I just read a nice profile piece about the impeachment managers who will be arguing the case to convict Mr. Trump of inciting the January 6 riot at the U.S. Capitol building in Washington, DC.
Mr. Trump has characterized the House’s subsequent bipartisan impeachment of this crime as a “continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics,” despite having arguably himself torn open the gates of Hell, summoned forth thousands of angry demons, and then caused them to swarm down upon the Capitol building, where they killed people, injured others, stole and destroyed government property, and committed numerous other disgraceful acts (like tracking human shit around on the floors — YUCK!).
These are not “legal challenges”. They are, rather, “litigious octopus-inkelry”, or perhaps, “revenge against all the butthurt 2016 Clinton supporters who refused to let Trump be King”, or maybe, “a systematic attempt to manufacture evidence that everybody is out to destroy Trump — even the judges!”
But they’re not proper “legal challenges”, that’s for sure. I think we should stop calling them that.
I don’t care what issue were talking about. I don’t care what side of it you’re on. I don’t care how big or small it is. From the current Pro- vs anti-Trump insanity down to whose turn it is to empty the dishwasher, the only correct response to any protest is simply to witness the fact that it’s happening. Watch, listen, learn, marvel (quietly) at the abject stupidity of the protestors, whatever else you need to do is fine, but above all DO NOT COUNTER-PROTEST!!!!
Nothing says: “YOU’RE RIGHT TO PROTEST, PLEASE CONTINUE!!!” like an attempt to say “YOU’RE WRONG TO PROTEST, PLEASE STOP.”
Now, if you already agree with this, good for you. Please spread the word.
If you disagree, well, yeah…good luck with that. Hopefully, you’ll figure it out at some point.
Are you tired of futile pseudo-debates with pompous armchair experts who think “research” is what they’re doing when they look shit up on the Internet?
Do you need a quick and dirty zinger that you can use to gracefully exit such a hopeless and depressing energy vacuum, while making clear your own commitment to understanding complex issues by investing in a sincere study of what the actual experts think?
If so, the next time you find your joie-de-vivre being threatened by some Dunning-Kruger deluded poser, try asking him* the following question: Is it possible that you are correct, and yet just suck at explaining why?
Poser: Coronavirus is a myth! BLOB BLOB BLOBBITY BLOB….!
Concerned Citizen: Hmmmm. Although I agree that, at least in principle, perhaps, in some remote alternate-factiverse that what you appear to be asserting certainly could be the case (mega-ultra-meta-hyper-hypothetically speaking, of course) I must nevertheless admit that after listening to you yammer endlessly on the subject for the past 10 months, I find your arguments persistently unpersuasive. Is it possible you are correct, and yet just suck at explaining why? How about we table this discussion while you take the next, say, year to improve your explaining skills? In the meantime, I’ll try to get by with what the actual experts think about it. Now, moving on to more productive topics, have you heard from Aunt Betty recently? I hear she’s got bunions, ouch!…
I hope that’s helpful!
* Let’s face it, this is more of a him- than a her-problem. Toxic masculinity strikes again!
Many biological traits follow a so-called “normal distribution” (a.k.a. “bell curve”) across populations, and to the extent that intelligence follows this pattern, then half of all human beings have above average intelligence, and the other half below average intelligence.
Might this explain something significant about the roughly 50-50 split being revealed between Biden supporters and Trump supporters?
Now, to the extent that this coincidence is truly meaningful (quite plausibly not at all, but still), and although I do have my own intuitions regarding which half of the intelligence bell-curve might correspond to Biden- and which half to Trump supporters, unfortunately there’s really nothing about the mere coincidence itself that indicates whether I’m right or wrong in that regard.
So, really, both sides are free to flatter themselves with this observation, and thereby achieve a cozy and consoling sense of smugness and superiority.
If you have read the title of this post and you need clarification on what it means, here are some simple instructions for how to find the clarity you need:
First, black lives matter.
Second, when in doubt, see 1.
I hope that’s useful. If you need additional clarification, well, just open your eyes, because it’s practically everywhere. For example, here is a nice video essay that explains “Why ‘all lives matter’ is a hurtful thing to say.”