If you listen to what the anti-gun activists say about us gun owners (and to us on the rare occasions when there is actually dialogue), you can see the parallels to bullying, elitist high school cliques as typified in the movie “Mean Girls.”
A certain kind of person needs to feel they’re better than others, and comes to believe that belittling others will so elevate them. “We’re better than you because –“
“We make more money than you.” “Our house/watch/car is more expensive than yours.” “Our skin color is more politically correct today than yours.” And cetera.
Here’s an example. Budget yourself about ten minutes for this Not Safe For Work or Little Kids diatribe against a guy wearing a #BuildTheWall shirt, delivered by a couple of lightweight yuppies who have yet to realize that denigrating people they don’t know does not create the smug superiority to others that they seek, seem to feel, but do not achieve:
or watch video here.
No wonder a current meme has arisen that says, “Democrats haven’t been this angry at Republicans since the Republicans freed the Democrats’ slaves.”
I would have gotten up and called bullshit in his face. It would have been put up or shut up time.
I have to give the “Build the Fence shirt Guy” a Tripe A +, for taking their BullshXt, Cursing, and belittlement, for the full length of this Video, without batting an eye, Cussing, or smashing them to sithereens!
That took self control far beyond mine!
Paul
WOW, – being from the old school , I never could have put up with that attack without at least trying to put an end to it .
When they moved into my space , I automaticly would go into a defense mode and make it very clear that I was going to defend myself and I felt I felt I was in fear for my life or at least physical harm and would do what ever it took to defend myself.
He had a phone in his hand and should have called police and filed charges .
He had proof on his video.
The Great Wall of China probably had its detractors–mostly the wannabe invaders, though. You would not have seen too many Chinese protesters supporting unlimited immigration of the likes of Genghis Khan and his hordes into China. A wall can be vulnerable when used merely in stand-alone, static defense, possibly like the old forts of Vauban, but properly equipped and adequately supported by mobile forces, a wall is a very efficient use of funds.
The idea that liberalism is a mental disorder deserves more attention. Harassing somebody because you don’t like their shirt slogan shows a definite lack of common sense.
Meh. Some thoughts: (a) One doesn’t wear or display such things as the Build the Fence shirt without the expectation that it will arouse reactions in others: that’s the reason you wear it: to express your opinion so that others will react, in favor or in opposition. (b) On the other hand, one has the right to choose where and when one wants to deal at length with those reactions. If the shirt guy was standing in a protest line or at a rally, then that would be one thing since he’d be there to promote his position; for this extended encounter to happen in a private place with him saying that he wanted to be left alone and not discuss it was just rude on the part of the objectors. A short objection and invitation to discourse on the part of the objectors would’ve been fine, but once he said he didn’t want to discuss it the ongoing harassment (I don’t mean that in any legal sense) was juvenile. Worse, it was nonproductive if not counterproductive. (c) It’s to also be noted that there is a very good chance that this was not just a chance encounter. The shirt guy has made an extensive library of YouTube videos, some of which are from a right-wing and white-identity point of view. See:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCF-StwIohes08fDH-TvpMxQ/videos
and this one in particular, which is white-identity:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J_p8QJygex4
(which, among other things, says that the Jews are literally “Satan’s Tribe”). That’s not to say that the confrontation was staged (though there’s some speculation out there about that), but it could suggest that there was something behind it other than the shirt.
Wow is right. For a young man, he displayed remarkable patience. I don’t think that I could have remained that calm is the presence of such… barbarians. But perhaps one of the best reasons so far to”BUILD THE WALL#”
“A certain kind of person needs to feel they’re better than others, and comes to believe that belittling others will so elevate them.” That is, indeed, the psychological and emotional basis of white supremacy groups and the history of racial oppression, here and elsewhere.
I believe he stood firm, and did not give what they wanted. In my opinion they wanted a physical altercation. So, he won out. Some of us here could’ve challenged that couple in debating the facts, and why many feel our borders need more enforcement, and I don’t think they would’ve stuck around.
Tolerant liberals.
Liberal Dave gave a good response. His legal training came in helpful, as always.
