Your title is great. "To the pain." Against opponents who subvert traditional norms, intentionally undermine the social fabric, label Logic a "white supremacist construct," demand that you ignore the evidence of your senses and believe their wild-eyed theories instead, and use any and all power they get to crush you ruthlessly, it really is crazy to disarm yourself and appeal to restraint and common decency and "what if the roles are someday reversed" pablum. They are communists, and communists DGAF about any of that. They only stop when they are forced to. Otherwise, they will continue their long march through all our civilization's institutions until they control everything, and as soon as they think their victory is assured, their mask of sanity drops and you see the psychopathic demons they really are (and always have been).
Logic and consistency don’t matter. It’s friend/enemy all the way down with these people.
My entire adult life has been waiting for compassion and honor to change these people’s minds. “If we treat them with humanity, they’ll see the error of their ways.” This has never, not once, happened. Therefore, the only way to make honorless assholes stop acting like assholes is to make the price of assholery too high. It has to be not fun anymore. For example, I sincerely hope Kyle Gass of Tenacious D can never find work again. Others have had their careers ruined for saying far less than he. Maybe then it’ll be shown to be not worth it and we can get back to some sort of societal norms of civility in how we discuss politics.
Sadly, with any form of religion or morality out the window in garbage culture America, it’ll have to be via heavy hand imposed externally. But we need to work with what we’ve got and start realizing that just because YOU have standards of fair, it doesn’t mean that your opponents share them.
It's also important to note that the culture of intolerance that the left has been promoting has resulted in things far worse than getting people fired, and has especially profoundly affected some of the younger generations in ways that may have consequences for years to come.
Last Sunday, an 80-year old man was putting up a Trump sign in his yard when he was run over by a 22-year old man riding an ATV. The 22-year old had already vandalized the cars of two other Trump supporters, and decided to tear down the old man's Trump signs, then to run over him when he tried to put them back up. He called the police to confess and said to send someone to pick him up, but when the police got to his house, he was dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
Reading this got me to thinking again of something that someone said recently that hit me like a ton of bricks when I read it.
We know, of course, that while there has always been some level of viciousness and hatred in politics, the 2016 election cycle was the turning point that caused the media and various other parts of the mainstream establishment to rabidly demonize everyone to the right of Stalin, and especially President Trump ("the new Hitler," according to them) and his supporters.
But what this person pointed out that I hadn't thought of before is that those of us who were adults at the time (I was 22 when Trump was elected, for example) can't truly appreciate what it was like for children and young teenagers to grow up bombarded by such hateful messaging, and some of those children are now adults. What spurred his comment on was that the Trump rally shooter was 20 years old this year, meaning that he was only about 12 when Trump got elected in 2016. There are a generation of adults 18, 19, 20, etc, years old who spent many of their most formative youthful years soaking in the toxic, hateful filth spewed forth by the media, many schools, and in many cases their own parents.
The 22-year old ATV assailant was about 14 when Trump was elected. Both he and the Trump rally shooter likely would have had some sort of underlying mental issues regardless, but the culture they grew up in may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
I was 19 when George W. Bush was elected, and the discourse didn’t get really nasty until then. If I recall, the “Bush = Hitler” really started after the Iraq war but when I was 8, 10, 13, etc., politics wasn’t this nasty, or it wasn’t co see to bombarded like it is now. I came of age largely in the Clinton years (I was born in 1981), and the Clintons and their cronies were NASTY . . . but media didn’t have quite the same reason then.
Now? Man, kids my son’s age (12) are raking political sides. It’s wild and can’t be healthy.
The issue is that tit for tat politicking, over time, it ceases to to be an effective tactic and instead becomes the purpose of politics which alienates voters.
And I think we can see this playing out in real time, and it's a major reason why I think you'll see a move toward ranked choice voting nationwide.
After all an ineffective two party bicker state in winner take all elections doesn't create better outcomes for the median voters. It may create great fundraising, fun events, and a few memorable rah rah speeches, but it doesn't and will never drive solutions for the biggest problems of our time.
