Annotated 46-23
Our FB text for this one was kind of eh. I prefer John Harvey’s line, “Harky’s health bar is measured in teeth.”
There’s a faint echo of the mentor in Harky’s speech here, at least at first. Some part of him still thinks of Penk as the wide-eyed youth, an empty vessel into which Harky can pour instruction. And Harky also has a point here: you really can’t have peace without the occasional bloodshed to keep it, at least not in any society we’ve had so far. If most people want a peaceful nation but a significant number of cowardly racist fascists are plotting to overthrow it, for example, you may have no alternative but to shoot the fucking bastards dead until the threat they represent is eliminated, don’t expect me to get thrilled about a goddamn SUBPOENA, the self-identified enemies of democracy need their heads impaled on bloody STICKS–
…
…Hypothetically!
(Edit to add: It’s easy to imagine taking the above too far. I do believe in the Guilded Age quote that “A people aren’t their rulers,” and we’ll get to Penk’s rebuttal in due time. But a society that never kills for any reason, even one that aspires to justice and freedom, is one that cannot counter certain existential threats.)
The fact that Harky starts talking now (and the tone in which he does) are helpful to me, to link the physical battle to the battle of arguments (which I wish political debates were…).
But it also shows that Harky has become rather panicked. He seems to see his own defeat looming, but also believes that Penk’s ideas are dangerous, so he tries to impart some “words of wisdom” to Penk, while moving himself to the “authority” position in the exchange. But of course, his tone betrays that that’s more a psychological thing. It looks really more like a last-ditch effort to change his successor’s mind. He’s clearly losing his composure.
Also: nice example in the commentary of how the road to hell is paved with good intentions :)
Violence is sometimes unavoidable, but there seems to be this weird human thing where something that is sometimes unavoidable eventually comes to be viewed as desirable.
I’d say it becomes desirable when the alternative is worse. Let’s just say that I would be honestly relieved to see it.
Talk like this is scary, T. What stops you from becoming the thing you hate if you can so easily slip into desiring violence?
How about how philosophical arguments like that are the reason thousands of people die every day and tens or even hundreds every year and they are being murdered just as plainly by rich politicians who keep hurting them more and more, and they are being hurt by rich ‘news’ anchors who will lie more and more, from things such as starvation to heat stroke to potentially the literal end of the world in climate change.
Don’t take vague nonsense philosophy bullshit like what Matt is saying here. People are murdered every day, but he can still say nonsense like this and think it’s true.
Let’s not lose sight of who in this discussion is openly calling for marginalization and deplatforming of the person saying “hey, wouldn’t resorting to violence make you no better than your stated enemies?”
I believe Richard Thompson has a very good song on this:
https://youtu.be/jstFQPgQXnE
While it pokes away at the tendency for violent resolution, the chorus (particularly the 2nd and subsequent versions of it) very plaintively puts their argument for using it forward.
If you think my reaction to the last seven years or so of American politics counts as an “easy” transition, then I’d suggest you’re not viewing it at the right time scale. I’ve waited, quite patiently I think, for America to find some sane, proportional response to this emergency. Some of my friends are celebrating the testimony made before the January 6 committee, and part of me still wants to believe there’s a plan there, but… it’s been 18 months since the coup. In six more, there’s an 89% chance that Republicans will have reclaimed the House of Representatives, and you know and I know that as soon as they do, they won’t suffer the committee to continue to exist. Present-day Republicans won’t even vote in favor of investigating neo-Nazism in the armed forces. They know what their base is now, and they’re playing to it. Many of them are it.
Barring a very uncharacteristic executive action by Joe Biden, the decision of whether and how to act on all the evidence the committee has uncovered rests with the DOJ. My wife once worked there, and my impression is that that office has some good folks, some kinda crappy folks…and nobody who’s really ready for the challenge of punishing a criminal ex-president and his cronies in the current media landscape.
No one knows the future for sure, but here’s what I consider the most likely scenario. At the end of all this, some people without any real power or influence will have served time, and there’ll be some kind of reprimand that Trump and his supporters will rightly regard as meaningless. The utter criminal shamelessness of the Republican party will continue unabated. More violence will be committed against Dems, and more frequently, because who’s going to stop it, the police? Dems will continue to act like it’s somehow 1970 and there’s a compromise just around the corner that can please everyone until it’s too late for them to do anything that matters, Trump returns to office in 2025,* and American democracy becomes Russian “democracy,” i.e., democracy-in-name-only. The country becomes fully untethered to the desires of its citizens, chasing an increasingly distorted attempt to recreate life in the 1950s, except for fair wages, of course.
I would like for there to be a peaceful way to avert that…but I find it increasingly hard to imagine one.
Violence stains the soul, sure. But sometimes it’s selfish to keep your soul unstained.
*The only way Trump isn’t getting the Republican nomination at this point is if he’s dead or otherwise incapacitated, but even then, it wouldn’t really matter much. Another Republican would almost certainly be smarter than Trump, but no Republican of any decency has a shot at the nomination in a political landscape that demands extremism.
Not saying your prediction is not very like to come to pass, but I want to give an alternative, better-ish prediction that is the only thing stopping me from moving to Canada immediately:
Dems are going to lose midterms, not only because it’s midterms but also because undecided voters are unicorns at this point and the best Dems can come up with to motivate their base is “Roe is on the ballot,” without giving ANY plan of action for what they’ll do about Roe besides trying to reach across the aisle even harder.
Trump will be on the Republican ticket, but he’s such an unapologetic egotist he will never ever shut up about the 2020 “steal.” Candidates who run on a “the 2020 election was stolen” platform have had a really bad track record even within Republican primaries, and Trump has yet to win a popular vote, so odds are really high he’s not going to win 2024.
