Charlie, my man. I think you might need to have more progressives on your show if your reaction to deBoer's references was "WTAF?". I've been reading that junk for years. It's been ubiquitous on the left. That Osterweil "In Defense of Looting" book was just the most ridiculous example of it.
Sadly, this is the insidious result of the paralysis white progressives display in the face of their own white guilt. They can't - literally *can't* - bring themselves to be critical of anything that a racial minority does. Their only option in the face of such questions is either to sheepishly dodge them as "complex", claim no right to judge or have an opinion by virtue of being white, or double down with some absurd "pragmatic" argument as to why riots are actually good things.
The worst part is that this kinda sorta comes from a good place. They think that this is the way to atone for the sins of white society and make amends for the harm done to racial minorities. While this represents a disturbing departure from modern notions of morality whereby guilt is not inherited by one's descendants or collectively owned by a "race", wanting to be gracious at least demonstrates sympathy and a genuine rejection of the overt, visceral racism of the past.
What they don't realize is how dehumanizing this actually is to minorities. By sentimentalizing them as victims, refusing to criticize them as you would any other human being, you deny them individual agency, effectively treating them as totems, vessels to deliver your own salvation. Asking one of your black friends if they could recommend a book on racism - as if you have somehow lost the ability to perform a simple online search when it comes to this one subject - is a form of deification, whereby you completely subordinate your own judgement to that of another person whom you deem to be an infallible, "authentic" voice on the matter. It's also a performative way to validate your own place in the abstract struggle, while ignoring the concrete damage done.
Regardless of where it comes from, it's pathetic. And irresponsible. And selfish. And within the progressive diaspora, deeply seductive. Even I, who has always found it repugnant, was drawn in for a brief moment following the George Floyd incident. We can't have this. We should be as vocal in denouncing such civil poison as the Twitter mobs were in going after David Shor. Okay ... maybe not *quite* that bad - we don't need to ruin any careers. But then maybe if we pushed back harder and earlier on some of these issues, the consequences would never rise to that level in the first place.
I appreciate the links on the pro-riot left from the summer of the riots. But who on the pro-riot left is upset about Rittenhouse possible/probably acquuittal? Those same people?
We have allowed political performance art to get out of hand. What started as rhetoric to justify particular positions and ideologies (and to cater to bias/prejudice) has morphed into the demonization and dehumanization of other citizens.
Most of the people who contributed the most to this problem were not politicians, they were entertainers. Media personalities. People looking for a spin they could use to turn a few dollars--well, more than a few.
The true leadership of the right is not their politicians. It hasn't been the politicians or the thinkers for quite some time (starting back in the late 80s). The true leadership was the media personalities--the radio talk show hosts, the writers, the media opinion people.
Even they did not lead so much as amplify and extend something that was already there--sitting beneath the surface, waiting its moment to spring into life.
Now, there is no control--which means there is no bottom. There is this self-reinforcing vicious cycle where you now have to outdo the people before you if you want to gain any traction and make any money or hold onto office.
This is happening on the left as well. It is less noticed because the left has less power and influence in our society... and the Democratic center (for a long time) pushed back against it, seeing that rhetoric as a losing proposition.
When a group sees something as existential, it becomes existential. When the enemy is Other, it is easy to use extreme measures.
This cycle has not eased, it is accelerating. The politicians and media are now stuck on the back of the hungry tiger and are afraid to get off because they know that the tiger WILL eat them.
The whole mess is a natural outcome of our consumer market society. The closest analogy to political rhetoric (as practiced in this country) is narcotics. The pushers pushed their product (media) and the customers liked it--but soon you needed a stronger fix.. and a stronger fix. The money (and power) kept rolling in so it was all good--NOW, the customers are showing up armed and ready to kill you (sometimes literally) if you do not provide them the fix they want... because they are desperate for it.
And now they actually want you to DO something about this horrible mess that you have convinced them exists. If it's that bad, you should be doing something--and if YOU aren't going to do it, then maybe they will.
And all you really wanted was to make a few bucks or get (and stay) elected.. you didn't actually MEAN it, not really. You were just telling people things that you thought they wanted to hear or that your consultant told you to say... it polled well.
