act. Second, Republicans simply do not have the votes to pass the 60 vote filibuster threshold to pass it into law. There are 53 Republicans in the United States Senate, so seven Democrats would have to go along with passing that legislation. That is not going to happen.

Senator Banks supports eliminating the filibuster and has said so, but he is 1 of 100 Senators and 1 of 53 Republicans. Even if you could get a simple majority vote to end the filibuster, you have to get 51 of 53 Republicans to vote for that. That is a steep hill to climb, because a lot of Republicans are worried about what Democrats will do in 2029 if they have the House, the Senate and the Presidency. The filibuster was a key part of Republican efforts to stop President Obama’s agenda from 2009 to 2016 and President Biden’s agenda from 2021 to 2024. It was also used when President Clinton was in office.

But you cannot blame Senator Banks for Republicans holding the opposite position he does. That is stupid and unreasonable. MAGA idiots whining at Senator Banks know literally nothing, and are spreading falsehoods in their proud ignorance. They know nothing about the Senate, they know nothing about Senate rules, and they know nothing about the Senators they attack. All they see is President Trump not getting his way and they are throwing a temper tantrum because of it. It is pathetic to see so-called “adults” act like this.

The next thing MAGA idiots were whining about was “pro forma sessions” in the United States Senate, whining that this prevented President Trump from making recess appointments. The problem with this so-called “argument” is that Senate Republicans are doing exactly what President Trump told them to do. From the Washington Post:

President Donald Trump demanded Monday that Senate Majority Leader John Thune (R-South Dakota) keep the Senate in session until it passes a voting bill that he has said would “guarantee the midterms” for Republicans.

President Trump posted this on Truth Social:

John Thune should not allow the United States Senate to “leave town” until it passes The Save America Act or, far better still, TERMINATES THE FILIBUSTER

So President Trump wants the Senate to stay in session, Senator Banks does exactly what President Trump wanted him to do by gaveling the Senate into session, and MAGA idiots immediately start whining pathetically that Senator Banks “stabbed Trump in the back.” Yes, that is correct. Senator Banks stabbed President Trump in the back by... um... er... doing exactly what President Trump wanted him to do. Nothing is ever good enough for these people.

Look, there are things the Republican Senate can do to move President Trump’s policy agenda forward. Even without eliminating the filibuster, Republicans could require a talking filibuster. You could point to specific Republicans who have not been as supportive of President Trump’s legislative agenda as they should be, including Republicans who voted against the SAVE Act. Senator Jim Banks has been fully supportive of President Trump’s agenda from day one. Damning Senator Banks shows how far too many in MAGA embrace President Trump not as a political figure, but as a religious leader. To them, he is not President Trump. He is the Holy Prophet Trump, peace be upon him. This is wicked idolatry and should be condemned.

Is opposition to cameras disproportionate?

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 14 Aug 2026 08:00:34 GMT

I am under video surveillance every time I shop at a big box store, and I have grown used to the self-checkout lines at Kroger and CVS watching me as I scan my items to make sure I scan everything. The cameras also get a good view of my bald spot, so I get an amusing reminder of how much hair I am losing. When I am in a public place, I do not have an expectation of privacy the way I do in my home, or in a rental unit (such as an Air B&B) or a hotel room.

Both Bloomington city government and Monroe County government have removed Flock cameras from local use, and the county commissioners voted to pay a $3,000 fee to have the cameras removed ahead of schedule. Much of this was after public pressure and lobbying to remove the cameras. But the commissioners admit that the cameras have found missing persons. The cameras have also helped police solve crimes, both locally and in Indianapolis.

Yes, there are legitimate concerns about how long data is stored and how the data can be abused to track people's movements. I cannot help but wonder how many of the people objecting to this are carrying around computers in their pockets that also track their movements and share them with faceless multinational corporations, or social media apps that have ties to authoritarian regimes like Communist China.

Some of this is a moral panic about sharing information with federal agencies for immigration enforcement. But is it really wise to take away an important tool that local law enforcement uses to solve crimes and find missing persons because we do not like the policies of President Trump? It seems more than a little short-sighted to sacrifice local safety to make a statement about national politics, especially with concerns about crime and public drug use in Bloomington and Monroe County. Local policy decisions should be based on the needs of the local community, not support or opposition to whatever the federal government is doing.

While concerns over data privacy and storage have some merit, the answer is to be forward-thinking and negotiate the contract in a way that gives city or county government control over the recordings captured by Flock or whatever other company contracts with local government for security cameras. The answer is not to recklessly take away an important tool both city and county law enforcement use to catch criminals and keep law-abiding citizens safe. Unfortunately, the Democrats in charge of local government allowed political pressure to override public safety policy.

Subscribe now

Men need better models of masculinity

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 12 Aug 2026 08:00:44 GMT

When Andrew and Tristan Tate were arrested on July 18, there was a debate over the trustworthiness of the United Kingdom's government and the merit of the charges against them. Let's assume for the sake of argument that the Tates are totally innocent of all charges against them. They are still not people who young men should emulate.

The Tate brothers famously made their fortune operating a webcam business where women would prostitute themselves for money. Andrew Tate has distanced himself and downplayed this aspect of his history, but it is nonetheless a very well-established fact. It amazes me that some conservative pundits who have railed against the evils of pornography have embraced and promoted the Tates. If we believe in a society where traditional sexual morality is valued and women are honored and protected by men instead of abused and exploited by men, the last people we should be honoring are Andrew and Tristan Tate.

