As IF Times

link: https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2022/08/british-royal-air-force-no-longer-offering-pilot-jobs-white-men-women-ethnic-minorities-may-apply-video/

Why do we still have contests?

This is not a rhetorical question at all, but one that should be addressed in this modern era of enlightenment, diversity and fairness. As far as we can tell, from the very beginning of man’s existence, the ability to survive in the wild has been the ultimate arbiter of a society’s success as a people. In any given society, there will always be those individuals who have skillsets superior to those of others, conferring upon them some superior position in that society or over other societies.

These superior skillsets were necessary in the competition for land, for food for resources and for social progress. That’s how societies improve and evolve.  Of course, with the maturation of societies, the basic skillsets of hunting, gathering, cultivation or of waging warfare became less important as societies developed rules of civilization. Not everyone needed to have all the requisite skillsets to survive as those tasks were delegated to those most able or willing to perform them.

But in earlier times, if the tribe needed some meat for the winter period, it would make sense to send out the best hunter, rather than send out the best basket weaver. If this were not the case, the tribe would surely die out according to the rules of Darwinism.

Man’s naturally competitive nature logically progressed to anointing certain individuals or groups the mantle of best at whatever their skillsets were: running, shooting, planning, etc etc.  In our modern times, the most coveted skillset seems to be arguing picayune points of law. Societies today are moving towards the exact opposite of celebrating excellence…in fact, the goal is to encourage mediocrity.  In reality, the modern objective is to restrain excellence and to handicap society to its weakest links.

This is not hyperbole. Think of the entire industry created around diversity and fairness. As we know, universities at the highest levels are restricting qualified applicants in favor of those less qualified but who are part of an identified ‘disadvantaged’ segment.  Employment policies are geared towards ensuring that some targets of diversity are met.  We have military enlistment standards bent towards allowing heretofore unsuitable candidates entrance to training.   What never seems to be identified is: what does success look like?  What is the measurable level at which we can conclude that everything is fair?  How do we know when we’ve achieved optimal ‘diversity and fairness’?

Of course we know the answer to that and the answer is, never. As long as the industry of diversity exists and gets paid, there will be inequities to be addressed…forever. By coincidence, this is tied to the question of, when are there enough lawyers?  The answer is the same.  There’s always someone being wronged who is desperately in need of paying legal fees.

Odd then, that we still hold contests of any kind.  Why do we have the Olympic games wherein nations parade out their best physical specimens for basic contests of running and jumping.  Surely, societies have evolved beyond that.  Why are there any professional sports activities?  Most of the participants are naturally endowed with certain levels of physical skills….why should the less endowed not be allowed participation?  Why do we never see a 5’-5” accountant in the NBA? Why have pie baking contests? Why have spelling bees or barbecue cook offs? All of these activities could be replaced by flipping coins to determine winners.  Why create environments of exclusion for those with less endowed skillsets?

Why do people yearn for the best homes, the best cars and even the best food? Why are there foam fingers displaying ‘number one’ while there are none displaying, ‘middle of the pack’?

Like so much of the idiocy which has consumed modern society, we are being fed the notion that the appearance of fairness and diversity supersedes the natural inclination of people to succeed on their own merits. We are told that we can only run as fast as the slowest in the group.  In no species in nature is this dynamic true.

It’s possible that the nutters who propagate world overpopulation are correct; that there are too many useless people in the world. This push to dull the intelligence and capabilities of a society will definitely result in a weakened people.  When the inept and incompetent are at the controls of a society, that society is in trouble. The problem is, there are societies that don’t subscribe to a self-inflicted weakened culture, that continue to elevate their best and brightest….and that’s where Darwin steps in.

Source: People suing Coca-Cola, PepsiCo, Dr Pepper Snapple, claim diet sodas making them fat | Fox News

No one is safe from the expanding web of litigation that the legal industry voraciously spins to sustain their racket.  In fact, litigation should be added as the third item that people can’t avoid in life, the original ones being death and taxes.  It seems that at some point in everyone’s life, they will be drawn into a legal skirmish of some kind.

The industry has moved long ago from being a tool for reparation of damages between aggrieved parties.  That’s quaint and so 1600’s.  The scope of tort battles now includes the mandate to save people from their own stupidity and despite of the fact that any harm claimed may be purely imaginary.  Not everyone agrees with this view of course and opinions contrary to mine are expressed by various legal publications…by lawyers, but our own experiences and observations seems to indicate otherwise.

The linked story should resonate with everyone since we all know of someone we’ve dined with who orders a diet coke with their meal.  They may be obviously overweight but somehow the extra calorie in a diet coke will assuage their minds of drinking something which may be fattening.  Even worse, they may proceed to order a number of diet cokes as the meal of two double cheese burgers with gravy fries and ice cream ensues.  So now, soda drink manufacturers are potentially liable.