So, since JVL requested this on Secret Pod today, I'll take the bait. Responsible gun owner here, also a USMC vet who did x3 pumps to Iraq from '05-'08 during the civil war years of the counter-insurgency campaign there (Haditha, Fallujah, + Al Anbar-wide IED hunting). Kyle Rittenhaus is NOT a hero. Not even close. What he is, and what others in that pro-vigilantism corner of gun culture are, are essentially a group of radical gun owners who are attempting to extend what is commonly known as the "castle doctrine" to basically anywhere they want to. The "castle doctrine" is what most self-defense claims are based around, that a man's home is his castle, and that he has the right to defend that castle from outside threats of violence. This is why most home invasions that end with the burglar getting shot by the home owner end up being justified. Later, the definition of "castle" was extended to your personal vehicle, your private business, and your own person through concealed and open carry pistol laws. Now, what guys like Rittenhaus are essentially trying to do is extend the "castle" to include *someone else's property* that they have no stake in ownership off. This is a radical departure from traditional castle doctrine law, and adds vigilantism and organized militia violence to the mix. Essentially, these guys want to be able to get together with their militias, declare a random street of set of businesses in a neighboring community or state to be their "castle" in terms of right-to-protection, and then using that legal footing to be able to use armed intimidation and instigation to bait political opponents into violence, and then massacre whoever throws a fist with bullets, all while claiming "right to self-defense." Ladies and gentlemen, this is not self-defense. This is the equivalent of armed militias showing up to the capital on Jan 6th, and then shooting the Jan 6 rioters when you step in to help the police push away violent protestors and are assaulted in the process. Would that be self-defense? Of course it wouldn't, because I had no legal jurisdiction there as security, just as Kyle Rittenhaus (or his militia buddies) didn't have jurisdiction in Kenosha or any other place armed militias have shown up to intimidate political opponents (Bundy Ranch & Ferguson in 2014). I personally know some of the guys in these militias, and have long since broken ties with them, because they are extremely radical people. The first time I saw people I had deployed with show up armed to riots or protests was in Ferguson in 2014. That was also the first time I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned live on the news by a radical right-wing base voter. That overlap is no coincidence. It marked the turn of the party. Ferguson and the start of BLM is what turned the ugliest side of the prior GOP into the full-fledged face of it, and it got more comfortable bearing its teeth in doing so. A lot of people ignored it back then, but I paid very close attention because that's when I started getting really worried about violence in politics. I still worry, as this kind of trend has only gone mainstream since then. If responsible gun owners do not step up and call out this element of gun culture here in the US, we risk seeing a real increased political militia violence in the streets and further radicalization.
Charlie, Indeed when you promote violence you unleash a world of chaos and harm: law at the business end of a club, instead of a courtroom is atavistic terror. Looting is better defined as mass theft. Those who excuse violence are promoting it. When clubs and jellied gasoline replace words we're in big trouble. We are in big trouble!
Secession won't work. Our differences are not regional. Upstate New York has more in common with Alabama than in does with New York City. Austin has more in common with San Francisco than it does with the rest of Texas.
If there is another civil war, it will be fought in every state with battles between rural areas and cities.
Okay, Twitter is one thing. Looking to Reddit for serious takes is a new low that even I have to suggest that Charlie take a serious look in the mirror. Please stop including wacky click baity ideas for your stories. There seems to be enough mainstream takes on the rioting that including Reddit is simply being lazy. Do better.
Did anyone else notice that the McEntee memo has several typos and grammatical errors? We all make mistakes, but in a document like that you would have thought they would have had another set of eyes (or two) proofreading it.
The failure to condemn political violence combined with a genuine (though misguided and false) lack of faith in the electoral process, urged on by political leaders, is a very combustible mixture. Trump says what his supporters believe, whether he believes it or not; it's hard to tell what Trump believes, or whether he has any beliefs aside from his own id. But when you tell your supporters repeatedly that the ballot box is rigged and they get in their heads that there is no recourse for electoral change, violence is not only on the table; it becomes a patriotic duty. And these are the people with the vast majority of our 400 million guns.