If democracy is broken, how do we fix it with more democracy? If DC is corrupt, can it produce a major politician that is not corrupt? How does a not-corrupt navigate that system to the top?
We don't fix it with more democracy, at least not in the sense that the word is traditionally used.
But if democracy means "people power" as the word's etymology suggests, then I think there's a clear set of solutions that would empower people instead of just the political class including:
Ranked choice voting
Detachment from political parties as a source of one's personal identity
A greater appreciation for markets and their ability to empower people more than what politicians can
A respect for the seperation of state and federal powers
The repeal of the 17th amendment that elminates the Senate's ability to function as a check on partisan passions
In the long term this shift in perspective and policy would don't more to empower people than anything else progressives deceptively label "democratic."
The most immediate problem with the prescription I mentioned is is that to enact any one of those changes will likely take decades. But in fairness it took decades to get to where we are now, so it'll likely take decades to get us where we should be.
“The most immediate problem with the prescription I mentioned is is that to enact any one of those changes will likely take decades. But in fairness it took decades to get to where we are now, so it'll likely take decades to get us where we should be.”
We are essentially asking Congress to vote to pass laws that strip them of some of their power. Not easy to get them to do. This is why cries for term limits and age limits is getting old. Good luck getting Congress to vote for less power and pocket-stuffing. Gotta trick em!
"The issue is that tit for tat politicking, over time, it ceases to to be an effective tactic and instead becomes the purpose of politics which alienates voters."
Could you elaborate coupled with an example? No failures of tit-for-tat come to mind very recently and there's nothing in the tit-for-tat model that implies long term failure. In fact the model says the longer you play the game with the same people the more effective it becomes.
What we're witnessing in today's politics is a race to the retaliatory bottom -- the two parties are competing to mobilize the most voters by seeing who can create the biggest set of grievances.
Which has the effect of taking everyone's attention away from working on substantive issues like border security, spending reform, etc..
The most recent and prominent example is Congress' failure to get a good border security bill done when there was one on the table. But because getting it done would given Trump one grievance to campaign on, no deal was struck.
Insofar as both establishment parties are unwilling to compromise, and insofar as both benefit from increased polarization in terms of maintaining their positions of power and receiving huge fundraising hauls, then the retaliation will only benefit the political class at the expense of normal people who just want sensible solutions to clear problems.
Well said and well argued mon ami, I do have a question though, you think maybe there's a great deal in common between 'cancelling' and excomunication in the Middle-Ages? I think there's a great deal of similarities its just that Satanists have adopted it since the end of that era.
This is partially why I favour the 'Right' taking back control of that part of culture and using it in kind. We've historically been more responsable with it unlike the left.
It is similar to excommunication. But excommunication forbade someone from receiving the most important thing (the Eucharist). Is a job the same level of importance to these people? I don’t know. Maybe.
But yeah, I don’t even want this sort of “cancellation” to be a regular feature of American life anymore. 15 years of it is more than enough. I’d rather ruin everything for everyone so they can see how much it sucks and then we can move on.
I know the differences, I’m just commenting that it seems these clowns want that level of power.
And agreed on the second point. It’s not fun having it carried over into America’s vassal states either. Dunno why it ended up more forcibly enforced by her vassals.
"There was a brief moment during the George W. Bush presidency where rabid hateful left-wingers got mildly “canceled” for opposing the war in Iraq aside"
I remember, It was tough for those poor Dixie Chicks to have to suffer a cover on Rolling Stone about how they were being silenced. In fact, it's funny how many people are given big platforms to complain about how they are being silenced.
"Unfortunately, too many on the right worry about what will happen if the roles are reversed. “We can’t fight back!” they cringe. “What will our opponents do to us when they have power?”"
I guess "don't fall out of power" is too difficult a concept for them. Then again, getting INTO power is rather a difficult idea for them.
"one doesn’t respond to a thrown rock with a nuclear bomb"
Doggone it, what's the point of having all these nuclear bombs lying around if I can't have any fun with them?