As soon as Trump loses, violence will erupt. There are too many well-armed people who are eager to welcome a Fascist into power as long as he has an ‘R’ after his name to take that sitting down.
Honestly, at that point it would be preferable if whatever uprising happens has state backing, like Texas seceding or something. Then the Federal government will have to respond. What’s more likely, is armed militias will storm local government buildings, and the usual playbook when white domestic terrorists act out is do nothing and let them occupy until they go out for beers and get arrested, followed by letting them off with a slap on the wrist. That will give the enablers time to make up bullshit so we spend another four years doing nothing but trying to use legal litigation on people who give no fucks about obeying the law, and the whole mess will keep churning for another cycle until a Republican wins the White House or states start seceding.
If states start seceding first, we’ll have a war that will probably be the bloodiest war in American history, followed by a period where government might actually enact needed reforms to hold institutional actors accountable and stop this shit happening in the future.
If Republicans win the presidency first, the second the president-elect finishes swearing in McConell will end the filibuster and I will start seriously looking at real estate markets in Canada.
How’s this –
Trump runs, but loses in the primary to a more mainstream Republican, but one with some interesting nuances unlike traditional old white guy politics.
The media pundits once again fail to understand the groundswell, because they’re all such an echo chamber and they’ve long since done away with honest reporting, that no one realizes what a coalition of peace-wanting, values-having, tired-of-bullshit common folk are out there. They were convinced Trump -couldn’t possibly- have gotten elected in the first place, and they’re now convinced the reason he got elected is because him, specifically, and all the fucked up shit he says and does are exactly what the deplorables must want. Never does it occur to presume other structural contributing factors to his win, or to get on the ground feedback from the silent electoral base to find out what they do want, and why Hillary and Joe were not it.
A bunch of folks talk of moving to Canada, or rising up, or starting a war; few do. But, in the streets, more looting and violence spills out from peaceful protests, not so much by protestors gone too far, but more often by unethical nearstanders who see an opportunity to personally profit from the mayhem and the defunded police.
Meanwhile, the Democratic party realizes that Joe Biden is literally an ancient, dottering white person who is playing the same old, tired, tradpolitics to entrenched interests, and has another crisis of faith. Rather than legitimately backing a real POC candidate with ideas and vision, they continue to splinter between very narrow and overly woke candidates, and tradlobby box-checker candidates. The field destroys itself in weird infighting, again, and the candidate that emerges isn’t who anyone (among the people) really wants, it’s just the candidate they deserve for not getting their own house in order.
I don’t know you. I have no idea what your past seven years have felt like. Thank you for trying to share some understanding.
You sound really angry, and that’s really difficult for me to understand. I feel like there is deeply felt, seething rage and disgust on both the part of both the “Democrats” and “Republicans” cults, and it just seems so sad, so beneath normal human dignity.
Trying to overthrow the government and/or the electoral process is stupid, sad, childish, tribalistic, subhuman, paranoid, basal.
Wanting violence against those who did so, or support doing so, is equally subhuman and basal.
Seriously – have you in particular, or any of the people you’ve decided to lump yourself in with and brand as allies, given any thought to the depravity, horror, and futility that violence has brought to human affairs?
Do you need validation, vindication, of your childish egos so badly that you’re willing to debase yourself and turn into a frothing mob?
Why?
What convinces you that it would be for the best? That it wouldn’t perpetuate the senselessness, or escalate the aggression?
My advice to anyone who is still interested in alternatives to violence: Turn off the cable news and the social media. Pet a fuzzy animal. Look at a Van Gogh painting. Contemplate the beautiful side of humanity, then ask yourself how you got to such a place so far from it. Purge the base instincts through mindful meditation. Cultivate a desire for intelligent resolution to the world’s problems. Then find one local thing you can do to make things meaningfully better, and be the good that we are all wishing for.
You come across as trying to be “above it all” by sneering down your nose at those hypocritical Democrats who wish for violence against literal traitors and terrorists, and frankly I find it pretty sad. It is not “subhuman and basal”, it is the only response that has been left to us. These people literally staged a coup, am I supposed to just wag my finger at them and let them off with a warning? Or should I leave the response up to the policy makers who staunchly vote against almost any meaningful repercussions? Republicans have made it clear over and over and over again that they don’t care about anything other than winning over the Democrats. There is no line they won’t cross, there is no fact they won’t ignore, there is no decency they won’t subvert and corrupt. The entire political position of the modern Republican party is “Fuck everything the liberals want”. You want me to engage in a discussion with that? You want me to “seek compromise” with that position? What would that even look like, man? If we can’t even agree on what color the sky is I’m not about to get into a meteorological debate with you. Fundamentally the Republican party has shown time and again that there *is* no room for discussion, you will do what they want or you’re the enemy. So while I hate that it has been forced to this the current situation the truth is that I just cannot wait for them die. I wouldn’t deliberately kill them if I could and I’m not advocating for it, but if they all just died tomorrow in a freak accident I’d be ecstatic. They as a political party are advocating every single day for this country to get worse for anyone of the sexual orientation or skin color they don’t like and at this point anyone that can still support it either has to be naive to the point of stupidity or is part of the corruption. If a person’s moral compass can look at all the evil being perpetrated over the last several years by the Republican party and decide that they still support them then I don’t really need to talk to them as an individual, I already know enough about their values.
I didn’t realize I was coming off as sneering at “Democrats.” Sorry, and thank you for pointing that out.
I’m trying to sneer at “any and all individual violence wanters.” *Including* the ones that “literally staged a coup.” Please don’t be like them. They suck.
“am I supposed to just wag my finger at them and let them off with a warning?”
