- There is a slight concern that I have fallen into the trap of the ideologue. I read a lot, but it’s become for its own sake. On politics, I have largely lost even the lurkers since I now make a point of saying “read the whole thing before you mouth off.” But that’s politics, and that’s probably the only time the anyone asks anything of especially the progressive politico. God knows their ideology doesn’t demand anything of them.
This makes strengthening one’s views rather difficult. We only rise, individually and culturally, to the level of the toughest opponents. Individually and culturally, this makes a “cancelling” views we personally don’t have the courage and intelligence to contend with a “solution” that makes the cancelling party weaker.
The only place where it is impossible to strengthen one’s views through the strength of the opponent’s argument is in the realm of gun control. In every major case, it becomes clear that the left simply does not believe in self-defense. If they do, the standard for justified use of force is that you are allowed one shot, in highly specific circumstances, after having run through a checklist. A checklist that takes 15 seconds to run through and you have less than 5 seconds to react. On the oddly comfortable, progressive/activist left, the self-defense “guidelines” (rules) are written by people who haven’t read a pamphlet on life-threatening situations and can’t conceive of why someone wouldn’t be stone cold rational -in- that situation. In the last dustup since the shooting, I have seen self-defense “standards” such as the defender being allowed one bullet maximum, and on a sperate thread, the idea that a car isn’t being used as a deadly weapon until it hits you. Which is like the Rittenhouse prosecution’s idea that it wasn’t self-defense because Grosskreutz DID aim the weapon at Kyle, but he did not FIRE it, and therefore, it was not self-defense. We will discuss this more in detail later.
- Michael W. Austin, the author of the pro-gun control “God and Guns in America” observes at the beginning of both chapters 1 and 3, “the public debate about the private ownership of guns is contentious, often nasty, and rarely insightful[1]”. This is clearly true of most political public discussion. Those who aim to tear down something, for example, are not really sure of what to replace it with. It is true that ICE and other forms of law enforcement are extremely difficult jobs and the people in those jobs are not one kind of person. It is also true that ICE and other forms of law enforcement are needed for a functioning society. It is ALSO true that agents of the state -can- overstep their bounds. It is ALSO true that many activists decrying use of force either have no standard for self-defense, for LEOs or civilians, or have standards like “the defender is allowed one bullet”, that indicate they simply have no idea how dirty the world of violence is, nor do they understand the many elements that go into a violent scenario. Not to put too fine a point on it, but we have now brought up four statements that don’t perfectly fit into the standard MAGA OR progressive approach to the issue of state or even individual violence. And yet, all four are correct statements.
- Activists speak almost exclusively in terms of what they’re against and who the reason for our current malaise is. To keep their jobs, and keep the anger oven warm, they speak only in vague terms about what they’re for and how it will functionally be achieved. And yet, those who most often talk of virtue speak of things they don’t appear to possess. Meanwhile, the “terminally online” crowd has grown to include the older set that is less likely to be able to determine a reliable source from AI slop. Meanwhile, those who -are- technologically literate are coming out of the educational system barely reading above a 6th-grade level.
Christians do the same, I am sure. But I am inoculated against such things for 2 reasons. The first, I am not on TikTok or threads and I sure as hell am not on BlueSky or “Truth” Social. So I don’t really get to see a lot of Ev-angelical or Ex-vangelical stuff. Further, whenever I do see someone ranting about the Rapture or how “God will bless you if you just believe” and such, I can only grow in my contempt for non-denominational churches and theological liberalism (Machen was right, he was right about everything). The better and more edifying route however is simply to pray for all involved, lament the opinion and differentiate between the idea and the person as I do in politics. It is not hard for me to say that is not “true Christianity”. It is inherently Man-centered and bent towards an American form of Christianity that does to Donald Trump what the Mormons do to Joseph Smith and those people are wrong as well.
Between the lunatic secular progressives and the political evangelicals colliding, we’re supposed to think that somehow, this stupid, directionless, perpetually angry people is going to create something good by themselves. And yet, they can’t define good, -if- they can, it’s usually “We are good, they are bad”. Failing that, they don’t have the personality or tactics to bring non-terminally online people to their side. Finally, they can’t explain how what they’re doing is going to lead to something good without basically accepting that innocent people will get run over, assuming they pay attention to those people at all.