Masculinity is good, but the Tate brothers are a cartoonish parody of masculinity. The "masculinity" promoted by the Tates is a far cry of the Biblical model. Scripture gives us these qualifications for elders in the church, and these are things that are good goals for Christian men: "Blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach; Not given to wine, no striker, not greedy of filthy lucre; but patient, not a brawler, not covetous." How many of these things can be used to describe the Tate brothers?

Part of the problem is the growing "edgelord" mentality on the Right. The Tates go out of their way to offend people, especially feminists, and many young men glory in seeing people offended. But it is not enough to be an anti-Leftist. Conservative principles, especially moral principles, should be the foundation of conservative efforts in the public square. The way to "own the libs" is not trolling and being outrageous, but advancing principles such is free markets, private property rights, free speech, sexual morality and protection of the innocent.

It was not that long ago where men with the history of the Tates would not be embraced by conservatives. (And in fairness, there are a number of conservative pundits who have been harshly critical of them.) The good news is that this presents a mission field for the Church: Men who are grasping for masculinity can be taught Biblical masculinity instead of the empty materialism espoused by the Tates and the rest of the pagan "manosphere." It has been encouraging to see many in the Church take advantage of this opportunity, and that needs to continue.

Subscribe now

The cult of autism is a false religion

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 10 Aug 2026 20:40:38 GMT

In January 2015, Muslim terrorists attacked the offices of Charlie Hebdo and viciously murdered 12 people, because the newspaper had published things they thought were blasphemous. Some advocates for autistic children are every bit as fanatical as murderous Muslim terrorists and fantasize about violence against people who share "blasphemous" opinions about autism. This is the kind of reaction you will see to opinions that children on the autism spectrum (often called neurodivergent) should be expected to behave properly. They cast this as "standing up for their children," but an opinion on the Internet has never harmed a child. No, this is about religious fanaticism against those speaking "blasphemy."

Neurodivergent children often need extra help and accommodations, especially in school as they are learning about the world and the expectations of society. Neurodivergent children have difficulty understanding the unspoken expectations or unwritten societal rules others take for granted. This is why many schools have Individualized Education Programs for children who need more help, and this is a good thing not only for the children who need the help, but also for teachers and for neurodivergent children's classmates who are less distracted by disruptions.

But while extra help is both needed and appropriate, it is not "ableism" to expect a neurodivergent child to behave properly. We live in a society and there are going to be rules, standards, and etiquette that neurodivergent children will need to learn in order to function in our society and to hopefully become independent adults. Basic things like hand-washing to protect others and neurodivergent children themselves from disease are important skills and habits to learn.

And no, outside of basic hygiene and prohibitions on violence, I am not going to make an exhaustive list of what it means to behave properly. That is a fool's errand and I am not going to allow the overall point to get lost in a flood of arguments over every possible aspect of a neurodivergent person's behavior. Behavioral expectations are also going to be different from child to child, because each neurodivergent child has different abilities and limitations. There is a reason "autism" has been classified as "autism spectrum disorder," because every child is different.

Some advocates for neurodivergent children become enraged at what they believe to be expectations for "masking," or not engaging in certain behaviors that come out of autism. But not every behavior is appropriate for every situation, and we also have to consider the needs of other children. Neurodivergent children, after all, are not the only children in the world. Again, this is going to differ from person to person, as some neurodivergent people are going to have more difficulty than others and will have different triggers - such as bright lights or loud noises. But if we actually do love neurodivergent children, we will want them to learn to live within societal expectations and become independent adults to the greatest extent possible while also caring for their well-being and mental health.

But some "parents" cannot bear the thought of any outside standards on an autistic child, and become deranged and threaten violence at opinions that conflict with their theological commitments. While threatening violence and even murder for "blasphemous" opinions (just like Muslim terrorists do) they project their fanaticism onto others and pretend those who disagree about expectations are guilty of physically or verbally abusing autistic children. This is psychologically necessary for these religious fanatics to pretend that threats of violence and murder are actually "self defense."

If you, as the alleged "parent" of a neurodivergent child, cannot handle an opinion on the Internet you find objectionable and immediately resort to threatening violence and murder in response to these opinions, you are a bad parent. Perhaps Child Protective Services needs to investigate whether your neurodivergent child is safe in your home given your threats and outbursts of anger.

No one is pretending that there are any easy answers, other than the religious fanatics who treat autism/neurodivergence as a holy sacrament that must not be altered in any way. These cultists do not care about neurodivergent children, and they certainly do not care about how unrestrained bad behavior impacts others. They want to impose their religious views on everyone in society, including neurodivergent children who could benefit from extra help. This is a shamefully selfish position that should be categorically rejected.

And now for an old man rant about affordability

Scott Tibbs — Sat, 08 Aug 2026 08:00:34 GMT

"It shouldn't cost $20 for a burrito."

You never know what is going to spark a long-running discussion on social media, but this one on August 4 sparked heavy debate about affordability, mostly on X. Most of the people are talking past each other, focusing on different things. Both are important, and both should be addressed.

To the first claim: Of course getting a burrito is going to cost more when you order a more expensive option and then pay DoorDash or Grubhub to deliver it. If you want higher-end food and the convenience of having it delivered to your door so you do not need to leave your house, you're going to have to pay a premium for the cost of the delivery.

But we should not pretend that is a normal thing for everyone. I went to Taco Bell's website a couple days after the controversy broke, and the most expensive burrito I could find was $6.00 - less than one third of the the cost being debated on social media. You can also go to Wal-Mart and buy a package of eight frozen burritos for less than four dollars, or you can buy the basic ingredients (tortillas, meat, vegetables, salsa, beans, rice and whatever else) and make them yourself for significantly less than $20 per burrito.