This is the dynamic that played out in the head of the guy who shot up the GOP ballgame and almost killed Steve Scalise. And yet, a bullet from an assault rifle was not enough to teach Scalise how dangerous of a game he is playing, refusing to say Biden won the election (his standard response is "Biden is the president").
This is the fire Donald Trump plays with every day, and he's the inevitable 2024 GOP nominee. It's a disgusting, revolting brew. This is why, despite his normy-ness, Glen Youngkin is still not fit for public office.
Re: the Esper memo ... "vowed to be apolitical". Is Esper's being apolitical the complaint? Nearly every other bullet point is a complaint that Esper was not "political" enough in aligning with Trump.
Just because somebody writes a piece about riots being some form of positive change doesn't mean what Rittenhouse did should be a pass. I will harken that the initial fires in Minneapolis that started at the AutoZone were found by the ATF to be of white Supreme st origins. Any form of violence during a peaceful protest is unacceptable and so are any pieces condoning the behavior. But there are zero people standing up condoning riot behavior as acceptable during a protest. Rittenhouse, by his actions,, literally is saying that him murdering somebody for grabbing a gun he should not have possessed next to a fire his attacker never started in a car lot he had no business being at a juvenile age, is ok. It's OK because some nut job was screaming stupid things at him and he was scared. He was in fear for his life. I can tell he is afraid in the video. But that was his defense before he even descended upon Kenosha. What he did was premeditated. You could have wrote zero of those opinion pieces. Rittenhouse would have still packed his AR for killing. This incident embolden the craziness more then AMY Times article would in a hundred years. I still appreciate the bothsidedness Charlie.
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
We talk a lot about how unfit Donald Trump was for the Presidency, but not nearly enough attention is paid to how unfit Mike Pence is for the Vice Presidency. I cannot fathom being Mike Pence and remaining all but silent in the face of everything Trump has done, to the country and to him personally. If I were Pence I'd have a one cot at FBI headquarters and another in the 1/6 Committee room.
Charlie, my man. I think you might need to have more progressives on your show if your reaction to deBoer's references was "WTAF?". I've been reading that junk for years. It's been ubiquitous on the left. That Osterweil "In Defense of Looting" book was just the most ridiculous example of it.
Sadly, this is the insidious result of the paralysis white progressives display in the face of their own white guilt. They can't - literally *can't* - bring themselves to be critical of anything that a racial minority does. Their only option in the face of such questions is either to sheepishly dodge them as "complex", claim no right to judge or have an opinion by virtue of being white, or double down with some absurd "pragmatic" argument as to why riots are actually good things.
The worst part is that this kinda sorta comes from a good place. They think that this is the way to atone for the sins of white society and make amends for the harm done to racial minorities. While this represents a disturbing departure from modern notions of morality whereby guilt is not inherited by one's descendants or collectively owned by a "race", wanting to be gracious at least demonstrates sympathy and a genuine rejection of the overt, visceral racism of the past.
What they don't realize is how dehumanizing this actually is to minorities. By sentimentalizing them as victims, refusing to criticize them as you would any other human being, you deny them individual agency, effectively treating them as totems, vessels to deliver your own salvation. Asking one of your black friends if they could recommend a book on racism - as if you have somehow lost the ability to perform a simple online search when it comes to this one subject - is a form of deification, whereby you completely subordinate your own judgement to that of another person whom you deem to be an infallible, "authentic" voice on the matter. It's also a performative way to validate your own place in the abstract struggle, while ignoring the concrete damage done.
Regardless of where it comes from, it's pathetic. And irresponsible. And selfish. And within the progressive diaspora, deeply seductive. Even I, who has always found it repugnant, was drawn in for a brief moment following the George Floyd incident. We can't have this. We should be as vocal in denouncing such civil poison as the Twitter mobs were in going after David Shor. Okay ... maybe not *quite* that bad - we don't need to ruin any careers. But then maybe if we pushed back harder and earlier on some of these issues, the consequences would never rise to that level in the first place.
I appreciate the links on the pro-riot left from the summer of the riots. But who on the pro-riot left is upset about Rittenhouse possible/probably acquuittal? Those same people?
We have allowed political performance art to get out of hand. What started as rhetoric to justify particular positions and ideologies (and to cater to bias/prejudice) has morphed into the demonization and dehumanization of other citizens.