The man with the “offensive” shirt should have questioned the Mexican senorita about Mexico’s immigration laws. Are Mexicans racists because they don’t let Guatemalans in? Are Mexicans racists because we cannot immigrate to their country illegally?
The senorita talked about money. She sounded greedy to me.
I actually heard something worse today. I believe it was on FoxNews. People were protesting the death of the terrorist who assaulted people at Ohio State University with a car and a knife. They believed he didn’t need to be shot dead. Americans, especially liberal female Americans, need to understand that these terrorists would implement Sharia Law if they could. American women would not have jobs, nor drive cars. They would not go to school under Sharia and they would stay home. They would wear only modest clothing, maybe even burkas. AND they would be circumcised. I’ve already been circumcised. I wonder how many American women would like to be circumcised. Ha! Ha! Ha!!!
Liberal Dave,
I was going to stay out of this one, until your last post.
Probably because of my background, I tend to try to see past the obvious, searching for the truth. I, too, had an uptick in my bulls##t monitor while viewing the video, thinking it could have been a staged event. I appreciated the links you provided, giving some credence to that possibility, but I still am not ready to make a call on this.
The problem I have with your last post is, without any qualifiers, someone who doesn’t know you better would take your words to be a shot (verbal slap) at Mas and the other commenters on this blog.
Please clarify your comment. I hope you don’t perceive us as a bunch of racist, bigoted, white supremacists.
Still friends.
Sadly, this kind of thing is all too typical of left-wing / right-wing polarization. As I have noted before, this behavior is driven by a couple of quirks in human psychology. It seems to be part of human nature to subconsciously make simplifying assumptions about the human condition (i.e. all human tend to be good, all humans tend to be evil/sinful) and then base our political worldviews based upon these crude, simplifying assumptions.
The assumption that “All humans are innately good” gives rise to the classic left-wing, liberal worldview. The assumption that “All humans are innately evil / sinful” gives rise to the classic right-wing, conservative worldview. Most humans tend to drift (with varying degrees of fanaticism) toward one or the other views.
This also explains why, as the population becomes more polarized, we see elections (the 2000, 2016 Presidential Elections, for example) that are within a few percentage points of being 50/50. Under the left-wing / right-wing worldviews, there are only two options (Good or Evil). Therefore, there are only two worldviews (left-wing or right-wing). With humans statistically choosing their views at random, the population is going to split 50/50. It is like flipping a coin 300 million times. You are going to get about 150 million heads and about 150 million tails. With a U.S. population of about 324 million, you are going to get about 162 million individuals who lean to the left and about 162 million that lean to the right. With a two (2) party system and with political moderates driven out of both parties, a near 50/50 split on National-election outcomes is practically assured. Just like flipping the coin.
Humans, because of the realization of our own mortality and the ego-driven need to leave a legacy and “live a life of significance” are also driven to believe that their own individual and narrow worldviews are critically important. So, important that they feel that their own views are supremely righteous and beyond debate. Therefore, anyone espousing an opposing view is considered to be a mentally defective idiot and unworthy of respect or consideration. Hence, the vicious attacks which each side launches upon the other. Current examples are the leftists casting Trump supporters as white supremacy racists and the right casting Hillary supporters as whinny, “snowflake” losers who “can’t handle the truth”.
Any left-wing / right-wing polarized issue experiences the same phenomenon. Gun Control is an issue that is perfectly polarized into left-wing (Pro-Gun Control) and right-wing (Anti-Gun Control) worldviews. Naturally, the same types of vicious attacks are seen. Gun owners and 2nd Amendment supporters are cast, by the left, as being either (a) ignorant country bumpkin rubes that inhabit “fly-over” country and “cling bitterly to their guns and religion” or else (if more sophisticated types like the NRA) as (b) venal hired-guns who have sold their souls to the firearms industry for money.
On the other side, the right casts Gun control supporters as mentally defective “hoplophobes” who have totally lost touch with the “real world” and who are in serious need of mental counselling.
Truly, we have met the enemy and he is us!