Obviously, affordability is an issue, and no one is saying otherwise. There are a number of things that can be done to increase affordability: Lower tax rates a all levels and stop spending so much money at the federal level. Having freedom of the press at the U.S. Mint may buy votes, but it also has downstream effects on the economy. At the local level, we can make homes more affordable by doing things like decreasing the regulatory burden of land-use policy, and states can also limit the authority of local government's planning and zoning boards. We should not dismiss the affordability issue.

We also need some historical perspective. Food took up roughly 30% of household budgets in 1950, while it is less than half of that today. Consumer technology is dramatically less expensive than it was 30 years ago, and significantly more powerful. We are living in an incredible time, with luxuries (like air conditioning) our grandparents and great grandparents could not dream of having. I did not live somewhere with central air conditioning until I was 25 years old, and I am firmly in the middle of Generation X.

But if someone is spending $20 on a burrito and then whining about the cost of it, that is not a public policy problem. That is a personal choice problem. We can address the overall affordability issue while also pointing out that people can be more responsible with how they spend their money and recognizing that convenience often increases price. As with so much of life, it is not "all or nothing" and we need to throw the "all or nothing" mentality on the trash heap of history.

When woke virtue signaling overrides a good argument

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 05 Aug 2026 08:02:33 GMT

I have watched or listened to a few of Legal Eagle's videos, so I was taken aback when I saw a video by Taylor Lorenz claiming that his video about the Meta/Google settlement regarding social media addiction was a "homophobic" moral panic. (Legal Eagle is a lawyer named Devin Stone.) I did not recall any opposition to homosexuality in previous Legal Eagle videos, so I listened to the "controversial" take. I was completely unsurprised to learn that Lorenz openly lied about Stone's take. Not only is the video not homophobic, the video has nothing at all to do with homosexuality. Her "argument" is guilt by association, assigning blame to Stone for positions taken by the Heritage Foundation.

Lorenz also continually harps on the allegation that Kaley Glenn-Mills' mother was abusive, but ignores the fact that Glenn-Mills defended her mother at the trial and described their relationship as good today. Lorenz portrays the parental relationship as much more toxic than the adult plaintiff herself does today, as if Glenn-Mills has less agency as an adult than she did as a child. This dishonesty further undermines Lorenz's credibility as a so-called "journalist."

Lorenz's obsession with homosexuality and her fraudulent accusation of "homophobia" undermine her overall argument, which - to be honest - I find more compelling than Stone's argument. That is why Lorenz's dishonesty is so counterproductive. There are all kinds of places where compulsive behaviors are harmful, especially when those compulsive behaviors take away from someone's responsibilities to others. That does not mean someone else is responsible for a person's compulsive behaviors. If Meta and Google are responsible for a tween and then teenage girl spending hours a day on their platforms, then they need to show why the "defective" platform does not also cause innumerable other teens, tweens and adults to spend hours a day on those platforms.

That is where Stone's argument fails, especially the comparison to Big Tobacco. If tens of millions of people can use social media responsibly and not be obsessed with "doomscrolling" or content creation, and others get drawn into a cycle of inappropriate use, you will need to explain why the platform and the algorithm is harmful to some and not others. With cigarettes, the harm is clear: Various chemicals damage the throat and lungs while significantly increasing the risk of cancer. These harmful effects on the human body are present in everyone who smokes, not just some, and are demonstrated with scientific evidence. No such evidence exists that social media causes that harm for everyone who uses it.

I am not going to defend every aspect of Big Tech's behavior, and content moderation is especially egregious. But if someone is obsessed with social media and getting attention to their content, that is ultimately the responsibility of the user himself or herself, or (in the case of someone very young) the responsibility of the parents to limit and control the use of technology. As Lorenz herself points out, the worrying aspect of this case is that the legal precedent could be used to take away privacy and control speech. As with other panics in the past, this looks more like technophobia and scapegoating than legitimate damages for harm done.

This is a bad ruling that places blame on Big Tech itself for the irresponsible use of their products and inadequate parental supervision, and has worrying implications for the future of free speech. While Section 230 has been a bulwark against efforts to censor the Internet, this case shows more work needs to be done. Congress needs to pass legislation to further strengthen legal protections for interactive content providers and prevent the courts from abusing product liability law to enrich trial attorneys.

Subscribe now

Character matters, but policy also matters

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 31 Jul 2026 08:00:55 GMT

When David French wrote about James Talarico, French described him as a "faith-forward" politician and "one of the few openly Christian politicians... who acts like a Christian." (More on that in a minute.) Talarico and his backers are trying to cast the 2026 U.S. Senate race in terms of personal character, especially given the notorious ethical problems with Republican candidate Ken Paxton.

The elephant in the room is when Talarico described God as "non-binary." This is directly opposed to the doctrine of Scripture itself, which describes God as our Father in both the Old and New Testament. When The Lord Jesus Christ (who was incarnated in the body of a man) taught His disciples the Lord's Prayer, He started the prayer by addressing "our Father who art in Heaven." I question whether someone who openly preaches this heresy is truly acting like a Christian.

But let's put that aside. Let's assume that Talarico actually is a decent person and faithful Christian. Let's accept the premise that in terms of character, there is no contest between Talarico and Paxton, with Talarico being better by a wide margin. That still does not mean that Christians should choose Talarico over Paxton. I hate to invoke a phrase used by apologists for President Trump's immorality and nasty demeanor, but we are not choosing a pastor. We are choosing a lawmaker, and it actually does matter what policies Paxton and Talarico will be supporting in the United States Senate.

Talarico will be a consistent voice for putting boys into girls' sports, and he has expressed opposition to restrictions on abortion. He will vote for higher taxes, higher spending, more regulations, and a consistently "progressive" agenda. Paxton would not be perfect, but his voting record will be much more aligned with the positions of conservative Christian voters than Talarico would be.