“Don’t fall out of power” goes against our norms of government, which, let’s be honest, conservatives to either their credit or detriment take really, really seriously. More seriously often than actual religious belief. The problem is, our system is an honor system that requires ALL parties to play fair and self-police. One side hasn’t for a few generations now, and yet conservatives still abide by the old rules. It’s insanity. You either have a peaceful transfer of power every four or eight years, or you have conflict like we’re seeing.
It all started downhill with the introduction of the concept of “political correctness”. As soon as we stopped calling certain words and speech simply “inappropriate”, or “insulting” and added “political” to it, it became an easily weaponized polarizing force.
In allowing this, We as a culture opened the door to certain speech being anathematized regardless of the context in which it was used, allowing entire sections of human history to be essentially erased as “politically incorrect”. Without the perceived ability to discuss these terms in ANY context, we also lose the opportunity to address the fundamental problems those words and ideas represent. When mere words are considered violence, what recourse does anyone have beyond true, actual violence to oppose the oppression they perceive themselves to be under?
It scares me. I’ve spent over four years of my life in a war zone. I have no desire to spend any more in one, and I worry that my home is headed in that direction.
The stifling of acceptable speech has absolutely prevented us from accurately discussing problems and potential solutions. What we have isn’t two sides differing on how to solve problems, but two sides with different view of what the problems even are. And though I know it’s gauche and unaristocratic to take sides in the realm of partisan politics, I can only oppose the side that thinks people like me (straight white Christian men) are the root cause of every single ill facing America.
Once conventions get broken, be they constitutional, political or social, they generally stay broken unless immediate corrective action is taken. Take the Parliament Acts here in the UK: the House of Lords broke a huge convention (rejected the budget of the elected House), so that convention became a statutory requirement.
This of course assumes a level of fondness, shall we say, for the convention. We Americans have never had a fondness for not destroying the reputations and livelihoods of our fellow Americans. We have at best feared the inevitable dire consequences when it gets out of hand.
I do not see this ending. It will perhaps serve as a deterrent against abandoning other necessary conventions / mores.
You’re right. When there is a fiat accompli, you either do something about it, or it becomes de facto law.
I agree that getting physical about politics (tarring and feathering, anyone?) is an American tradition that got put away somewhat in the 20th century. I do think things will have to get worse until we, collectively, decide to stop with tactics like this. Maybe I’m just a dreamer.
An aside about getting no response from the publication. In my field at least, receiving no response has become the norm. Even about important things, devoid of anything edgy or what could remotely be interpreted as aggressive etc. This in addition to the interpersonal realm. I'm assuming this is widespread by now. Another hallmark of an era that richly deserves to come to a screeching halt.
You make excellent points, and I agree with 1 and 2.
Immoral to cancel the little guys? I have to think about that. I prefer higher-value targets (congressional staffers, celebrities, government employees, etc.), sure, but I think all sides need to understand, from top to bottom, that this state of affairs sucks. Also, eventually, the little people on either side (like us!) can be ignored because most of this stuff does come from the top-down. People do look to how their leaders act and then act accordingly. I think Charles Haywood has a good approach that he articulates far better than I do.
Your title is great. "To the pain." Against opponents who subvert traditional norms, intentionally undermine the social fabric, label Logic a "white supremacist construct," demand that you ignore the evidence of your senses and believe their wild-eyed theories instead, and use any and all power they get to crush you ruthlessly, it really is crazy to disarm yourself and appeal to restraint and common decency and "what if the roles are someday reversed" pablum. They are communists, and communists DGAF about any of that. They only stop when they are forced to. Otherwise, they will continue their long march through all our civilization's institutions until they control everything, and as soon as they think their victory is assured, their mask of sanity drops and you see the psychopathic demons they really are (and always have been).
Logic and consistency don’t matter. It’s friend/enemy all the way down with these people.