Most of the people who contributed the most to this problem were not politicians, they were entertainers. Media personalities. People looking for a spin they could use to turn a few dollars--well, more than a few.
The true leadership of the right is not their politicians. It hasn't been the politicians or the thinkers for quite some time (starting back in the late 80s). The true leadership was the media personalities--the radio talk show hosts, the writers, the media opinion people.
Even they did not lead so much as amplify and extend something that was already there--sitting beneath the surface, waiting its moment to spring into life.
Now, there is no control--which means there is no bottom. There is this self-reinforcing vicious cycle where you now have to outdo the people before you if you want to gain any traction and make any money or hold onto office.
This is happening on the left as well. It is less noticed because the left has less power and influence in our society... and the Democratic center (for a long time) pushed back against it, seeing that rhetoric as a losing proposition.
When a group sees something as existential, it becomes existential. When the enemy is Other, it is easy to use extreme measures.
This cycle has not eased, it is accelerating. The politicians and media are now stuck on the back of the hungry tiger and are afraid to get off because they know that the tiger WILL eat them.
The whole mess is a natural outcome of our consumer market society. The closest analogy to political rhetoric (as practiced in this country) is narcotics. The pushers pushed their product (media) and the customers liked it--but soon you needed a stronger fix.. and a stronger fix. The money (and power) kept rolling in so it was all good--NOW, the customers are showing up armed and ready to kill you (sometimes literally) if you do not provide them the fix they want... because they are desperate for it.
And now they actually want you to DO something about this horrible mess that you have convinced them exists. If it's that bad, you should be doing something--and if YOU aren't going to do it, then maybe they will.
And all you really wanted was to make a few bucks or get (and stay) elected.. you didn't actually MEAN it, not really. You were just telling people things that you thought they wanted to hear or that your consultant told you to say... it polled well.
Ah, the banality of evil. It's amazing.
So, since JVL requested this on Secret Pod today, I'll take the bait. Responsible gun owner here, also a USMC vet who did x3 pumps to Iraq from '05-'08 during the civil war years of the counter-insurgency campaign there (Haditha, Fallujah, + Al Anbar-wide IED hunting). Kyle Rittenhaus is NOT a hero. Not even close. What he is, and what others in that pro-vigilantism corner of gun culture are, are essentially a group of radical gun owners who are attempting to extend what is commonly known as the "castle doctrine" to basically anywhere they want to. The "castle doctrine" is what most self-defense claims are based around, that a man's home is his castle, and that he has the right to defend that castle from outside threats of violence. This is why most home invasions that end with the burglar getting shot by the home owner end up being justified. Later, the definition of "castle" was extended to your personal vehicle, your private business, and your own person through concealed and open carry pistol laws. Now, what guys like Rittenhaus are essentially trying to do is extend the "castle" to include *someone else's property* that they have no stake in ownership off. This is a radical departure from traditional castle doctrine law, and adds vigilantism and organized militia violence to the mix. Essentially, these guys want to be able to get together with their militias, declare a random street of set of businesses in a neighboring community or state to be their "castle" in terms of right-to-protection, and then using that legal footing to be able to use armed intimidation and instigation to bait political opponents into violence, and then massacre whoever throws a fist with bullets, all while claiming "right to self-defense." Ladies and gentlemen, this is not self-defense. This is the equivalent of armed militias showing up to the capital on Jan 6th, and then shooting the Jan 6 rioters when you step in to help the police push away violent protestors and are assaulted in the process. Would that be self-defense? Of course it wouldn't, because I had no legal jurisdiction there as security, just as Kyle Rittenhaus (or his militia buddies) didn't have jurisdiction in Kenosha or any other place armed militias have shown up to intimidate political opponents (Bundy Ranch & Ferguson in 2014). I personally know some of the guys in these militias, and have long since broken ties with them, because they are extremely radical people. The first time I saw people I had deployed with show up armed to riots or protests was in Ferguson in 2014. That was also the first time I heard Donald Trump's name mentioned live on the news by a radical right-wing base voter. That overlap is no coincidence. It marked the turn of the party. Ferguson and the start of BLM is what turned the ugliest side of the prior GOP into the full-fledged face of it, and it got more comfortable bearing its teeth in doing so. A lot of people ignored it back then, but I paid very close attention because that's when I started getting really worried about violence in politics. I still worry, as this kind of trend has only gone mainstream since then. If responsible gun owners do not step up and call out this element of gun culture here in the US, we risk seeing a real increased political militia violence in the streets and further radicalization.