I was only pointing out that the statement cuts both ways, not implying anything about anyone here. I’m sorry I didn’t make that clear.
I can’t listen to that, I’ve heard their belittling too many times in my life in offices I’ve worked in and it generates too much of an emotional response in me. I’ve read that a lot of gun owners don’t debate anymore, they simply take the attitude of FU with the liberal left in these kinds of personal encounters. No wondering why.
TN_MAN: As always, much of what you say is nutritious food for thought. You need to beware, though, of falling into a dialectic Twilight Zone. The Hegelian counter-positing of some opposites, such as North and South, as a German dramatist of the early 19th century, Georg Buechner, pointed out through one of his characters (“the Captain”) in the stage play “Woyzeck,”, does not automatically produce a sensible synthesis. Not that your present analysis might not make good sense.
Dave: Insulting, provoking speech often seems to come politically cloaked. Mean people finding a supposedly justifiable outlet, I think.
@ Two-gun Steve,
While I understand the concept of the dialectic method (see the Wikipedia link below):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic
I am not clear as to how it applies to my post above. It is true that I am advancing a thesis here. In a simplified form, the thesis goes as follows:
Human beings are physically rather defenseless creatures. We are not equipped with great strength, great speed, or powerful fangs or claws. We also do not have natural venom or defensive spines (like a porcupine) or a defensive shell like a clam or a turtle. Humans have specialized in using intelligence as our defense mechanism. We seek to out-think and outwit our predators.
Therefore, the human mind has evolved, by natural selection, to observe and understand our world so that we always have the “situational awareness” to counter any threat. The human mind is literally programmed, even at the subconscious level, to observe and to understand. When dealing with complex variables, the human mind is also programmed to automatically make simplifying assumptions so that an intelligent counter-response can be initiated.
Being social creatures, this natural ability to observe, understand and simplify extends to our understanding of human society. After all, our fellow humans can often pose as great of a threat as the most dangerous natural predator.
Any society necessarily involves an understanding of politics and human nature. However, human behavior is one area that is very complex since humans are so flexible in their range of actions. The most central and basic question, when it comes to society and politics, is the nature of mankind himself and the fundamental question of good and evil. Are human beings basically good or evil or a mixed bag? In truth, the most accurate answer is “mixed bag”. However, it is not easy to formulate a consistent political philosophy from the “mixed bag” assumption. It is much easier to be consistent by assuming that either good or evil prevails.
So, my thesis is that almost all humans, usually at a subconscious level, assume either that “All humans are innately good” or that “All humans are innately evil / sinful”.
The assumption that all humans are good gives rise to a consistent political philosophy which we commonly label as “Left-wing” or “Liberal”. The assumption that all humans are evil gives rise to a consistent political philosophy that we commonly label as “right-wing” or “conservative”.
In addition to the above tendency to simplify, there is another psychological factor at work. Humans are intelligent and self-aware enough to realize the impact of their own mortality. This creates an egoistic pressure for each person to really “do something with their life”. Politics is a ripe field for any human to “make their mark”. Therefore, this egoistic pressure often prompts humans to consider their politics as supremely important. As a matter of life or death.
Therefore, because the human mind is generating two opposing philosophies (left-wing and right-wing) in any human society and because the human ego prompts people to take extreme action to further their selected philosophy, a major source of human violence and conflict arises. Indeed, a great many major wars (the U.S. Civil War, The Spanish Civil War, World War II, the Korean War, The Vietnam War, the Cold War, etc.) are sourced in this tendency of humanity to split into left-wing and right-wing camps and then attack each other. These wars have had a major impact on human history and have caused the deaths of uncounted millions of humans.
In a nutshell, the above outlines my thesis. So, for the dialectic method to apply, someone would need to play the “Devil’s Advocate” and advance an opposing thesis regarding the origin of left-wing / right-wing split (which exists as an established fact). Then reason and logic could be employed to form a synthesis of the two concepts to establish the truth.
At this point, however, I don’t see anyone being the devil’s advocate and advancing an opposing thesis. So, I don’t see how the dialectic method can be truly applied as yet.
Comments are closed.