No, hell no! Arrest *those particular individual assholes*, every single one. Throw the book at each one of them. (You’ll need a bunch of “the book”s I guess)
“they don’t care about anything other than winning over the Democrats. There is no line they won’t cross, there is no fact they won’t ignore, there is no decency they won’t subvert and corrupt”
Nowwwww I wanna push back and say whoa, slow the roll – this is starting to sound super prejudicey. I realize “Republicans” is a convenient shorthand for “Trump, specifically, and Mitch McConnell, and… ” but the problem is it also picks up damn near 50% of the entire populace of the US. So it’s basically as bad, in terms of likely-wrongness and offense-causing as making sweeping claims about women.
“You want me to engage in a discussion with that? You want me to “seek compromise” with that position?”
Not to engage in discussion or compromise with “Fuck everything the liberals want”, no – that would be pointless, I agree. But definitely please engage hard on the claim “Donald J. Trump is the best possible US President for 2025.” Because that’s (close to) the actual argument being made, and it’s a really bad argument.
Here’s the thing though: “Trump sucks, and you suck for supporting him,” or “don’t you see, you’re a useful idiot, that fuckwad is conning you!” are not great counterarguments. Try better. Maybe something like “If the Democratic party put forward a candidate who was a political outsider *like* Trump, and who also was willing to openly pledge full support for one key Republican position (take your pick), would that be enough to get you to switch and vote for them?”
(I would *love* to see Aeonise and FlyingFish (2016 version) answer that question.)
“I wouldn’t deliberately kill them if I could and I’m not advocating for it, but if they all just died tomorrow in a freak accident I’d be ecstatic”
Dude seriously please remember: that’s a *lot* of dead people. There’s hyperbole and then there’s hyperbole.
I appreciate you are being as civil as possible about this. I disagree with you strongly, but I want to say that I still appreciate that you are trying to be civil. I apologize if I come across as heated; I’m frustrated with your stance and people who take your stance, but I don’t mean to be rude. I’m just a very blunt guy when I banter about stuff like this. Also, to be clear, as far as I’m talking here “Republican” is not synonymous with “conservative”. My parents are conservatives that have been voting Democrat because their conscience can’t support the modern Republican party. There’s a meaningful difference, and my ire is people who support the current *party*, not people who just have traditionally conservative views.
>the problem is it also picks up damn near 50% of the entire populace of the US
Okay? I wish it counted for less, but the number of awful people doesn’t really effect how much I want them to go away. I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: if the injustices and corruption committed by Republican leadership over the past several years is not enough to drive someone away from the party, then they are part of the problem either through ignorance or corruption.
>But definitely please engage hard on the claim “Donald J. Trump is the best possible US President for 2025.” Because that’s (close to) the actual argument being made, and it’s a really bad argument.
I agree that it’s a shit claim, but what the hell do you expect me to engage them with? Do you want me to show them clips of Donald being racist or sexist on camera? Do you want me to show them proof that he lied about campaign promises? Do you want me to offer evidence that the country got worse in a measurable way while Donald is in office? All of that and more has already come to light and they don’t care. What do you want me to argue with that hasn’t already been brought up and summarily ignored by the Republican masses? They don’t agree that facts are facts, arguing against that is like trying to grasp at smoke.
>Here’s the thing though: “Trump sucks, and you suck for supporting him,” or “don’t you see, you’re a useful idiot, that fuckwad is conning you!” are not great counterarguments. Try better.
My guy, their *entire political position* is “Fuck everything the liberals want”. What counterargument do you have for that? I have seen Republicans say they would support a dictatorship if it was Trump in charge. That world view is 100% incompatible with the democracy we live in. Of course not all Republicans will feel the same on that exactly, but by and large they’ve made it clear they’re not playing ball with anything the Democrats offer other than surrender.
>Dude seriously please remember: that’s a *lot* of dead people. There’s hyperbole and then there’s hyperbole.
Hyperbole nothing, I was being serious about that. Yes, it’s awful that so many people would die. Some of them are even family members of mine. If I had it my way it would never come to that, these people would see the error of their ways and return to sanity. But they’ve declared every possible avenue of compromise an enemy and made it clear that everyone else’s lives matter less to them than their own. I have little sympathy for them at this point.
> I appreciate you are being as civil as possible about this. I disagree with you strongly, but I want to say that I still appreciate that you are trying to be civil.
Hey! Thanks for taking time to reply. Sorry to keep you waiting a few days. And yes, likewise appreciated. imo, if nothing else comes of the attempt than “hey I just had a civil conversation with a person I disagree with” I consider that a win for “hopeful discourse in the United States.”
> Also, to be clear, as far as I’m talking here “Republican” is not synonymous with “conservative”. My parents are conservatives that have been voting Democrat because their conscience can’t support the modern Republican party. There’s a meaningful difference, and my ire is people who support the current *party*, not people who just have traditionally conservative views.
Noted, and I appreciate the distinction you’re drawing here. Two key points here that I will revisit further on.
> if the injustices and corruption committed by Republican leadership over the past several years is not enough to drive someone away from the party, then they are part of the problem either through ignorance or corruption.
This feels… strong. It’s very binary. “You’re with us, or you’re against us.” Which, if you think about it, runs counter to the narrative that “getting the word out” even matters. If no one’s fundamentally open to moving their vote, then yeah, no point, might as well shoot the bastards and claim victory. :D But, you mentioned your parents, so I have to believe you’re at least open to the idea that people are persuadable and aren’t just tanking for “the party,” no matter what.
So, my question to you: does that leave room, in your mind, for the possibility that some folks who harbor conservative views and call themselves Republican might have different reasons for sticking with sucknuggets like Trump than “well his name has (R) next to it?” Certainly not *everyone*, just some fraction with reasons other than “go Red team!” But that, whatever those reasons are, they aren’t loose enough, weak enough, different enough, whatever to persuade them to lean over and pull the (D) lever?
If you believe that, then I think there is room for us to find answers to the rest of your questions to me. If not, then sure, you and T can line me and the rest of everyone up and shoot us in the head if we say the wrong letter/color.