Jonah Goldberg of The Dispatch argued that Talarico will be 1 of 100 Senators and his unpopular positions will remain unpopular, and the damage Paxton will do to the Republican Party and the public perception of conservative ideology would outweigh that one vote. That is a reasonable perspective from a long-term view, but there is also the danger that giving Talarico the platform of the U.S. Senate seat would also do damage by normalizing his more extreme views. It would also strengthen the Democratic Party in Texas, which has serious national implications in Presidential elections. Electing Talarico would not punish the Republican Party itself for nominating Paxton, but the Republican primary voters who chose him by a wide margin.

All of this could have been avoided by nominating John Cornyn, a solid conservative with a solid voting record, but that is no longer a possible option. So now Texas voters are faced with two bad options: A man of bad personal character or someone firmly on the Left of the Democratic Party. If I was voting in Texas, I would be voting for Paxton with an eye on the 2032 Republican Party primary and replacing him with someone better.

Subscribe now

Actually, authenticity is bad

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 29 Jul 2026 08:01:54 GMT

I was listening to a podcast by a "Never Trump" former Republican Congressman a couple weeks ago, and when he uttered an obscenity he said people would go ahead and curse if they are being "authentic." Do not be a poser with performative cursing, but if being our authentic selves means we drop a few F bombs, then that is OK.

A couple days ago, I wrote that we should not censor common words in an effort to avoid being "offensive" or "triggering" people. I stand by that position, but this does not mean we should be totally unrestrained and undisciplined on our speech. Podcasters speaking about public policy should elevate rather than degrade the discourse. Political leaders should be statesmen and set a good example for the people under their authority.

God does not expect us to be our "authentic" selves and to live "our truth." The Apostle Paul teaches us in II Corinthians 5:17 that we are a new creature in Jesus Christ. Scripture further instructs us in Romans 12:2 to not be conformed to this world, but to be transformed by the renewing of our minds. This means we should be restrained and disciplined in our speech, and many other areas of life, as we seek to honor and obey God as well as being edifying to our friends, families and neighbors.

We have fallen into a trap where we think "authenticity" is the highest value, above decorum, civility, manners and love for our neighbors. But we should not want to look at a political leader and think "he is just like me." This leads not to actual authenticity, bur performative crudeness. We should look to a leader - especially someone in high office like a Congressman or the President - and have aspirations of being a statesman like he or she is.

We have a deeply unserious political and commentary class because we are a deeply unserious people. We are far more concerned with memes and shock-jock behavior than substantive policy. Our leaders will never be better until we as a people stop applauding bad behavior, and also stop excusing it. As long as we value antics over policy, we will never have the leaders we need. We will, unfortunately, have the leaders we deserve.

Subscribe now

You must abandon the "all or nothing" cult

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 27 Jul 2026 08:01:32 GMT

One of the worst and most anti-intellectual things about our politics is the "all or nothing" cult mentality that has infected both parties, and damns anyone who is not 100% "all in" on opposing or supporting a politician or policy as a heretic and a blasphemer.

Obviously, this is most pronounced around President Donald Trump. If you broadly agree with President Trump but disagree on certain points, you are a RINO traitor, in addition to being a faggot and a cuck. If you argue that President Trump is bad but that he is not Adolf Hitler or a white nationalist, you are a boot-licking enabler of fascism. But did you know you can find someone to be really bad without going all the way to genocidal monster? Do you realize that "Hitler or bust" destroys any chance of unity with Trump-skeptical conservatives or moderates? Do you realize that you are damaging your own credibility with this "Hitler or bust" cult mentality? Of course, this applies to other figures other than President Trump, but the "all or nothing" cult is strongest whenever his name comes up.

The same applies to policy. If you support a policy in broad strokes but oppose the more extreme elements of it, you are either a sellout for not being 100% in favor of the policy, or you are condemned as someone who supports even the most extreme things that you have explicitly criticized. You are required to support any agenda item of The Party 100%, and oppose any agenda item of The Other Party 100%, or you are bad. There is no room for nuance or independent thought.

I am sure there are far more people in the center-right and center-left than is apparent from observing politics, those voices are often bullied into silence because both sides view any compromise at all as unforgivable heresy and blasphemy. Far too many primary voters on both sides have little tolerance for heterodox views, and will throw out politicians they agree with 90% of the time if the "heretic" is not a sufficiently incendiary bomb thrower.

I find myself in a very strange position. For a period of twenty years, I was the guy who the moderates (and even many conservatives) would lecture about compromise and the fact that someone who supports us 60% of the time is not a 40% enemy. Now, I am the one who is a sellout if I have any disagreement at all. I am not substantially different in policy or ideology than I was in 2000. I basically hold all of the same views I held when I was 26 years old: I am still anti-abortion, and I am still for lower taxes, spending and regulation. I still believe character matters in our leaders.

Folks, this needs to stop. The marketplace of ideas works best when people are free to think for themselves without being bullied into 100% total support or opposition. We might even wind up improving each other's arguments and policy proposals! It is actually OK to have marginal disagreements about policy, and it is OK to not be deranged in your support or opposition to a political leader. The latter is especially important, because that is where you really do start to become a cultist. The ONLY leader who you should ever support 100% is the Lord Jesus Christ. Everything else is wicked idolatry. Repent.

Subscribe now

Say goodbye to the Frank E. McKinney Jr. Fountain

Scott Tibbs — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 08:00:20 GMT

The McKinney Fountain, which has been a memorable landmark in front of the Indiana University School of Music since 1997, is gone.

Sad.

