Tribalism and the “Vast majority” argument
So, I’ve had a few incomplete points that are becoming their own thing, so I thought I’d pitch the idea to y’all just because it’s always good to see what you folks have in mind.
First off, because of the Jacksonville case, we will see tribalism once again rear its ugly head. A few weeks ago “Not all immigrants are like, in fact the vast majority of them aren’t like” the one who murdered Mollie Tibbets. This is a fair argument, and legislation based on this is ridiculous. However, the same side of the political aisle that says this will call “not all gun owners are mass shooters, in fact the vast majority are not like” the Jacksonville shooter to be a cop-out.
I’m aware it’d be the same way if the Jacksonville shooting came before the Tibbets murder, but that only serves to make the point. Tribalism will be the death of this country.
Moreover, “The Wall” (Copyright 2016-2018) is about as tactically, financially and logistically sound as the gun ban (Copyright 1980-2018). Yes, I know “but Australia”, stow it, we’ve covered practically every angle in the last few years here. The logistics are absurd, and the experiments in places like Chicago, LA, Baltimore and DC do not imbue confidence in gun control working across the country, nor does the history of the gun free zone.
On the subject of evil, two points. One, the truth that “evil is universal” is meant to get people off the trite lines of “evul whyte man” and “Black/Latino person=gangsta”. Seriously, people. If you or someone you know has ever said that, repent.”
Allow me to put it to you this way. Statistically, most mass shooters are white. Most gang violence is committed by black or latino people, and most terrorists are Muslim.
What can you gain from this that is useful and inoffensive?
Nothing. All you get is that white people are more accurate indoors, black people are more accurate outdoors, and Muslim extremists use bombs and cars so accuracy isn’t on the agenda.
That’s it. It’s an offensive concept and it is completely useless. The only thing you can get is that some White, Black, Latino and Muslim people can and do kill other people
With this in mind, you must turn each situation into a tactical review. Consider what made the person snap, what made the shooting site vulnerable and so forth. We discussed this in “Tibbets” but it’s worth mentioning again.
For the last four hours, I’ve had rolling around in my head the old New Atheist/Millennial atheist screed that if we “just” (“Just” again. Damn, everything is so simple) got rid of religion, the country would be better off. This is exemplified by the kind of extreme rationalism espoused by the likes of Sam Harris.
Welp, guess what, religion hasn’t been a major player in America for decades, and yet we have the political climate of 2016 still looming over us like a cancer, mass shootings and stabbings committed by men because women said “no”, and the concept that truth is relative. And it is from the latter platform especially that the activist declares anyone who disagrees with them is a Nazi or someone who supports oppression.
Here’s an interesting point, Nietzsche’s declaration that “God is dead” was -never- meant to be celebratory. The “Parable of the Madman” from which that declaration comes from sees the Madman announce that “God is dead and we have killed him” and implies, essentially, that in killing God, we can’t merely ditch his corpse and move along with life, but we need to find something to fill the infinite void God leaves behind. “What festivals of atonement, what sacred games shall we have to invent…Must we ourselves not become gods simply to appear worthy of (being God’s murderers)
Nietzsche’s declaration that God is dead implies that in his death, relativism will take hold, and man is too erratic a creature to be left to his own devices. We can’t fill the void that killing the objective moral values upon which Western civilization is based upon, but damned if we’re not going to try.
So, and perhaps this is a more petty swipe from my end. But why isn’t secularism made to answer for its crimes, and have the worst of its members represent the whole? Why must the entire Catholic Church, and indeed Christianity in general be made to bow to secularism for the Catholic sex abuse scandal, but secularism doesn’t have to answer for the political climate that has separated families, the relativism that turns discourse into an exchange of tired, surface-level talking points, and creates an environment that allows for the likes of Harvey Weinstein, Larry Nassar and others of his ilk to thrive? Imagine what an investigation of politics and Hollywood would turn up? I know this usually meant with some knee-jerk response of “are you saying you can’t be moral without God.”
A person can, but he has nothing guiding him. It is also quite apparent that our society cannot maintain a consistent morality at all.
I do not mean to make a case for God here, technically. But the only response I’ve heard is the idea of confusing what we’ve read about ditching religion, with what the act of ditching a transcendent moral order might actually lead to. It’s very similar to saying “real socialism has never been tried” because its real-world results don’t match up with what one has been told socialism would be like