> I agree that it’s a shit claim, but what the hell do you expect me to engage them with? Do you want me to show them clips of Donald being racist or sexist on camera? Do you want me to show them proof that he lied about campaign promises? Do you want me to offer evidence that the country got worse in a measurable way while Donald is in office? All of that and more has already come to light and they don’t care. What do you want me to argue with that hasn’t already been brought up and summarily ignored by the Republican masses? They don’t agree that facts are facts, arguing against that is like trying to grasp at smoke.
imo, those arguments all add up to “Trump sucks, don’t you get it??”” And, the reasons I said that’s a lousy counterargument are a) the absolute Trumphumpers won’t listen to it at all, you’re right. And b) the rest of us already know, and so telling us those things isn’t landing on anything relevant that could move us.
> My guy, their *entire political position* is “Fuck everything the liberals want”.
So, I’m going to be a little… underhanded (?) in response to this, and to reinforce my point above. Have you asked your parents if their entire, previous political position was “Fuck everything the liberals want?” Do they agree? If not, what would *they* say their position was? And what things besides disgust with Trump (if anything) *did* move their position to “Maybe not fuck these particular things that the liberals want.”
> Hyperbole nothing, I was being serious about that. Yes, it’s awful that so many people would die. Some of them are even family members of mine. If I had it my way it would never come to that, these people would see the error of their ways and return to sanity. But they’ve declared every possible avenue of compromise an enemy and made it clear that everyone else’s lives matter less to them than their own. I have little sympathy for them at this point.
Being super careful here: who is “they” in the above paragraph? Literally all people who call themselves Republican, regardless of whether they repudiated Trump. Are insane? Like, by the book, psychiatrically clinically deranged? And have ruled out all possibility of compromise, and thinks no one else’s lives matter?
Because that group has me in it. And that is why I am scared of you and T and everyone else in this thread calling for murder or just guilt-free deaths. Especially because that last “And have…” sure sounds like you all, when you talk that way.
No worries on waiting a few days, I actually forgot to check back here tbh. Sorry for the long wait on a response, if you ever see this.
>This feels… strong. It’s very binary. “You’re with us, or you’re against us.” Which, if you think about it, runs counter to the narrative that “getting the word out” even matters.
I mean, kinda, yeah. This is one of the most polarized political climates since the Civil War. I *don’t* know that “getting the word out” has much merit nowadays because, like you said, the Republican party currently has too many dealbreakers for folks like me and the Democratic party has too many dealbreakers for the other side. Most people *aren’t* persuadable IMHO, not with things as they currently stand.
>So, my question to you: does that leave room, in your mind, for the possibility that some folks who harbor conservative views and call themselves Republican might have different reasons for sticking with sucknuggets like Trump than “well his name has (R) next to it?”
Not really, no. Like, I get that there are a bunch of reasons that a person aligns how they do politically and those reasons are different from individual to individual, but I cannot look at the four years we got of Trump and imagine anyone that would sign up for four more that is not some kind of liberal-hating homophobe, an outright racist, or someone who is unbelievably ignorant/gullible. I don’t like making extreme statements like that (e.g. “every single person who likes X is bad”) but this is one circumstance where I feel it is as close to reasonable as it can be.
>imo, those arguments all add up to “Trump sucks, don’t you get it??”
If “your candidate is a racist and here’s the proof” equates in someone’s mind to “they suck” then it seems pretty evident to me that that person is *at best* fine with their leader being racist. The Trumperhumpers support Trump because the members either a) value their other political stances more than the lives and safety of millions of other people, or b) they’re racist themselves. I don’t see a lot of wiggle room for this, man. “Okay, yes, he hates black people, but have you seen his tax plan?” I don’t care about his tax plan if he hates black people, it is a dealbreaker for me. And it tells me a lot about someone’s value system if hating black people *isn’t* a dealbreaker for them. And besides, the examples I gave that you claim are just “Trump sucks!!!” were about his values, his honesty to his voters, and if he made the country a better place in office. Those *should* be pretty important metrics for a politician! How the hell do you want me to make claims to steer people away from Trump without pointing to Trump’s attributes as a politician?
>Have you asked your parents if their entire, previous political position was “Fuck everything the liberals want?”
I haven’t asked them but no, this would not be what their previous political position was. It’s possible I was unclear, but my parents *never supported Trump, even as far back as the 2016 election lead up*. My parents saw the evidence of Trump’s many irredeemable flaws and disavowed him immediately. They did not support Trump at one point and then change, they have never supported him even though they have traditionally conservative views. *Their political views were not more important to them than the lives of millions of people who aren’t all of the following (white, straight, cisgender, heterosexual, male) in this country.* If more Republicans were like my parents I wouldn’t have so much contempt for the Republican party.
>Being super careful here: who is “they” in the above paragraph?
Anyone who currently chooses to align with Trump and/or the modern Republican party. The problem has unfortunately eclipsed Trump himself and this brainrot has spread into Republican leadership, so the “they” in the above paragraph would be anyone that still supports Trump and/or the modern Republican party.
>Because that group has me in it.
Well, I’m sorry to hear that, but it sounds like you’re part of the problem. Let me ask you, honestly: what do you see in the Republican party right now that convinces you they’re worth supporting? In spite of everything else?
If you want to understand why people are angry, why they suspect you of ill motives, why they consider “honest debate” with you to be a waste of time… think back to 9/11. If you’re old enough to remember it, that is; I don’t know if you are.
But I am, and I remember it well. I remember the suspicion that fell on Muslims across the board (which I thought was unfair but understandable, given human nature). I remember that any discussion of Islam had to start and end with “do you think 9/11 was in any way acceptable?” and the Muslim was expected to provide the appropriate disclaimer that OF COURSE IT WASN’T.
