This post was made in response to this article on Medium.
Because from where I sit, we are a nation captured by assholes who insist the only legitimate power is one sucking endlessly at the Big Cock of toxic masculinity.
You are incorrect in implying that it is masculinity’s fault for conservatives’ criticism of him shedding a tear. Their criticism is one based in skepticism; they see the tear as just a show. If it was, it would not be the first time that a politician acted a certain way to appeal to people’s emotions; however, I am not claiming whether he was acting or being sincere with his emotions.
What new thing could they possibly have to say about anything that couldn’t be described as the angry ejaculation of abstract cliches?
You write as if liberals and/or socialists do not talk in abstract cliches with anger as well. Listen to many speeches or read many articles by the Left and soon enough you will hear mention of “The Rich need to pay their fair share!” or “Isn’t one life enough to justify common sense gun control?”
Every side has its own cliches, so don’t act like conservatives are the alone.
Then it dawns on me that that’s the one weird trick of Conservatism!
None of them have to have ideas!
That’s the definition of Conservatism: go back to old ideas because anything new is wrong.
Actually, many of them have tons of ideas, e.g. constitutional convention, increased defense budget, etc. Neo-Conservatism, the type of conservatism you are discussing, does not necessarily mean staying the same forever; many conservatives support and love innovation and discovery.
I would not be criticizing them too much, however, if I were you considering you are a socialist and socialism is not a new idea, so do not act like you are on the cutting edge of ideas.
All they’ve ever had to do is denounce anything new on principle while constantly cramming Reagan into logical orifices even Reagan would find himself horrified to be crammed in and out of for decades like some kind of — yeah you got it. I’ll stop.
I do not know of one single conservative that rejects all that is new on principle. You might honestly misunderstand, and I would recommend reading some of their books. I’ll agree with you on this, neoconservatives often do mention Reagan as an ideal statesman.
Because you don’t have to think when you’re defending your shit opinions with bald violence, you just have to threaten to beat up anything new that comes along.
Socialism is guilty of the same use of violence. It uses violence to impose the politicians’, workers’, or whatever class’ opinion.
Refuse to pay taxes?
The State will send agents after you to receive payment and/or arrest you.
Resist them taking your property or arresting you?
They’ll attempt to forcefully take you or kill you.
People whose moral failure is obvious depend on obvious force. As David Graeber observes in Debt, violence is the language of least common denominator, assumed legible and communicable to everyone. The threat of this universally anticipated violence is what was thought to keep people in line and obedient to a regime of inequality. While reading Debt, two semi-related thoughts occurred to me:
Stupid and wrong depend on violence to legitimize power and authority.
History has only advanced insofar as we have denied force legitimacy.
See the above.
The entire Conservative movement is predicated on defending the social legitimacy of violence because they are running out of ideas.
I would imagine we both agree violence in defense of one’s self or another is justifiable and legitimate, so not all violence needs to be viewed as not justifiable. More importantly, every form of statism thrives on the defense of the social legitimacy of aggressive violence because the State is aninstitution of aggressive violence, and that includes all forms of socialism.
Men like Donald Trump stand behind an ideology so shallow and self-contradictory, its adherents have no choice but to compensate with a comically bombastic manhood. Squishy men with delicate, soft hands make big, thundering promises like how they’re going to “carpet-bomb” an entire nation because someone told him threatening to commit a FUCKING WARCRIME would make him sound “tough.”
Donald Trump has flip-flopped like crazy for years. Additionally, many conservatives are not following Trump’s lead; many find his calls for certain state actions such as eminent domain absolutely disgusting.
I do not understand your obsession with manhood and masculinity. Any politician, man or woman, generally has “delicate, soft hands” and “make[s] big, thunderous promises”, masculinity be damned.
Yes, we all know many neoconservatives wish to bomb the Middle East indefinitely, and we also know some neoconservatives wish to turn the Middle East into a giant parking lot.
This is the impulse of assholes.
This impulse might also be one of skepticism.
Better I suppose, for the President to allow the next Sandy Hook to happen. And the next. And the next.
The best thing the President can do about mass shootings and gun violence in general is to eliminate all gun laws and regulations whilst encouraging states, counties, and cities to follow suit. Restricting gun access via legal means does little to stop criminals, but it does much to decrease the cost of violence.
If we allowed people to create and trade guns as they wished, then the cost of violence would increase drastically. A person might want to shoot up a local mall, but they will run into issues if they go to a site where there are guns present.
The first issue being that if they had planned to make it out alive, then with the greater amount of guns out there they know that their likelihood of surviving is less compared to our current situation. They might rethink their plans and decide not to go through with it.
The second issue, and possibly the biggest for them, is the increased amount of guns also increases the risk they will not kill many people or as many people as they desired. These people kill for pleasure, sport, and fame. A shooter being killed quicker denies them much of all 3.
Overall I found your post to be quite disingenuous, unfair, and contradictory with your own belief system.
Be First to Comment