My entire adult life has been waiting for compassion and honor to change these people’s minds. “If we treat them with humanity, they’ll see the error of their ways.” This has never, not once, happened. Therefore, the only way to make honorless assholes stop acting like assholes is to make the price of assholery too high. It has to be not fun anymore. For example, I sincerely hope Kyle Gass of Tenacious D can never find work again. Others have had their careers ruined for saying far less than he. Maybe then it’ll be shown to be not worth it and we can get back to some sort of societal norms of civility in how we discuss politics.
Sadly, with any form of religion or morality out the window in garbage culture America, it’ll have to be via heavy hand imposed externally. But we need to work with what we’ve got and start realizing that just because YOU have standards of fair, it doesn’t mean that your opponents share them.
It's also important to note that the culture of intolerance that the left has been promoting has resulted in things far worse than getting people fired, and has especially profoundly affected some of the younger generations in ways that may have consequences for years to come.
Last Sunday, an 80-year old man was putting up a Trump sign in his yard when he was run over by a 22-year old man riding an ATV. The 22-year old had already vandalized the cars of two other Trump supporters, and decided to tear down the old man's Trump signs, then to run over him when he tried to put them back up. He called the police to confess and said to send someone to pick him up, but when the police got to his house, he was dead of an apparently self-inflicted gunshot wound.
https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c1rw4xdjql4o
Reading this got me to thinking again of something that someone said recently that hit me like a ton of bricks when I read it.
We know, of course, that while there has always been some level of viciousness and hatred in politics, the 2016 election cycle was the turning point that caused the media and various other parts of the mainstream establishment to rabidly demonize everyone to the right of Stalin, and especially President Trump ("the new Hitler," according to them) and his supporters.
But what this person pointed out that I hadn't thought of before is that those of us who were adults at the time (I was 22 when Trump was elected, for example) can't truly appreciate what it was like for children and young teenagers to grow up bombarded by such hateful messaging, and some of those children are now adults. What spurred his comment on was that the Trump rally shooter was 20 years old this year, meaning that he was only about 12 when Trump got elected in 2016. There are a generation of adults 18, 19, 20, etc, years old who spent many of their most formative youthful years soaking in the toxic, hateful filth spewed forth by the media, many schools, and in many cases their own parents.
The 22-year old ATV assailant was about 14 when Trump was elected. Both he and the Trump rally shooter likely would have had some sort of underlying mental issues regardless, but the culture they grew up in may have been the straw that broke the camel's back.
Excellent point!
I was 19 when George W. Bush was elected, and the discourse didn’t get really nasty until then. If I recall, the “Bush = Hitler” really started after the Iraq war but when I was 8, 10, 13, etc., politics wasn’t this nasty, or it wasn’t co see to bombarded like it is now. I came of age largely in the Clinton years (I was born in 1981), and the Clintons and their cronies were NASTY . . . but media didn’t have quite the same reason then.
Now? Man, kids my son’s age (12) are raking political sides. It’s wild and can’t be healthy.
The issue is that tit for tat politicking, over time, it ceases to to be an effective tactic and instead becomes the purpose of politics which alienates voters.
And I think we can see this playing out in real time, and it's a major reason why I think you'll see a move toward ranked choice voting nationwide.
After all an ineffective two party bicker state in winner take all elections doesn't create better outcomes for the median voters. It may create great fundraising, fun events, and a few memorable rah rah speeches, but it doesn't and will never drive solutions for the biggest problems of our time.
I could deal with ranked choice voting.
Tit-for-tat style is a symptom of our system having basically broken down. I don’t see how this thing can be put back together.
I also agree on ranked-choice voting
If democracy is broken, how do we fix it with more democracy? If DC is corrupt, can it produce a major politician that is not corrupt? How does a not-corrupt navigate that system to the top?
We don't fix it with more democracy, at least not in the sense that the word is traditionally used.