Imagine, now, that Bin Laden was not, as a result of 9/11, a fugitive. Imagine that we didn’t send an entire army and start a war with the ultimate goal of hunting him down and shooting him in the face. Imagine instead that he was alive, and in the US, and walking around a free man. Imagine that the 9/11 Commission had conclusively shown that he arranged the attack, and still no one was moving to arrest him. Imagine numerous Muslims both in media and elected to high office were OPENLY SAYING HE DID NOTHING WRONG.
Imagine that there was a viable movement, after all that, to elect Bin Laden to office.
How would you react, in that circumstance, to someone sporting a “Vote Bin Laden” hat? Would you want an honest dialogue? Or would you assume “this person would be happy to see me dead; talking with them would be a waste of my time”?
I appreciate where you’re going with this, but it seems like a stretched metaphor.
It’s hard for me to say what I’d do in that circumstance. I don’t see myself being ready to commit violence against Muslim congresspeople or Bin Laden supporters or Americans of Middle-Eastern descent or anything – but this is such a distance from our present reality I can’t be 100% sure.
What *does* seem a lot more likely to me is that I’d be openly protesting his non-deportation / non-incarceration, probably with a bunch of other folks. And yes, trying somewhat desperately to understand what bizarre calculus could get someone to support the OBL4POTUS campaign and look for any angle, any point of alignment, where some common ground could be found or an acceptable replacement candidate identified that would be good enough for them. And trying to get *that* person elected.
I have four cats, I pet them all, and I spend so little time on social media that I frequently wonder why I even have accounts. Van Gogh is pretty great, and so are a lot of comics artists I enjoy looking at. I had a good time with Obi-Wan, I love doing crosswords, I want to start seeing some more art films, I like to snuggle with my wife. So…no disrespect meant, but I don’t think my anger expressed here comes from an inability to experience the beautiful side of humanity.
(Also, I don’t just sit around and seethe 24/7. That’d be no way to live, and I refuse to surrender my right to a healthy life.)
As I’ve said elsewhere, I don’t really believe in “the hydra is immortal” arguments. “You poor fool, if you cut off one head, two more will grow in its place! The only sensible course is NOT to fight!” Fighting the Nazis in World War II didn’t “escalate the situation.” The situation was already set to escalate as soon as the Nazis attained any real power, because their whole ideology is based on the destruction of the other. Millions of those “others” (Jews, homosexuals, “racial inferiors”) died in the camps, and they didn’t die because they resisted Nazis, they died because Nazis were Nazis. And what resistance they did make saved lives, from Nazis.
Trump’s truest supporters happily identify themselves as Nazis. Connect the dots.
“That violence has brought to human affairs” is a weird phrase to my eye. It makes it sound like violence is some recent innovation, like contextual advertising or the pro-ana movement, and there was a time in human history when we were without it and better off. But that’s not true. Violence has always been with us, and violence in response to violence is often a matter of simple survival. I am pro-survival. If you really think responsive violence is never justifiable, then enjoy your peaceful existence, but know that you would not exist if most of your ancestors and their allies didn’t feel differently, now and again. If you feel like the current situation is not sufficient justification for that response, then I’d say the next five years will demonstrate which of us was correct there. I’d be happy to be proven wrong, but I don’t think I will be.
Thanks T. I appreciate you, and the fact that you co-created this awesome artwork, and that, frankly, you put up with me being a bit of an insufferable douche the past few days in your forum comments. Hearing back from you is really nice, and a bit flattering and humbling.
Fair enough – you’re coming from a more principled place of anger. That’s helpful to understand. I think I’m reacting pretty strongly to what I see as calls for violence that to me feel extremely excessive.
If you legitimately think you’re up against people who self-profess as Nazis… I dunno what to do with that. I see a lot of people out there who don’t seem Nazi to me in the slightest. But they *do* seem caught up in a bunch of bad ideas. And I don’t want folks concluding they all should go die, or attempting to make that happen, because… well, actually mass-murdering bunches of people because you feel superior to them is *actual Nazi behavior.*
You’re getting exactly what I was going for by “…that violence has brought to human affairs.” Our whole hundreds of thousands of years of history is basically about tribe A smash tribe B. Kill the men, rape the women, loot the village. And anyone living today who’s onboard for proactive violence is no better. Has learned nothing from all that history. Holds us back as a species, as a united people.
I hear you about “responsive violence for survival.” I support that for personal self-defense and the protection of anyone who is literally about to be shot or bombed or shivved or whatever. We’re not there yet. And, well, you’re doing some weird wordplay trick, IMO, if you are saying that “you may have no alternative but to shoot the fucking bastards dead… !” is for “survival.”
Like, yes, if Republican Maga-Nazis are busting through your door armed with 300-round mag AR-15s, yes, you’re right! But not, like, just because they got RvW turned over. Or even because they stormed the Capitol! Only one of them actually did get shot dead and it was super tragic and cringey then. I’m *not* seeing some vigilante Democra-ninjas standing on the Capitol steps gunning down orange people as some kind of win scenario. I hope you don’t, either.
Let’s just say I would not want to see anyone who desires actual human heads on actual sticks anywhere near power… or near myself, to be honest.
I’ll just “hope” that you’re having a really bad day (which would be perfectly understandable, and not trying to return us all to the medieval.
Yes, this. Thanks Zak. You keep doing way better than I do, in fewer words.
Let’s just hash through some historical facts, shall we?
1) The moment the fascists gain actual power, it is a moral good to fight them, no matter the means. The proof : If regular germans had started killing Nazis as soon as they got power, millions of lives would have been saved. Same goes for every other successful fascist takeover in history. That’s because fascists don’t rely on numbers to win, they rely on terror. Stand up to them, take them out, and they will lose.