Charlie, Indeed when you promote violence you unleash a world of chaos and harm: law at the business end of a club, instead of a courtroom is atavistic terror. Looting is better defined as mass theft. Those who excuse violence are promoting it. When clubs and jellied gasoline replace words we're in big trouble. We are in big trouble!
Secession won't work. Our differences are not regional. Upstate New York has more in common with Alabama than in does with New York City. Austin has more in common with San Francisco than it does with the rest of Texas.
If there is another civil war, it will be fought in every state with battles between rural areas and cities.
Okay, Twitter is one thing. Looking to Reddit for serious takes is a new low that even I have to suggest that Charlie take a serious look in the mirror. Please stop including wacky click baity ideas for your stories. There seems to be enough mainstream takes on the rioting that including Reddit is simply being lazy. Do better.
Did anyone else notice that the McEntee memo has several typos and grammatical errors? We all make mistakes, but in a document like that you would have thought they would have had another set of eyes (or two) proofreading it.
The failure to condemn political violence combined with a genuine (though misguided and false) lack of faith in the electoral process, urged on by political leaders, is a very combustible mixture. Trump says what his supporters believe, whether he believes it or not; it's hard to tell what Trump believes, or whether he has any beliefs aside from his own id. But when you tell your supporters repeatedly that the ballot box is rigged and they get in their heads that there is no recourse for electoral change, violence is not only on the table; it becomes a patriotic duty. And these are the people with the vast majority of our 400 million guns.
This is the dynamic that played out in the head of the guy who shot up the GOP ballgame and almost killed Steve Scalise. And yet, a bullet from an assault rifle was not enough to teach Scalise how dangerous of a game he is playing, refusing to say Biden won the election (his standard response is "Biden is the president").
This is the fire Donald Trump plays with every day, and he's the inevitable 2024 GOP nominee. It's a disgusting, revolting brew. This is why, despite his normy-ness, Glen Youngkin is still not fit for public office.
Re: the Esper memo ... "vowed to be apolitical". Is Esper's being apolitical the complaint? Nearly every other bullet point is a complaint that Esper was not "political" enough in aligning with Trump.
Just because somebody writes a piece about riots being some form of positive change doesn't mean what Rittenhouse did should be a pass. I will harken that the initial fires in Minneapolis that started at the AutoZone were found by the ATF to be of white Supreme st origins. Any form of violence during a peaceful protest is unacceptable and so are any pieces condoning the behavior. But there are zero people standing up condoning riot behavior as acceptable during a protest. Rittenhouse, by his actions,, literally is saying that him murdering somebody for grabbing a gun he should not have possessed next to a fire his attacker never started in a car lot he had no business being at a juvenile age, is ok. It's OK because some nut job was screaming stupid things at him and he was scared. He was in fear for his life. I can tell he is afraid in the video. But that was his defense before he even descended upon Kenosha. What he did was premeditated. You could have wrote zero of those opinion pieces. Rittenhouse would have still packed his AR for killing. This incident embolden the craziness more then AMY Times article would in a hundred years. I still appreciate the bothsidedness Charlie.
Completely agree with condemning violence, especially violence on the left. Unfortunately, many of the left’s movements descend into chaos because of a lack of discipline and strategy. I saw this with the fizzling of the Occupy movement which had a noble beginning, but then became a grab-bag of left wing causes from climate change to Free Palestine. It lost focus and thereby lost power. Non-violence works, but it also must be laser focused.
We talk a lot about how unfit Donald Trump was for the Presidency, but not nearly enough attention is paid to how unfit Mike Pence is for the Vice Presidency. I cannot fathom being Mike Pence and remaining all but silent in the face of everything Trump has done, to the country and to him personally. If I were Pence I'd have a one cot at FBI headquarters and another in the 1/6 Committee room.