Hurrah, Huns! Forward the Raiding Party! Der can be on’y one t’ousand! I’ll gi’ ye sich a kickin’!! (pre-digression: do we have a battle cry? I was tempted to write Deus Vult, but I know we aren’t all believers, let alone Christian. Perhaps, “let the deity/greater power of his/her choice sort them out!” would be more appropriate. Tongue planted firmly in cheek, of course.) This has been building for a bit. In that dark pit inside my skull. Some was sparked by comments here made weeks ago now. Some just came clear with the recent sound and fury over post-binary <del>sex</del>gender and Tor’s ongoing … oddness (more on that later).
We don’t all play by the same rules.
It’s obvious, really. You and I (and others of our ilk) hold with honor and deals made on a handshake between two honest people. We believe in working hard for our daily bread in the hopes of passing on a better world to our spawn. We believe in doing well by those around us, whatever their origins, and provided they aren’t outright antagonistic.
And this is reflected in our readin’ and writin’. Slightly outsized people – because who wants to read about the normal, especially when there’s dragons needing slaying (metaphorical dragons; all slaying of real dragons should be left to the professionals, who more likely than not will receive a late-night visit from a dark dragon in a black suit) – doing heroic things, often with high-powered implements of one stripe or another. Yeah, they get, well, perhaps an overgenerous helping of life’s slings and arrows, but they roll with it and fight back. Preferably within a few hundred pages or so. No really, no more than three books. <i>Seriously</i> no more than seven. More than that is just too many. Unless it’s good. Is it good? It is good, isn’t it?
Anyway, we believe in behaving politely toward our fellow man. Or woman. Or, perhaps *cough* whatever gender applies. Others do not believe this, or anything approaching it. There are those who act – the truest indicator of belief – in a manner that betrays their assumption that narrative trumps reality. When you speak of facts (in your small-minded, modernist insistence) there is an instant check against the dominant narrative.
Is the government spending more money than it takes in revenue each year? This doesn’t mean mounting debt (well, it does, but you’re too unenlightened to understand the intricate realities of such enormous numbers, you ‘orrible little non-person, you); what it really means is that we’re leveraging our population to provide much-needed assistance to reduce income disparity among those victimized by systemic privilege. And it’s a <i>good</i> thing, you racisssss! When the rest of the world’s collective jaw drops at our chief executive bowing to foreign heads of state, it’s not because that’s a sign of weakness -akin to showing your belly to the alpha wolf – so much as a clever gambit in the on-going (and subtle, which you clingers just don’t understand) smart diplomacy, which will gain us the trust of potential allies in the war against the Man.
This can be seen in the ramp-up to every election cycle (which suggests that both of the major parties participate in this peculiar form of mass delusion) when <del>lying liars</del>politicians will say nearly anything to get into or remain in office. Following their success, they then work to stay in <del>power</del>office as long as possible, so as to maintain their opportunities for graft. I’m given to understand there are a few who actually do work to serve their constituency instead of fleece them, but it’s often tough to tell them apart.
The above is, perhaps, one of the more accessible examples, but it is by no means the most egregious. After all, politicians have to please <i>someone</i> to attain and then hold power. Much more common are those who buy into the pernicious lie of postmodernism without even the excuse of personal, material gains. Most of the useful idiots of the world (whatever their adherence) get only the feeling of being inside their particular circle. To know that their views are approved of by somebody, even if only in potentia.
As an aside, the Magic of teh Interwebs(TM) has provided a wondrous realm of sparkles and anonymity; a safe haven for tribes to gather and make war on each other without fear of spilling their own precious bodily fluids. In my darker moments, I pray for an Event that will give a non-fatal electric shock to anybody who posts something stupid online. In my more lucid moments, this notion makes me fear for the future of the species. End aside.
When objective reality intrudes on the narrative, it’s reality that must change. See Obamacare, Fast & Furious, or the continuing Benghazi attack aftermath. In more recent memory, see the moving goalposts in Larry Correia’s skirmishing with scifi establishment (how do you damn the Man when you <i>are</i> the Man?). It’s never about the arguments made, or the people who died; it’s about what they </i>mean</i> to truly important things like reproductive freedom or who has the power to circumvent the Constitution.
When somebody asks, “what difference, at this point, does it make,” whether an attack was caused by an obscure YouTube video or by deliberate malice aforethought, implicit is the guiding narrative that causes are unimportant next to how an event can be used to further a political ideology. If, whether for political purposes or simply because somebody couldn’t be arsed (what difference, at this point, does it make?), American citizens are left without sufficient protection in a hostile environment and rescue attempts are killed in the womb, it’s more important to use it for one’s own advantage than to do what is “right.”
After all, postmodernism decries such outdated concepts as good and evil. There is only, “what is right for me,” and “what is less right for me.” It’s far more important to feel good about your choices, whatever they are, than it is to choose something good in the first place.
Which aren’t the rules by which the rest of us typically operate. We (specifically those of us here) presume that physical reality imposes certain limitations that bind any philosophical framework we build to guide our choices. Just because we don’t like a facet of reality doesn’t mean we get to ignore it’s implications. Or at least, we assume that we ignore it to our ultimate detriment.
Part of joining civilization is the subordinating of certain individual natural rights (the right to kill people and take their stuff, for example. just off the top of my head) to some nebulous concept of a greater good. One of these is the right to be unconstrained in social interactions. Most civilized apes learn early on – with their mother’s milk, one might say – that our right to swing our fist ends at the next ape’s nose. And in verbal exchanges, as well.
What, then, do we do about those who refuse to play fair? How do we treat the barbarians in our midst? And can we do it without sacrificing our own integrity, or must we stoop to their level?
How about not arguing basic facts? Suppose you’re “discussing” the <del>coming ice-age, global warming</del> I mean, climate change. Let them have “man causes climate change,” and then inquire as to how much of a causative factor. Then make them show their work. Find a reputable source that claims humanity is the primal cause of global climate change across millennia. They can’t? Odd, that. Caveat: this method will only work with those without strong – read: progressive – pre-conceived notions.
Beyond that, when dealing with those whose minds are closed and unreachable, is mockery the best policy? The Korreiakin emphasizes that he doesn’t argue on the internet to convince anybody, but to provide ammunition for those who agree with him, and garner a modicum of relaxation from the rampant foolishness of others. Do you think this is true? Is there any other way of dealing with vile progs whose minds are beyond the reach of reason?