But if democracy means "people power" as the word's etymology suggests, then I think there's a clear set of solutions that would empower people instead of just the political class including:
Ranked choice voting
Detachment from political parties as a source of one's personal identity
A greater appreciation for markets and their ability to empower people more than what politicians can
A respect for the seperation of state and federal powers
The repeal of the 17th amendment that elminates the Senate's ability to function as a check on partisan passions
In the long term this shift in perspective and policy would don't more to empower people than anything else progressives deceptively label "democratic."
The most immediate problem with the prescription I mentioned is is that to enact any one of those changes will likely take decades. But in fairness it took decades to get to where we are now, so it'll likely take decades to get us where we should be.
“The most immediate problem with the prescription I mentioned is is that to enact any one of those changes will likely take decades. But in fairness it took decades to get to where we are now, so it'll likely take decades to get us where we should be.”
We are essentially asking Congress to vote to pass laws that strip them of some of their power. Not easy to get them to do. This is why cries for term limits and age limits is getting old. Good luck getting Congress to vote for less power and pocket-stuffing. Gotta trick em!
No, they wouldn't be stripped of their power just the power they would have would be different.
Which wouldn't be different than what happened in the progressive era where they successfully advocated for a wide range of electoral reforms.
If it can happen then, there's no reason to think something similar couldn't happen in regards to what I proposed.
"The issue is that tit for tat politicking, over time, it ceases to to be an effective tactic and instead becomes the purpose of politics which alienates voters."
Could you elaborate coupled with an example? No failures of tit-for-tat come to mind very recently and there's nothing in the tit-for-tat model that implies long term failure. In fact the model says the longer you play the game with the same people the more effective it becomes.
What we're witnessing in today's politics is a race to the retaliatory bottom -- the two parties are competing to mobilize the most voters by seeing who can create the biggest set of grievances.
Which has the effect of taking everyone's attention away from working on substantive issues like border security, spending reform, etc..
The most recent and prominent example is Congress' failure to get a good border security bill done when there was one on the table. But because getting it done would given Trump one grievance to campaign on, no deal was struck.
Insofar as both establishment parties are unwilling to compromise, and insofar as both benefit from increased polarization in terms of maintaining their positions of power and receiving huge fundraising hauls, then the retaliation will only benefit the political class at the expense of normal people who just want sensible solutions to clear problems.
Well said and well argued mon ami, I do have a question though, you think maybe there's a great deal in common between 'cancelling' and excomunication in the Middle-Ages? I think there's a great deal of similarities its just that Satanists have adopted it since the end of that era.
This is partially why I favour the 'Right' taking back control of that part of culture and using it in kind. We've historically been more responsable with it unlike the left.
It is similar to excommunication. But excommunication forbade someone from receiving the most important thing (the Eucharist). Is a job the same level of importance to these people? I don’t know. Maybe.
But yeah, I don’t even want this sort of “cancellation” to be a regular feature of American life anymore. 15 years of it is more than enough. I’d rather ruin everything for everyone so they can see how much it sucks and then we can move on.
I know the differences, I’m just commenting that it seems these clowns want that level of power.
And agreed on the second point. It’s not fun having it carried over into America’s vassal states either. Dunno why it ended up more forcibly enforced by her vassals.
They totally want that level of power. And I get it. Ostracization is as psychologically powerful as it can be physically powerful. Probably more.
Hmm very true
I think the history of exile-as-punishment is closer to what you are thinking of.
Hmm to an extent
Exile-as-punishment would be awesome.
Ouais
"There was a brief moment during the George W. Bush presidency where rabid hateful left-wingers got mildly “canceled” for opposing the war in Iraq aside"
I remember, It was tough for those poor Dixie Chicks to have to suffer a cover on Rolling Stone about how they were being silenced. In fact, it's funny how many people are given big platforms to complain about how they are being silenced.
"Unfortunately, too many on the right worry about what will happen if the roles are reversed. “We can’t fight back!” they cringe. “What will our opponents do to us when they have power?”"
I guess "don't fall out of power" is too difficult a concept for them. Then again, getting INTO power is rather a difficult idea for them.