Liarbook's shockingly dishonest censorship

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 24 Jul 2026 13:30:58 GMT

I have met Jeremy Hogan several times. A former photographer for the Herald-Times, Hogan has been covering local news and events for The Bloomingtonian for several years now. According to Facebook, The Bloomingtonian has been used to "pretend to be a local or domestic voice." The page was "permanently banned" from Facebook for this so-called "violation" of the so-called "rules." After users applied pressure, Facebook reversed the ban.

Obviously, the accusation that The Bloomingtonian "pretends" to be local is a lie. This, along with a very long string of lies from Meta about moderation decisions, is why I refer to Facebook as Liarbook and will for the remainder of this article. They have proven exactly who and what they are, and why platforms like Gab are so important for free speech and independent journalism.

Liarbook is a private company, and can choose to allow or forbid the content they want. If for whatever reason Liarbook does not like Hogan or The Bloomingtonian, they are free to say they do not want that content on the platform. However, as a major corporation, Liarbook should be honest about it. The claim that The Bloomingtonian is not a local source is not only an obvious lie, it is so patently absurd that anyone in Monroe County who sees it should immediately burst out laughing. At least try to make your lies believable.

This is why Liarbook needs to have every single moderation decision reviewed by a human being. Liarbook's algorithm has been demonstrated to be fatally flawed on many occasions, including the laughable fabrication that a meme urging people to "be kind" is actually anti-vaccine propaganda. The fact that the algorithm banned The Bloomingtonian on totally fraudulent pretenses shows why human review of these things is necessary.

Liarbook's fraud has real world consequences. The Bloomingtonian's Liarbook page had 67,000 followers, where they were able to keep track of important community information. At a time when local newspapers are dying, independent journalists have stepped into the gap (especially in Bloomington) to continue providing local news coverage as well as dialogue about what is happening in local communities. Liarbook itself has expressed concern about the decline of local newspapers, while their fraudulent censorship accelerates the decline of community and accelerates making everything national.

Liarbook also disabled monetization for the Page, significantly affecting The Bloomingtonian's income stream. While I oppose government intervention in content moderation, Liarbook should not be legally permitted to jerk businesses around and steal their advertising and subscription revenue based on non-existent violations of the so-called "rules." The law should be changed so Liarbook faces steep fines for this behavior, which would be paid directly to the businesses who lost revenue due to Liarbook's dishonesty. Free speech should be protected, but theft is not free speech.

Social media has done a number of good things. Liarbook, specifically, has the potential to be a true local community forum for people around the country, especially with such a broad user base. This would also significantly increase transparency in local government and allow citizens to stay informed about their local communities. That is why fraudulent decisions like this are so very counterproductive and hypocritical. Reforms are needed, including eliminating algorithm-based moderation and passing legal protections for businesses who have revenue stolen.

Your self-censorship is not fooling the algorithm

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 22 Jul 2026 08:00:56 GMT

Social media was supposed to bring about an era of unbridled free speech, and allowed the people to speak truth to power in a way that was unprecedented in human history. Sure, we had the blogosphere before that, but most people were never going to set up a blog. Social media brought free speech to the masses in a way blogs never could. This, of course, is why politicians hate social media. That hatred is much stronger with the legacy news media, which has lost advertising dollars to social media giants.

With this being the case, why are so many people self-censoring their own posts? People will not write "died" or "killed." Instead they write "unalived" or "k*lled." People will not write the word "rape" in relation to a news story about that crime, but will write "r*pe" or "grape." "Sh*ot" has replaced "shoot" and "s*x" has replaced "sex" even when referring to the biological difference between males and females.

Folks, this is ridiculous. There is nothing wrong with common words like "shoot" and "kill." Censoring them in your posts makes you look weak and pathetic. You are not "protecting" anyone from being "triggered," because humans are smart enough to know what you mean. If your concern is triggering people, why are you writing about sensitive topics at all on social media?

"We're avoiding the algorithm!" No, you are not. If you think advanced computer algorithms are programmed so poorly that they do not understand "unalived" or "k*lled" means "killed," you are very naïve. In addition, you are not hiding your posts from "the feds" who are allegedly persecuting you. If you were truly that worried about "the feds" keeping tabs on what you say and using it against you, then you would not be posting on social media at all. Neither search algorithms written by feds or federal agents themselves are going to be fooled by you writing the word "m*rder*d."

Furthermore, serious topics require serious language. We should not tiptoe around serious topics with weasel words and censorship. Yes, obviously there are appropriate tones for appropriate audiences, but that is a far cry from censoring everything you say out of fear. We cannot address serious issues unless we use serious language.

Stop being a snowflake. Stop censoring common words because you are squeamish or because you fear "offending" people. Speak plainly, and speak as an adult. Discuss serious topics with serious, plain language. Stop surrendering to the "woke" demand that every single thing be addressed as some sort of euphemism. Even the most prudish people in Victorian England would tell you to lighten up and stop censoring yourself.

Subscribe now

Pepsi's craven surrender proves woke is not dead

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 20 Jul 2026 08:01:57 GMT

Youthful rebelliousness has long been a cultural tradition, and much of popular culture celebrates it. From James Dean to innumerable teen comedies, thumbing your nose at authority figures has long been romanticized as a part of Americana. We will live how we want to live and "the man" is not going to keep us down and keep us repressed. That means we get to run around raping people if we want. Violent oppression of women is what it means to be "wild" and rebellious.

Wait... what? How in the world did we go from being a free spirit and living our life as we wish to being a violent criminal? It seems we missed a few thousand steps between Point A and Point B.