2) The USA right now is absolutely under threat of fascist takeover. Some Southern states have been taken over already. The other shoe is dropping.
3) The fascists work inside the law only when it suits them. The resistance against them, if laser-focused on “taking the high road”, will fail.
That said, the best anyone can do right now, besides voting whenever at all possible, is to form a democratic militia and prepare for the worst. Learn the tactics, learn the skills, get the equipment. Be ready. And strike decisively when your institutions can no longer hold back the collaps.
Dude, if regular Germans had started *arresting* Nazis as soon as they got power, millions of lives would have been saved. And! We’d get to, I dunno, additionally be able to have fun tours of Nazi jails where we make fun of caged Nazis and feel smug and don’t have to murder anyone.
Your argument sucks.
Whatever you do: If you’re more brutal about it than you need to be, you’re probably enjoying the violence more than is good.
If those hypothetical German nazi-killers had opposed the power-grab in half-way organized fashion, there would have been no need to kill anyone. Someone who is unwilling to cast a vote, protest or otherwise stand up for what is right, but has no problem killing others … might be enjoying violence a tad more than is healthy.
shoot the fucking bastards dead until the threat they represent is eliminated, don’t expect me to get thrilled about a goddamn SUBPOENA, the self-identified enemies of democracy need their heads impaled on bloody STICKS–
So you shoot them, you adorn Mortal Kombat’s pit with their heads… and then some other brain damaged sideshow freak appears, he rises an army of KKK nazi cosplayers and you start the whole thing all over again. We’re shouldn’t be worried about some geriatric Eric Cartman with Cheeto dust all over his skin. We should be very concerned about his ideology (so to speak) We’re fighting an ideology (of sorts) here. And ideas (even crappy ones) can’t be shoot
No offense meant, but “the hydra is immortal” arguments don’t really convince me. Sure, there’s always gonna be one more bad guy, but bad guys come around a lot less boldly at the national level if you demonstrate that there are consequences to acting like a supervillain. And I mean real consequences, not two weeks’ house arrest and some mean things said on TV. I mean something you can’t come back from or buy your way out of.
So no, I don’t see another KKK-master climbing right out of the woodwork if this one gets half of what he deserves. (But will he?) I guarantee you Donald Trump has never done anything in his life that he thought would be any risk to his own skin. Heroics are for losers, he’d probably say.
Well, your argument in favor of forgoing due process and straight up executing everyone connected to Trump sure is… it sure is something.
Frankly, Jefferson Davis and some of the Confederate higher-ups (civil AND military) should have gotten a LOT more than they got. And yeah – I think this has roots as far back as that.
Some people only understand a two-by-four upside the head.
At least, given some of the flags that get waved around nowadays, *they* seem to think that their roots go that far.
I don’t see anything about bypassing due process. Execution by firing squad can absolutely involve due process.
Or (and this was my first thought when I read the original statement) he could be talking about opening fire, in defense of others, on those who are literally in the middle of attempting an extrajudicial killing against the vice president of the United States, instead of just letting them walk into the center of government while the Veep has to flee for his life.
It’s easy to understand the sentiment. Trump’s supporters have expressed it as well, because of his words. Is it an overreaction? Sure, but I get where it comes from. When you feel threatened by madness, you want the madness removed.
Sometimes, you have to shoot the rabid dog.
Are you at all worried that labelling specific humans (that happen to belong to a group you despise) as “rabid dogs” that should be shot is a *really bad look?*
What is your solution to the problem, then?
Thing is: Killing people is barbaric, and the US is the last “western” country that still has not abolished the death penalty. So now you want to introduce that again, on a national level, for people defined by political categories…
That is the same thing as saying you want another civil war because of course that’s what would happen. And I’m sure you wouldn’t like the outcome.
Now, about actual punishment for people who took part in the attempted coup? Hell yeah! But maybe not directly go and shit on the constitution and human rights while doing so? Because then … like, what were you trying to defend anyway? Was it all just blue versus red to you?
Killing people is barbaric
See, not only do I disagree with this, I think you might too, if you really think about it I consider killing and violence to be last resorts, sure. But if there were someone plainly unhinged coming for me and my family, I had a gun in my hand and so did they, I’d try to kill them. If I survived afterward instead of freezing like Shanna (I never claimed to be GOOD at violence), I wouldn’t be all “WHAT HAVE I BECOME????”, either. Might spare a little pity for the mental health issues involved, but I wouldn’t second-guess the action. That’d kind of what SHOULD be going on at the national scale, but the real masterminds are barely being inconvenienced, so far.
The death penalty for treason is actually on the books, so I’m not “reintroducing” anything with that concept, not crapping on the Constitution, and certainly not advocating for the deaths of those who aren’t committing active treason. And I really don’t understand why my description of the people actually plotting the overthrow of democracy keeps getting interpreted as meaning…other people? Like, I still think the average Republican voter is saying stuff like, “Oh, they won’t go THAT far, surely. Those Jan sixers were just embarrassing nutjobs, it’s the Democrats who are going off the deep end, Donald Trump and my favorite news outlets have been very consistent on that point.” While I think such a person is a dupe, I wouldn’t wish death on them any more than I would on an Anglo-Saxon person simply for living in Germany in 1938. I know there are people on my Facebook feed who don’t observe any moral distinction between Eric Trump and some grandma who voted for “that nice Apprentice fellow” in ’16, but I can’t be responsible for idiots.
But the insurrection planners? Well, that’s something else again. I don’t think the lesson they took from 2021 was “Wellp, that was kind of embarrassing to the cause, guess we should get back to acting like a properly elected party.” No, instead it seems to be “We almost got what we wanted just by enabling a bunch of yahoos, next time let’s do that and ALSO make sure we subvert the electoral system from within.”