A quick search of famously frivolous lawsuits in American history shows that there is no shortage of legally enabled stupidity over the years.  From the site, Businessinsurance.org we find these classic gems:

1.  Richard Overton sued Anheuser-Busch for false advertising when drinking a six-pack of Bud Light failed to produce visions of beautiful women on a balmy beach. He sought damages for $10,000, claiming that this deceptive marketing caused him emotional and psychological distress. In other words, Overton was mad that drinking beer didn’t equal hot beach babes. The case was dropped, of course. Hopefully Overton learned a lesson or two about the difference between fantasy and reality. In reality, drinking excessive amounts of Bud Light will only give you a sizable beer gut and a noticeable repellent towards bikini-clad women.

2. The parents of Karen Norman sued Honda when their daughter died from not being able to escape from her Civic after backing into Galveston Bay. At first, the case sounds somewhat legitimate, until you learn the rest of the facts. For example, the Normans sued Honda because their daughter was unable to hit the emergency release button on the seatbelt. However, she failed to hit the button most likely because she had a blood-alcohol level of 0.17 and shouldn’t have been driving in the first place. The incident happened at 2 a.m. with passenger Josel Woods in the passenger seat. Woods was able to swim to safety. Here’s the kicker: the jury actually awarded the parents with just 25% of the damages considered contributorily negligent. Thus, the Normans basically sued and won against Honda in spite of their daughter’s obvious irresponsibility for driving under the influence.

3. Austin Aitken sued NBC for $2.5 million after a particularly grotesque challenge on Fear Factor allegedly made him vomit and run into a wall. According to Aitken, he was a regular watcher of the show and nothing had previously caused such a reaction until he witnessed contestants competing in a rat-eating challenge. In the show, the rats had been processed in a blender and then served to the contestants, which Aitken claimed caused his blood pressure to rise so much he became disoriented and was unable to see the door on his way to the other room. Aitken claimed that the $2.5 million was an arbitrary amount and that he simply wanted to send networks a message that shows have become too graphic. The judge ultimately threw the suit out, which makes sense. If you don’t want to watch something specific on TV, changing the channel is an effective means of escape.

4.  A man by the name of Dalton Chiscolm is suing Bank of America for “1,784 BILLION, TRILLION Dollars”, which, coincidentally, is a larger amount than the planet’s gross domestic product. Apparently, his reason for suing the corporation arose from several frustrating phone calls he made to settle some incorrectly deposited checks. The case was thrown out, mainly because there was no federal cause of action for the lawsuit. Along with the absurd amount, Chiscolm asked that the money be deposited into his account the following day with an additional $200,164,000 for his troubles

5. Lauren Rosenberg decided to sue Google for an excess of $100,000 in 2009 when Google Maps advised her to walk on the freeway to get to her destination, causing her to get hit by a car. She also sued the driver of the car. Apparently, the directions took Rosenberg onto Utah State Route 224, a busy freeway without sidewalks. Nonetheless, she meandered along the edge of the road, trusting an electronic device over her apparently missing common sense. Google maps does its best to give users an estimation on directions, but sometimes it gets them wrong, as most computerized programs are bound to do from time to time. Without accurate information of routes in a specific area, Google can only do so much to ensure you get to your destination without being pummeled down by a car. Rosenberg claims that Google should have used its Street View feature to deduce the lack of safety in walking in the area. Perhaps she should have used her own eyeballs, too.

For those wishing to see more of such tragic amusement, head to their site.

These examples of legalized stupidity have led to the increasing dumbing down of everyone in western culture since the results of frivolous lawsuits have consequences well beyond the final verdict in a particular case.  The entire warning label industry was founded on the premise that low IQ operators will come back to sue manufacturers for any mishap that occurs.  Thus to this day, we see the warning label on car mirrors warning that objects may be closer than they appear; that we need to be told how to affix a seatbelt on an airplane,  to have no smoking signs at petrol stations and of course that smoking may be hazardous to your health.

Enabling personal stupidity is not the service to society that lawyers may believe they’re providing, quite the opposite.  Enabling people to benefit from low IQ events is a push back against Darwinism.  It allows those with lower social skills to operate in a society for which they are clearly incapable.  They are protecting against the natural selection of species and therefore against the very laws of nature, like saving a Wildebeest wandering from the herd.  The individual is now able to transfer off his individual risk to the risk of the collective and personal responsibility becomes as oxymoronic as diet coke.

Instead of moving society forward, enablement of frivolous lawsuits will allow people to live among us with no need to develop common sense as a requirement to navigate life.  Eventually these wards of the state become a larger and larger part of society.  Entitlements become more important than enablements.  A cynical person would point out that this may explain the popularity of the Democratic party, but I’ll demur on that.