People have been saying for two years that "woke is dead." That is obviously not true. Pepsi got a huge backlash for saying that Cherry Pepsi became Wild Cherry Pepsi because it stopped asking permission. Hypersensitive crybabies immediately interpreted that as meaning Pepsi is saying men can commit rape whenever they want. The proper response would have been "What kind of degenerate pervert comes up with THAT interpretation? What is wrong with you?" Instead, Pepsi collapsed and surrendered to the woke mob. They deleted the harmless post and posted a groveling apology for the "offensive" content.

This is what I mean when I say "wokeness" is an oppressive, hyper-legalist cult that wants to micromanage every single aspect of your life. They will take a harmless saying and declare it to be blasphemy, and then demand "repentance" from the blasphemer. You never know what will be "sinful" from day to day, as what is "oppressive" to the downtrodden is in a constant state of flux. This cult must be defeated. We must all become unapologetic heretics and blasphemers.

Every time you surrender to the unreasonable Woke cult, you encourage more bullying and mob behavior. If Pepsi thinks they have placated anyone, they are hopelessly naïve. This is not going to make the cult stop behaving this way. Instead, this is blood in the water. The piranhas sense weakness and will swarm you again and again. This will not only affect Pepsi, but will encourage the cult to attack more corporations for harmless content and demand "apologies" from them. Pepsi should have stood their ground, said the critics of the harmless meme were liars, and moved on. Sure, the howler monkeys would have kept throwing feces, but they were going to do that anyway. Stop listening to them.

Belligerent Christians do not know what time it is

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 17 Jul 2026 08:01:38 GMT

It is sad that many Christians today have effectively torn Proverbs 25:15 out of their Bibles. The thought of a gentle tone is shocking to us, especially the idea it could be effective. We think we must turn the volume all the way up to 11, and be nasty and hateful in our speech rather than trusting God. We do not believe that the civil magistrate's heart is like water in God's hand, as taught in Proverbs 21:1.

Some would say that I do not "know what time it is." we are facing an existential crisis. It was not just 2016 that was a "Flight 93 election," it is every election - especially if open Communists like Zohran Mamdani gain expanded influence in our national politics. This is wrong. God is sovereign and can change hearts. Romans 13 and 1 Peter 2:13-17 were written during the rule of the oppressive pagan Roman Empire, which was a brutally violent regime.

Do we often assume evil or malicious motives when government officials do things we do not like? I know I do. We should not be naïve and we should not abandon discernment. After all, Jesus tells us in Matthew 10 to be as wise as serpents. But far too often, we assume that someone who disagrees with is does so because he is evil, not just wrong. Nowhere was this more evident on both sides than with the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020. Our leaders were either tyrants trying to take away our freedom or corrupt and greedy scoundrels who did not care if people suffered and died.

Yes, there is a time for a more aggressive tone. There is real evil in the world, and we must speak against that evil. Abortion still slaughters over a million babies a year in these United States alone. Open sexual debauchery has infected public places like a virus. We must warn of the consequences of sin and we must warn of the real dangers we face. We sometimes must assert our legal rights as the Apostle Paul did. But the attitude of some - that we have to be relentlessly aggressive even to people who our on our side - is something we need to abandon.

Subscribe now

Why I support corporal punishment

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 15 Jul 2026 14:01:47 GMT

Every now and then, you see some good news: The New York Post reports that a "shocking number of millennial and Gen Z parents spank their kids." Yes. The world is healing. The wisdom of centuries past is being restored.

Christians have known the wisdom of spanking for two thousand years. Scripture instructs fathers to use corporal punishment in Proverbs 13:24 and Proverbs 23:12-14. This is not strictly an Old Testament teaching, as the Holy Spirit informs us in Hebrews 12:5-8 that if we are not disciplined, we are bastards instead of sons. In the 20th Century, we started rejecting the authority of Scripture in favor of psychobabble. Christians should not be afraid to cite Holy Scripture in our defense of corporal punishment. This is something that, to my shame, I have failed to do.

Children do not have (nor should they have) complete, inalienable "security of the person" that can never be violated. There are all kinds of rights adults have that we do not give to children (like the right to vote, drive or drink alcohol) because we as a society have determined that children, before a certain age, are not ready to handle those rights and the responsibility that comes with them. That is also why we have restricted child labor and restricted what jobs teenagers are permitted to do - to protect them from being exploited and to protect their physical safety.

Here is an example. If a child is about to touch a hot stove, the parent, if he/she is a responsible parent, must violate the child's "security of the person" by using physical force to keep the child from doing so, if the parent is physically able to prevent it. No sane person would suggest that a fourteen-month-old child just learning how to walk should not be physically restrained in that case. This also applies to running out into a busy street or any number of other things.

This is not an "all or nothing" issue where children either have "security of the person" or they do not. It is a scale of when that right kicks in. This is why many legal codes allow parents to use reasonable physical force in disciplining their children that you could not do to an adult. That same system of laws would not allow a parent to do things that would be defined as child abuse. Children do (and should) have "security of the person" to protect them from being abused, by parents or anyone else. There is more leeway for parents (or others entrusted with the care of the child, to some extent) to use corporal punishment on their own child than for someone else to use physical force on an adult.

It is within parental rights (or should be) to discipline their children in a way they see fit. This also falls under parental authority, as God gave the parents authority that does not belong to either the church or the civil magistrate. Unfortunately, some want to take away that right and proper authority though legislation.

I do not believe that a parent who never uses corporal punishment is somehow deficient. There are lots of ways to discipline a child, and some methods work better with some children than others. In addition, some parents are more comfortable with some disciplinary measures than others. There is a wide array of diverse ways parents discipline their children in attempting to raise them to be the best adults they can. The difference between me and the advocates of the Nanny State is that I am not willing to, by force of government intervention, take away one option from millions of families by assuming that I know better than they do how to raise their own children.

