Pope Donaldus the First

Abortion proponents stop killing babies long enough to manufacture a little fake outrage.

The recent emergence of an AI-generated image depicting Donald Trump as “Pope Donaldus the First” has sparked predictable outrage from the left, standing in stark contrast to their enthusiastic praise for the LGBTQ-themed “Last Supper” bacchanalia at the Paris Olympics. This discrepancy reveals a deeper issue: a tendency among many on the left to engage in selective indignation, often fueled by superficial engagement with ideas and a reliance on third-party interpretations rather than critical analysis.

I have seen the AI-generated Pope Donaldus image myself; maybe devout Catholics will see it as mildly offensive – but we need to remember the Anthony Fauci, Robert Mueller and Luigi Mangione prayer candles and the depictions of Obama as a living saint with a halo around his head (an image so prolific, it was clearly created with that specific intent).

The left’s reaction to Pope Donaldus, however, is already clear: it’s blasphemous, offensive, and a step too far. Yet, when the Paris Olympics presented a provocative reimagining of the Last Supper, complete with drag queens and overt queer/transgender symbolism, many of the same voices celebrated it as a bold statement of inclusivity. The inconsistency is glaring. Why is one depiction sacrilege and the other art? The answer lies not in principle but in bias - specifically, a bias that excuses or embraces provocations aligned with progressive values while condemning those that challenge them.

This selective outrage reminds me of a recent piece by Freddie de Boer on his Substack, where he discussed a book review in New York Magazine by Jane Pratt, a well-known figure in literary and publishing circles. Pratt recommended a book but, astonishingly, seemed not to have read it. The book’s actual argument was the opposite of what she claimed, exposing a lazy reliance on preconceived notions rather than engagement with the text itself. This incident is emblematic of a broader trend I see, and I’m sure many others do too: people, particularly on the left, are often headline readers and third-party intellects. By this, I mean they form opinions based on sensational headlines - frequently contradicted by the article’s content, usually buried near the end - or they bypass primary sources entirely, trusting what a favored media figure says about an issue.

This intellectual shortcutting is pervasive. It’s why the left can decry an AI-generated image of Trump as pope while cheering a reimagined Last Supper. They’re not grappling with the nuances of artistic expression, free speech, or cultural commentary in either case. Instead, they’re reacting to what aligns with or challenges their worldview. The Pope Donaldus image, tied to a figure they revile, is an affront; the Olympic display, draped in progressive symbolism, is a triumph. This isn’t reasoned critique - it’s reflex.

The danger here is that such selective engagement undermines honest and genuine discourse. When people rely on headlines or trusted pundits rather than wrestling with ideas themselves, they become echo chambers for their biases. The left’s outrage over AI art while celebrating live action Olympic provocations isn’t just hypocritical - it’s a symptom of a deeper intellectual laziness. If we’re to have meaningful debates about culture, art, or politics, we must demand more: read the book, view the image, grapple with the idea. Only then can we move beyond ginned-up outrage to something resembling understanding.

Besides that, it is just stupid.