Look at any “revolution” in history that was “for the people” and tell me how that went. Even the American Revolution wasn’t remotely clean, it just didn’t have that French or Latin American revolutionary flavor.
An example from both worlds; For the MAGAMen. Trump is doing God’s work to save God’s country from the Devil. Everyone ICE deports or kills IS a domestic terrorist or drug dealer. Innocent people caught in the net are collateral damage, assuming they exist (and MAGA isn’t saying they did). They -do- have rules, though. However, those change at a moment’s notice and are retroactive. So it is that we have a revolving door of cancellations, this is what the Left is known for and it is becoming a larger problem on the right.
Conversely….the lockdowns. According to the left, as judging by most of the words and almost all of their actions, very innocent life ruined, every wedding, funeral, birthday party and other gathering cancelled, every person locked in with an abuser, every addict alone with their thoughts, relying on Zoom for connection (which does NOT count) and everything else was either a tradeoff that “needed” to be made, or it just “wasn’t really happening” and to say it was would be one of many conspiracies.
- It is amazing how much leftist and MAGA arguments hinge on dragging the middle to the edge and attacking that point, whatever drags the person to “racist” or “bootlicker” or “bloodthirsty” territory, so the leftist doesn’t have to contend with the argument in front of them.
Going back to point 1, those of us with self-defense standards that go beyond the insane line of “allowing the defender one bullet” and “only if the attacker shoots first”, who consider the psychological elements of a law enforcement job, apparently, want LE officers to have “carte blanche” in terms of use of force.
No, we’re just considerably more likely to understand the human element of the job than you. Frankly, it’s not hard to improve on nothing. Much of leftist argument (by way of media, leftist Twitter and BlueSky) in that field is trying to avoid saying “I want these people killed” but setting the standard for defense so high that such is the natural result and accusing those who disagree of having this desire to see people get killed first. As anyone who has lived with a gaslighter will know, a major core of gaslighting behavior is that as long as you don’t explicitly affirm an accusation that has long since been proven, you have deniability. And thus, the progressive is always careful never to be honest and simply say they are against any useful definition of self-defense, no matter how many opportunities they’ve had, or challenges that were offered to them.
4.1) Meanwhile, with that challenge issued, we have MAGA. They have gone the other direction on self-defense, but they are just as clear in their own way that the ethics of violence are “negotiable” and the standard is “only when our guys do it”. MAGA does acknowledge self-defense as a concept (which is good, and with a lower standard can actually be used as ). Instead of setting the standard for when force can be justified so high it is practically meaningless, it overuses the term to the point where it’s useless AND turns the defense of the innocent as a concept into a way to justify getting rid OF the innocent.
Interestingly, between progressivism’s more open and only thinly veiled contempt for self-defense and innocent life, and MAGA’s less open embrace of saying those on the “wrong” end of the fight were all bad, the progressives can arguably be called “more honest” in their approach. I’m not sure that worldview would want to take “honest in a real-world sense” as a compliment as that certainly is never the goal.
There is an argument to be made that the Rene Good incident -was- self defense. The Pretti incident was not. But to hear the Fox News, Threads and Twitter denizens say it, those who challenge MAGA is part of the Deep State or doesn’t understand that everyone ICE arrests were violent criminals to the point were we do not need things like “due process”. Everything is by the book. Granted, this likely wasn’t true during the Obama, Biden and Bush deportations either, but Secretary Noem’s quickness to say that the people who are arrested and deported are -all- violent criminals, shall we say, “strains credulity”.
It is, however, amazing to hear even online progressives say that having a gun, let alone open carrying one, is not inherently a threat. How long has -that- been company policy?
This, folks, demonstrates that it is possible to say “both are bad” and not view either dismissively. On that note….
4.2) On the idea that ICE raids are a problem because the 4th amendment being violated. I find it amusing when those complaints, while correct, are usually also the kind that have been saying “rights are not unlimited” when talking about the 1st and especially the 2nd amendment. In those times, the ideology cannot draw a line on what at limit is and will usually jump straight to “gun ban” on one end, and “hate speech laws” that overlook their vitriol on the other.