Is there a right to absolute bodily autonomy?

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 13 Jul 2026 14:00:50 GMT

The right to bodily autonomy is a tricky issue, and it is easy to both overstate and understate our case for whether or not we have bodily autonomy. My position is that we have absolute bodily autonomy and that right may not be abrogated. This is because we are made in the image of God, and both civil government and other citizens do not have authority over a body that bears His image. However, we can willingly surrender our right to bodily autonomy.

What this means is that adults have absolute bodily autonomy in that no one has the right to touch or do anything to our bodies without just cause. That means government cannot kidnap me and hold me hostage if I have committed no crime. If I am minding my own business and following the law, then I have absolute bodily autonomy.

However, if someone steals something, or drives drunk, or does a number of other things, the civil authority can arrest and imprison him. In the case of crimes like murder, the government has the authority to execute the murderer. But in those cases, the lawbreaker has willingly and intentionally surrendered his bodily autonomy though his behavior. No one is violating his "rights" because he willingly surrendered those rights.

The government also has authority in protecting public health in the event of a pandemic or other things that threaten the lives and bodies of others. This falls under the libertarian principle that you may not do something that harms or needlessly endangers the bodies, property and liberty of other people.

Note that I italicized adults above. Children under the authority of the parents are a different matter, as God has given parents authority over their children. Both God's law and our civil laws recognize that parents have both a moral and legal obligation to care for those children. So no, I do not care that a toddler does not want to wash his hands. Parents have the God-given authority to force the child to wash his hands in order to protect him and other family members from disease. This authority applies in many other contexts for the protection of the child.

Where bodily autonomy is most often invoked is the alleged "right" to have an abortion. The bodily autonomy of the unborn baby is why abortion is wrong, along with the fact that the baby was made in the image of God. Murder (which obviously includes abortion) is the ultimate violation of bodily autonomy, and government has both the authority and the obligation to criminalize it.

People can also surrender their bodily autonomy to other people. For example, if someone threatens or harms others, and the target of the crime physically defends himself or others, the aggressor has knowingly, willingly and intentionally surrendered his bodily autonomy to the person defending himself or others. If someone makes the choice to threaten others, then the consequences of that choice are what he has chosen. I am 100% pro-choice in that regard.

So yes, as an adult you have the right to absolute bodily autonomy, up until the point where you endanger the lives, safety, health or property of others. Once you violate someone else's rights, you willingly surrender your own rights. The application of this principle will always be the subject of disagreement, and people of good will can have different opinions.

Who was President in 2019?

Scott Tibbs — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 08:01:09 GMT

It is almost certain that COVID-19 was created in a laboratory in Red China, as part of "gain of function" research. It's possible that this was a biological weapon, but it is more likely that the "gain of function" research was meant to research coronaviruses and ways to combat them in the event that such a virus jumps from another mammal (like bats) to humans. Red China did not want to lose face after the virus escaped the lab due to what was probably very lax safety precautions, so they covered it up and kidnapped truth-tellers. The United Nations then openly lied about human-to-human transmission of COVID-19 to help Red China cover up the spread of the virus in the critical opening days of the pandemic.

With that said, we need to think carefully before making broad partisan claims about COVID-19. James Woods claimed that "High ranking Democrats up to and including Joseph Biden engaged in a criminal coverup" regarding the virus. Which leads to an obvious question: Who was President in 2019 when COVID-19 was created and then spread across the world?

Donald Trump was President when federal agencies under his authority "advised" (pressured) social media companies to heavily suppress the lab leak theory. Was President Trump too weak in 2020 to stop federal agencies from doing that, especially considering the vast majority of people (correctly) pointing out the lab leak origins of the virus were his supporters?

President Trump signed an executive order in 2025 restricting federal funding for the kind of dangerous "gain of function" research that led to the creation of COVID-19. If he had the authority to do that in 2025, he had the authority to do it in 2020 when it was becoming increasingly clear that SARS-COV-2 was created at the Wuhan Institute of Virology. Was President Trump too weak in 2020 to stop federal agencies from funding that research?

My point is this: We need to be careful not to overstate our case in domestic politics, especially regarding claims of a vast Deep State conspiracy run by Democrats. Donald Trump, after all, was President during the first 13 months of the pandemic and had been in office nearly three years at that point. There was certainly cynical political gamesmanship, mismanagement and corruption associated with the pandemic, but there was also a lot of fumbling around dealing with a brand new virus that had many people justifiably frightened. It is better to focus on what is easily proven (and there is a lot of that) than to overreach.

Subscribe now

Trust me, nobody cares and nobody is offended

Scott Tibbs — Wed, 08 Jul 2026 08:01:50 GMT

A modestly large Twitter account recently gained some notoriety for claiming to be a "MAGA nightmare." I have a point to make later, but let's start with the claims of what makes this woman (who I am intentionally not naming) a "nightmare" for MAGA.

♣ - liberal

So? There are a lot of those. One more person self-identifying a "liberal" (with or without an expletive) does not make someone a "nightmare."

♣ - an artist

No one is offended by this, much less considers it a nightmare. In fact, one of the principles of MAGA is to make "beautiful" things, especially buildings. Architecture is art, so an artist would not be a nightmare.

♣ - vegan

No one cares. Eat, or do not eat, whatever you want. Unless you try to force your lifestyle choice on someone else, MAGA (or traditional conservatives like me) do not care.