Look, I know everyone’s tired of the Hitler comparisons, but they still work, and the Beer Hall Putsch and the Beer-Belly Putsch are likely to be remembered the same way, as farces that foreshadowed later, more tragically successful coups. You say I want another civil war. I say that something like a civil war is likely coming whether I want it or not, and what we’re likely deciding now is its duration and intensity.
I’ll say “likely” and not “certainly” because I don’t know everything. American politics have flabbergasted me before, at least twice, once in a good way, once in a bad way. But I have a hard time imagining a peaceful victory for democracy here, and a much easier time imagining a peaceful victory for fascism, which implies a not so peaceful aftermath. As long as that’s true, I can’t make short-term peace my priority.
If all you ever meant by “a significant number of cowardly racist fascists” was “people who participated in the Capitol raid”, then ok. I’m not down to *murder* them, but putting them through treason trials, with due process, and giving death sentences is at least within the bounds of the Constitutional operation of the country, so I’ll give you all that.
But then else where you talk about “Present-day Republicans won’t even vote in favor of investigating neo-Nazism in the armed forces. They know what their base is now, and they’re playing to it. Many of them are it.” and… well, that starts making me wonder who all, specifically, is on T’s (or Andreas’) list of “fascists.”
Because if we’re not *super careful* and *super narrowly prescriptive* about who’s on that list, suddenly we’ve slipped over into Mao-esque purges. And that, IMO, is way worse than a bunch of rednecky douchenozzles calling themselves neo-Nazis.
As one of the many, many, maaaaany people the fascists want dead once they get rid of the republic, totally get the sentiment here.
Comments like this make me completely unsurprised that Mao and Stalin had such an easy time recruiting people to witchhunt, torture, and kill for them.
Please excuse the bad editing below.
I’m really having a hard time responding to this comment by you T. I’ve been reading comics by you for about 12 years now and I’ve always thought of you as a very thoughtful and kind person. In many of your works you took care to try to portray various people from different walks of life in a genuine manner. I always took that as an indicator that you tried to see people as varied and wonderful even when you disagreed with them. With that perspective: your comments on this page, and some comments by other readers, really just makes me despair.
I don’t have a very good grasp of how much you follow political events. There is so much happening here and in the rest of the world that I think it is literally impossible to keep up with everything, even if one restrains themselves to one category of news. Therefore, I acknowledge that I might be off-base on any assumptions I make. I do not see the situation that this country is in the same way that you seem to, but I think that the very thoughts and actions that you claim to view favorably will lead to exactly what you seem to fear.
The riot on January 6, committed due to lies, and the attempt by Trump and a number of his advisors to claim power that was not granted to them is, and will forever remain, a stain on this country. And the cynical actions of the majority of Republicans in Congress in not impeaching Trump (removing him from power and barring him from running for office again) does stand as evidence of a sickness taking root in that party. It is a sickness I see everywhere I look in this country, but it is also a sickness that I’ve seen play out many times in the histories that I have studied. Groups begin to fear one another. They allow actions by a few to spur them to retaliate and spur any attempt to reach out as a betrayal. Fear of what the other might do becomes the only dogma allowed. What is often missed by either side in these sad cycles is that the ones that they see opposite of themselves are often just as fearful of them. The events on and surrounding Jan 6 were committed to cling to power unearned but for the people in the crowds it was done out of perceived desperation. Because they too fear what the other side will do. Just as many on the Left have been marking every power grab and abuse of authority committed by the Right; so too have many on the Right by tracking the perceived plotting of the Left. Both see the other as monoliths that seek nothing less than the destruction of the country, society, faith, family, peace, democracy, take your pick. Each action by one is seen as justification for escalation. The Right can’t point to a coup, just yet, but they can point any number of other things they think portend the end of all that they love. So, if the thing that you claim to want, that thing that you claim will bring you peace, actually happens: how do you think those people will respond? How do you think people, who previously thought that the fearmongering was false, will respond? If death is what you want, there is no shortage of it in all the world and the thing that you claim you want will ensure it happens till those who remain are crushed by the weight of it.
Human life is of incalculable value, until it is the life of someone else. Until it is the life of the Other. If you think that specific people dying will give you peace, then I can only tell you that I have never seen that being the case. When two or more groups views the others as threats to themselves, they will kill and destroy until everyone forgets what they had even started fighting about. My fear is that if it is not stopped soon then it will only stop when the weight of all that death crushes even the most stalwart of souls, and those in the distant future will wonder why anyone thought it was worth it from the start. If you think that this moment is different, then I can only tell you that the thought is not in any way original to you.
I don’t know how to reassure you. I can only tell you that what you propose has been tried before and that the laws and rules we have work better than anything that came before. Where humanity is today is significantly better then where we have been. That might make you despair about the work that is left to do but I take it as an indicator of what we can do. If you look at the Other and fear them destroying all of that progress, I don’t see how the correct response is to destroy it all first.
I feel as if I have exhausted my words for now. What you have said, and the things said by others, both here and in all the wide world, leaves me at a loss. In so many of your stories you talk of justice and peace. Of progress and hope. Your words here make me think that you have forgotten, or maybe you never knew and I was just deluding myself. I can only hope that you remember.
I’m sorry.
I do try to be thoughtful and kind, but it does get frustrating that everyone who takes umbrage with my statement here looks at the phrase “the self-identified enemies of democracy” and seems to parse it as “anybody who fell for any of Trump/Fox/Breitbart’s bullshit, or maybe just anybody I don’t like.” I’m talking about the brainwashers, not the brainwashed.
Laws and rules work great, when we follow them, when we enforce them. But laws that aren’t enforced mean nothing. And the rule of law itself is among the targets of the people I’m talking about here. You think stacking the Supreme Court with fanatics was just about Roe? They want a country where nothing Donald Trump has ever done is punishable, because if they can achieve that, then they’ve achieved a country where nothing any Republican does is punishable.