"one doesn’t respond to a thrown rock with a nuclear bomb"
Doggone it, what's the point of having all these nuclear bombs lying around if I can't have any fun with them?
Yes, the Dixie Chicks sure had it rough.
“Don’t fall out of power” goes against our norms of government, which, let’s be honest, conservatives to either their credit or detriment take really, really seriously. More seriously often than actual religious belief. The problem is, our system is an honor system that requires ALL parties to play fair and self-police. One side hasn’t for a few generations now, and yet conservatives still abide by the old rules. It’s insanity. You either have a peaceful transfer of power every four or eight years, or you have conflict like we’re seeing.
It all started downhill with the introduction of the concept of “political correctness”. As soon as we stopped calling certain words and speech simply “inappropriate”, or “insulting” and added “political” to it, it became an easily weaponized polarizing force.
In allowing this, We as a culture opened the door to certain speech being anathematized regardless of the context in which it was used, allowing entire sections of human history to be essentially erased as “politically incorrect”. Without the perceived ability to discuss these terms in ANY context, we also lose the opportunity to address the fundamental problems those words and ideas represent. When mere words are considered violence, what recourse does anyone have beyond true, actual violence to oppose the oppression they perceive themselves to be under?
It scares me. I’ve spent over four years of my life in a war zone. I have no desire to spend any more in one, and I worry that my home is headed in that direction.
The stifling of acceptable speech has absolutely prevented us from accurately discussing problems and potential solutions. What we have isn’t two sides differing on how to solve problems, but two sides with different view of what the problems even are. And though I know it’s gauche and unaristocratic to take sides in the realm of partisan politics, I can only oppose the side that thinks people like me (straight white Christian men) are the root cause of every single ill facing America.
Excellent
Thank you.
Once conventions get broken, be they constitutional, political or social, they generally stay broken unless immediate corrective action is taken. Take the Parliament Acts here in the UK: the House of Lords broke a huge convention (rejected the budget of the elected House), so that convention became a statutory requirement.
This of course assumes a level of fondness, shall we say, for the convention. We Americans have never had a fondness for not destroying the reputations and livelihoods of our fellow Americans. We have at best feared the inevitable dire consequences when it gets out of hand.
I do not see this ending. It will perhaps serve as a deterrent against abandoning other necessary conventions / mores.
You’re right. When there is a fiat accompli, you either do something about it, or it becomes de facto law.
I agree that getting physical about politics (tarring and feathering, anyone?) is an American tradition that got put away somewhat in the 20th century. I do think things will have to get worse until we, collectively, decide to stop with tactics like this. Maybe I’m just a dreamer.
I had to exit the article after seeing the words Donald Trump.
I’m passing on any writing on the news cycle
Fair enough. I put those words in there to appeal to the respectable mainstream publication I submitted this to. I regret the decision.
An aside about getting no response from the publication. In my field at least, receiving no response has become the norm. Even about important things, devoid of anything edgy or what could remotely be interpreted as aggressive etc. This in addition to the interpersonal realm. I'm assuming this is widespread by now. Another hallmark of an era that richly deserves to come to a screeching halt.
To be fair, they did say “If you don’t hear from us within two business days of submission, your piece has not been considered.”
OK, that’s a different story then. Wishing you every success in future!
We must fight or perish.
However every voter is “a politician” as voting a positive political action.
That’s the beauty of democracy if you’re an elected official: “Hey, don’t blame ME; YOUR NEIGHBOR voted for this!”
Exactly my stance. Articulated simply and powerfully.
Glad you appreciated the post Karen.
You make excellent points, and I agree with 1 and 2.
Immoral to cancel the little guys? I have to think about that. I prefer higher-value targets (congressional staffers, celebrities, government employees, etc.), sure, but I think all sides need to understand, from top to bottom, that this state of affairs sucks. Also, eventually, the little people on either side (like us!) can be ignored because most of this stuff does come from the top-down. People do look to how their leaders act and then act accordingly. I think Charles Haywood has a good approach that he articulates far better than I do.