Granted, progressives and MAGAs are relativists (something something, ‘there is no secular call to civility’, or honesty as it happens). This means “cognitive dissonance” is a problem for those whose ideology allows for an open mind and complex thought. So, the moments like these where one side finds themselves on the wrong end of a smug slogan are always entertaining.
Yes, a right will be misused. People are not inherently good. If, however, you believe that the right is misused more than it is exercised safely, you are provably wrong. As pointless, ineffective and self-aggrandizing as virtually all modern protest is, the vast majority of them are peaceful. In the same space, an equal majority of gun owners are extremely safe. In a similar vein, the fact that there is no such thing as a private space government cannot intrude upon is not the policy of a free state. This was true in the lockdown era with churches that gathered for worship against the lockdown orders (First Amendment right there), it is true of those who, may be here illegally, but are in someone else’s home.
There should probably be a new form of the Socratic method, instead of asking questions, observe how two or more things can be equally true.
5th and finally) Those who believe good can come from politics are where I used to be; idealistic, new to the field or perhaps in such a depressed situation that they would find their hope in something inherently man-centered. And any argument that suggests this battle ultimately isn’t worth it is doubtless couched in some form of subconscious thing or something about the individual’s lifestyle that “allows” them to think like this, for which they are “secretly yet openly” racist or whatever the word of the day is. Experience in the field, for example being in the gun world for 15 years and seeing no progress on that front from my presence in the game, and being right about the lockdowns from 3 months in onward and that not affecting anything either, does not matter. Because disengagement is a sign of privilege and to say it does not matter is something only those can afford to say it. Your only solution to absolve you of your sins is to prostrate yourself in a protest line, yelling into the wind at people with their noses in their phones, dealing with their kids, on their way to work, or otherwise living life. Because this time, on this subject, with this approach. It’s true I haven’t seen an ounce of an ROI in the last 15 years, but maybe I should get back into politics. Surely, year 16 is going to bring a windfall…. I will turn 9,999 protestors chanting the same thing like an incantation into 10,000 protestors chanting the same thing like an incantation, and what government can say no to that?
All of them, it turns out. Governments even in “republics” like ours which have so solidified the line between them and the people that it’s fair to say they wouldn’t allow protests if they were effective
The only positive purpose for online politics, and I do mean it’s -only- purpose, is a philosophical debate carried with both sides realizing that the conversation does not and will not impact anything in the real world.
If someone does gaslight you on your position, that’s one thing. Let’s not pretend useless conversation can’t be scarring. That, however, is not necessary if the other person is being honest.
Anecdotally, I have achieved infinitely more in the last 8 months as a friend, even in limiting my role as a mover, than in 15 years of online political “activism”. That gap only more impassable grows as you go further back into the last 4-5 years.
But screw that. Even though I’m a much healthier, more effective and nicer person outside of politics, we just can’t have that because THE WORLD NEEDS ME!
No. No it does not. My friends, family, students and colleagues do, the larger world does not care.
5.1) Dr. Jeff Stivason once observed that the internet has convinced people that their sphere of influence, their sphere of “ministry” is the world. He added quickly that if you think this, “you are lying to yourself”. The whole point of Ecclesiastes, which I know predates the internet, is that the things you have “control” of are what you think, how you respond, and how you interact with people in the everyday stages of life. One’s body will one day betray them, if it isn’t already. The side you advocate for has certainly lost an election or two in your lifetime, perhaps significantly, and even despite yelling more often, more loudly and more aggressively than before in person and on the internet. A lost job is catastrophic, but is also something one cannot completely control, and so on.
If you are spending your days in online politics, stop, or at least take a long break. Statistically, it’s healthier. Functionally, your impact on the world does not change one notch whether you’re terminally online or out of the online political space entirely. I have noticed this as 15 years in the gun world and 3 or 5 years out of it are indeed functionally identical. Assuming one does “read both sides” at their best, that’s fantastic. With that caveat, and assuming you’re not dealing with a political zealot who sees gaslighting as justifiable, the pointless conversation may be less vitriolic and more interesting, edifying, and respectful. That is the “best” we can hope for as it is the -only- good that can come from such discussions.
[1] Michael W. Austin and Rob Schenck, God and Guns in America (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans, 2020).
Finally tonight 