The proper legal punishment for treason, as it happens, is death…or not less than five years’ imprisonment, but that’s meant for more mitigating circumstances than the ones we currently face. So if you’re going to support the laws we have, well…
Yeah, I’m quite familiar with the fact that the Right thinks it’s the Left who’s out to destroy America, and I bear this in mind when I meet or portray certain “people of other walks of life” who might have swallowed its stew of lies. But while there may be decent people voting differently, I don’t believe there are many decent people left making decisions of any weight in the national Republican Party. One party is trying to end democracy and one is not, one is actively seeking policies that would harm many of my friends and one is not.
Under policies Republicans have instituted in some states, my wife’s miscarriage might not have been treated in time to save her life, another friend of mine might’ve had her citizenship revoked…my old hometown of Charlottesville WAS terrorized and one of my friends was injured and died of heart trouble two weeks later…and you remember that Flo came out as trans in the middle of these annotations, right? I care about everyone, not just my personal circle, but this does affect my personal circle.
Please understand: the “violence only begets violence” arguments (or “the hydra is immortal,” as I call it elsewhere on this page) sound a lot to me like denial of a slow-motion war that is already well under way. It’s a generally virtuous philosophy, but one that the current movement is designed to exploit, just as a toxic narcissist can exploit emotional intelligence and compassion, but on a much larger scale.
“They want a country where nothing Donald Trump has ever done is punishable, because if they can achieve that, then they’ve achieved a country where nothing any Republican does is punishable.”
I don’t want that. I never want that. Please don’t say this – it’s not true.
“It’s a generally virtuous philosophy, but one that the current movement is designed to exploit, ”
I’m actively voting to get unaccountable assclowns OUT of power. Please help! Also, are you at all concerned that perhaps your philosophy is even more at risk of being exploited? By forces who just want the masses to tear each other apart so that they can retain power and control?
You’re absolutely correct that one thing the Democrats and Republicans have in common at the moment is fear that the other side is an existential threat. The Republicans fear that America will become something they don’t recognize, because they don’t believe that people of color, homosexuals, women, and many others deserve to be treated with human dignity. Many of them grew up in rural, conservative households where they never even had to pay other walks of life much of a passing thought. They see the increasingly liberal world that is happening around them and because of their own personal biases and ignorance have decided the world is the problem, not their values. Democrats fear that Republicans want to seize control of the country and violently enforce their values because they literally tried to do exactly that. This isn’t the Hatfields versus the McCoys, this is people saying “maybe gay people deserve rights” versus actual, literal, self-proclaimed Nazis. I don’t *want* America to wade through the muck that is this extreme tribalism, but Republicans force my hand by supporting hate, corruption, and harm for people they don’t like.
> The events on and surrounding Jan 6 were committed to cling to power unearned but for the people in the crowds it was done out of perceived desperation. Because they too fear what the other side will do.
If Nazis and KKK members perceive a faction as a threat to their way of life, do you think that perhaps that is a faction that conceivably merits support? I’m not overly concerned with making Nazis feel welcome in this country, they can fuck right off.
>If you look at the Other and fear them destroying all of that progress, I don’t see how the correct response is to destroy it all first.
Google “preemptive strike”. This is, of course, ignoring the fact that Republicans literally did this exact thing on January 6th; they feared the country being destroyed by a “stolen election” and staged a coup to try to kill and destroy the Democrats that they believe are threatening them. They tried to destroy the country themselves to prevent a perceived destruction from the Democrats, they are an existential threat to this country and will be until they die or are at least heavily disenfranchised by policy makers.
Look man, I get that “It would be cool if all the Republicans were dead” feels icky, but ultimately they’ve made their position clear. They’re not going to listen to facts (we’ve tried), they’re not going to look at evidence (we’ve tried), they’re not going to consider both sides (we’ve tried), they’re not going to see gay people and trans people and women and people of color as deserving of their respect (we’ve tried), and above all else they’re not going to change their minds because doing so would require acknowledging that what they’ve done and supported up until now has been horrible and pointless. All that’s left is for them to die and not burden our country with their stubbornly antiquated values. You can wax philosophical all you want about “bOtH sIdEs BaD” but the reality is that if I have to choose between hurting millions of people who just want to live their lives with dignity or millions of people that want to harm and kill the first group then I’m happier to hurt the second party there. If someone breaks into my house and starts destroying my things I’m not going to waggle my finger at them and ask them to stop, I’m going to physically intervene before I have nothing left, and I’m not going to care about someone looking in the window thinking I’m “just as bad for using violence too”. I’m the victim here, not the vandal I was forced to beat up. Maybe ask yourself if your perceived moral high ground is really more important to you than the health and safety of the millions of people Republicans are dead set on disenfranchising in this country.
Your position seems to equate to “if Putin, and a bunch of Putin-supporters, attempted a launch of a nuke on Washington DC, but it failed, and we arrested a bunch of them… we should still go ahead and nuke *literally every Russian* because they’ve made their position clear that they haven’t already deposed Putin and all. All that’s left is for them to die.”
You’re not wrong that a people aren’t their leaders. However, I also wouldn’t condemn every Democrat for the actions of Republicans for the same reason. In your example I would not support nuking *literally every Russian* because there are likely many that genuinely condemned Putin’s actions. However, the ones that scream “We’ll kill you you bastards, we may have failed once but let us out and we’ll try again until it works! No matter how long it takes, no matter what you say or do, we will not rest until you are all dead!”? *Those* guys? Might be better off dead in the long run. They represent an existential threat to the country, are expressing a very real desire to bring harm to people, and are being very clear that nothing will ever change their minds.
And again, as you saw in my other comment, I’m not advocating for *outright murder*, but I think life would be a lot better for this country if they were dead. That applies to this hypothetical as well.