♣ - childless at 30

Again, no one cares. There is some cross-ideological concern about falling birth rates and what it means for the future workforce and tax base, but the fact that one specific social media influencer does not have children at 30 is not something that MAGA is worried about. Despite popular fantasies, MAGA does not want to make women into baby-making factories. In fact, President Trump weakened the Republican Party's opposition to abortion in 2024, eliminating the party's call for a constitutional amendment to protect unborn life. Many in MAGA cheered this, claiming it would make it easier to "win."

♣ - American but wears Canada hat

No one cares.

And here's the point: Some people are so obsessed with politics that they think everything they do is part of a front in the culture war. Doing this or that is an act of "resistance" against the oppressive establishment. But when I eat a bacon cheeseburger, I am not striking a blow for religious freedom. When stopped wearing a mask (mostly) in 2022 because we were out of the pandemic and it was no longer legally required, I was not "owning the libs." When I got my vaccine for COVID-19, I was not "owning the cons." We all make life choices that others do not make, or even that others disagree with, but do sit up at night worrying about.

I am 52 years old. I will be 53 in a few months. More of my life on this earth has passed than is in front of me. Life is too short for me to worry about whether someone else is childless at 30. Life is too short for me to make every waking minute about my anger over this or that, parading every single thing I do as an act of "resistance" against this or that enemy. So go outside and touch grass. Go for a walk. Spend time with friends. Pet a dog. Unplug from political news for a day. Genuinely try to enjoy life - not as a way to "resist" but because you are genuinely doing something you enjoy. Your nerves and your stomach lining with thank you, and people who notice you are much less insufferable than before will appreciate it too.

A right wing heckler's veto

Scott Tibbs — Mon, 06 Jul 2026 08:01:15 GMT

The following is an open letter to the trustees of Ball State University. I posted the full text of the offending post on Substack Notes and on Facebook.

Trustees,

I am pleased that you agreed to settle with the employee you fired over her post about the assassination of Charlie Kirk, but I am disappointed that you did not admit fault. I hope you understand why what you did was wrong, especially for an institution of higher learning. The free exchange of ideas is critical for educational progress.

I do not agree with your former employee's post, especially the claim that Charlie Kirk sowed "violence" and "hatred." I believe that she misrepresented his comments about the Second Amendment. But unlike a number of social media posts at the time that resulted in professional consequences, she did not celebrate Mr. Kirk's death. She explicitly said his death was a tragedy. Her comments were well within the norms of political speech.

You claim that her post had caused a disruption, but that is a dangerous position to take. That standard means that if people become unreasonably angry, anyone can be terminated for any reason. This is the same excuse that a number of universities have hidden behind to cancel speeches by conservatives because of threats of violence by radical Leftists. This creates a "heckler's veto," where if enough people get angry, no matter how unreasonable that anger may be, that anger can be used to professionally punish or silence someone.

Say, for example, that someone argues renovation of a sidewalk in Neighborhood A should not be prioritized over Neighborhood B based on how much both are used and the fact that Sidewalk B is in worse shape. If people in Neighborhood A become unreasonably angry and start calling Human Resources, should the person who offered what would normally be an uncontroversial opinion about infrastructure resource allocation lose her job?

What you should have done is stand with your employee, who was receiving a large volume of obscenity-filled hate mail and death threats. This was radically disproportionate to what she said, and I believe Charlie Kirk himself would be opposed to this behavior. Instead of standing with your employee at a time of personal crisis, you abandoned her and surrendered to the mob that was screaming for her professional head on a plate. This was a shameful decision.

Subscribe now

Thinking about the Bill of Rights

Scott Tibbs — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 15:01:44 GMT

Two hundred and fifty years ago today, the thirteen colonies seceded from the British Empire, though it required a long and bloody war to actually secure our independence. After the war and the passage of the Constitution, the Bill of Rights was passed. What is interesting here is that the BOR does not grant rights. Instead, it restricts government from infringing on the rights the Founding Fathers assumed we had naturally.

The First Amendment says "Congress shall make no law" abridging the "Five Freedoms." This is not granting rights, but limiting the authority of government to restrict rights that the Founding Fathers believed people had before the nation existed.

The Second Amendment declares "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Again this refers to what the Founding Fathers considered to be a pre-existing right, limiting the authority of government.

The Fourth Amendment forbids government from violating "The right of the people to be secure" in their papers and homes, as well as protecting other things. While some would say a right to privacy is not in the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment demonstrates otherwise. Note again that the construction of the Fourth Amendment forbids government from infringing on that right, rather than declaring a right to privacy.

The Fifth Amendment bans government from holding someone without due process, and the Sixth Amendment expands on that. Again, this is a limitation on government infringing on the rights the Founders assumed everyone had. The Seventh Amendment prohibits government from restricting "the right of trial by jury," again restricting government from infringing on rights rather than granting rights. It is interesting how four consecutive amendments specifically protect the rights of those accused of crimes. In today's populist "tough on crime" age where we sneer at people "lawyering up," we forget just how seriously the Founding Fathers took due process. This also illustrates why vigilantism is a direct attack on America itself.

(The Tenth Amendment has been dead letter for generations, but that is another topic for another day.)

All of these limitations on government power were later applied to the states in the Fourteenth Amendment. The Third Amendment is an interesting historical anomaly after the British Empire had violated the privacy and property rights of colonial families by forcibly quartering British soldiers on homes. Of course, some of those British soldiers were sexual deviants who raped women in the homes where they were quartered.

The Bill of Rights were what President Barack Obama would call "negative rights," prohibiting government from doing things to you instead of allowing government to do things for you. But the Founding Fathers, unlike politicians on both sides today, understood the danger of an overbearing government and the need to have limitations on government power in our founding documents. We need to recover that patriotic spirit for our nation's 250th birthday.

Subscribe now