The other day a family member of mine pulled me into their room to show this Tucker Carlson segment. It was boring as shit. Not because of Carlson and certainly not because of the subject matter, in this case state courts ruling Trumps threat to withdraw federal funding if California wouldn’t comply to federal immigration policy and desist their sanctuary cities nonsense. It was boring because Carlson asked the other guy some very straight and fair questions about what kind of precedent this would set, about how when states had refused to comply in the past the National Guard got sent in. These were not questions with a lot of political spin. But the other guy stonewalled Carlson by NOT ANSWERING and repeating the same non-answer over and over regardless of the question.
Political news is bad enough when you consider how hilariously skewed it is in the Left’s favor, with some insiders saying conservatives make up only 10% of the media. And it’s not even that the guy tried to put a positive spin on his answer. I’ve spent most of working life doing work on political campaigns in some form or another. I know full well that putting a spin on any situation and any answer is par for the course even though I hate it. But just not answering the question at all and responding with ideological crap that isn’t relevant over and over is unbearable.
This is not just a call for the Left, both sides seem to have forgotten what it means to compromise. To many people toe the fucking party lines and the few who step out of line are punished too regularly for any to try. And we allow it. Because so many of us are in echo chambers, because for some reason compromise and admitting you may be wrong have been shamed. It’s preventing us from talking about anything and working through the problem together. An independent journalist named Tim Pool just did a great video about fake news and the news industry and one of the most interesting thing he brings up are how biases can form a total blind spot or lead to outright lies being reported. The example he gave was about an incident where a woman (I believe it was an Antifa protester) attacked a man and he struck back. Left leaning news outlets reported the incident as a man attacking a woman and a sign of misogyny. Right leaning news outlets reported the incident as crazy protesters attacking innocent people. The two sets of content produced were talking about the same incident but were reported as though they were talking about two different events.
Now if we lived in a time and place were we could have civil discourse, where we could just fucking talk to one another regardless of party and treat the everyone with equal courtesy, then the whole incident would’ve been reported and the woman likely would’ve been found in the wrong because she attacked first, which is a running trend where Antifa is concerned. They typically get violent first and if and when other parties respond with violence they make a big deal about it. But we don’t both parties are trying so hard to appeal to the extremes and the extremes are being so vocal and insane that everyone else ends up losing. Alt-right people look bad enough that the Left thinks it’s ok to call all Republicans racists. And SJW’s are so insane and cancerous to the Left while the Left is pandering to them that the Right is calling all liberals cucks.
This is not just a US issue though. This rising polarization and lack of discourse if pervasive in Western politics. Don’t believe me? Well here are some examples. Gibraltar called the President of the EU a cuck for trying to get Spain some control over Gibraltar in the upcoming Brexit negotiations, this is not a joke the leader of Gibraltar said the EU president was “behaving like a cuckolded husband,” this is a thing. I find that particular instance kind of funny because I’ve never heard of a state calling someone a cuck before. And do I even need to get examples from the Left? They’re fucking everywhere, there are so many cases where liberals have dismissed people and entire groups of people out of hand by calling them racists and calling it a day. It’s fucking everywhere. Hell, in my last post I got into a polite argument with a guy in the comments who, even as he implied my criticisms of the Muslim immigrant communities were in fact correct if applied to Germany and France, the problems I brought up didn’t exist in Sweden and anything I heard or saw telling me Sweden had a problem was the result of neo-nazi propaganda, despite the fact I pointed out that this was real news and you can tell it’s real because the same kinds of articles are springing up all over Europe.
We’ve gotten so dismissive of each other and it’s easy to see why. We’ve been equating people on the extremes of their party as representative of their party, which is ironic because people on both sides seem to argue “not all men” and “not all Muslims” saying the small extreme sector of a population is not representative of it’s whole. So why is that suddenly not ok in politics? For example, I’m a Republican, but I support gay marriage, though no church should ever be forced to marry a couple against if that goes against the church’s beliefs, and abortion. But I don’t support sanctuary cities, anything vaguely resembling affirmative action and I think there are only 2 genders because that’s our fucking genetic makeup. Like stop and think for a minute and ask yourself, why use the label trans-woman as opposed to woman (sorry if I got that wrong and trans-woman means woman who became a man, I mix them up sometimes because they are unhelpful labels). It’s one thing to say “I’m trans” when talking about the problems affecting the majority of all trans-people but if someone asks you what your gender is and you’re a trans-woman why not just say “I’m a woman” Adding the trans- just adds a division between people who now consider themselves the same gender and whom I would treat equally as women.
Moreover cut this genderfluid shit. A lot of it seems to be based around masculine and feminine but these words aren’t genders, they are descriptors based on social norms. Do you know what the old word for a girl whose more masculine is? It’s tomboy. Tomboy is not a gender it’s a description of someone who doesn’t fit into the broad cultural norms we apply to a given gender as well as the majority of people. Because while norms are widely applicable they aren’t deeply applicable, if you put a moments thought into it you will find a label which describes you but fits you poorly. For example when it comes to music I most consistently described myself as hard rock/metal fan, but I’m big into folk instrumentation and electronic stuff in some cases, sometimes when they are paired with metal. Seriously, pagan metal and Baby Metal are amazing shit. It’s why I can have a Dutch sing-along rock song and a poppy electronic Japanese song play back to back when I put my iPod on shuffle, because I do a poor job fitting the label of metal fan, but it’s way more convenient to say than explaining everything I’m into.
The point is that we aren’t engaging each other on a deep enough level in a broad enough context. When speaking in broad terms we call each other names and get on with our day, and I think that needs to change if America is to return to a place where discourse and compromise are valued, and that’s a far better place then a country ruled by extremes. Just look at the fucking rampant two-facedness in news and politics. Look at the presidential golf trips. When Obama was in power the Right made a big deal about those and the Left ignored them. Now Trumps doing the same and the Left is throwing a fit while the Right is ignoring it. That’s a relatively lighthearted example but that kind of nigh-comedic two-facedness is the fucking norm these days when talking about all kinds of issues. It would be funny if it wasn’t so disgusting, shallow and damaging to finding any real solutions.
We all have to stop rejecting and dismissing others out of hand for thinking differently and having different priorities than us. Because so long as we don’t we can’t have conversations about real problems. We can’t talk on the big stage about the problems of allowing thousands of third-world Muslims into first-world Western nations because anyone criticizing that community will be shouted down as an Islamophobe and the other side will just talk about how Islam is a religion of peace. In the interest of resolving that discussion and trying to bridge the gap here I go. The Quran does indeed have many messages of tolerance and peace. And a westernized Muslim family is less likely to get involved with violence and terror than a fundamentalist Muslim from the Middle East. However the Quran has a bunch of companion texts collectively known as the Hadith and in the Middle East if you do not believe in the Hadith as well as the Quran then you aren’t a real Muslim. It’s not hard to understand, Christians and Jews share the same Old Testament but the Jews don’t believe in the New Testament, so Christians don’t think of them as Christian. The problem with Islam is the Hadith, it forms the basis for sharia law and nearly every passage ever quoted which shows religious approval for violence in Islam comes from the Hadith.
Do you see the problem? Muslim communities which take the Hadith seriously are communities which condone, approve and in some cases demand violence. This is one of the main reasons why terrorism is so much more prevalent among Muslims than other faiths. It may not be in the Quran but many Muslims believe the violence is justified and can look to the Hadith for support. And if we stopped screaming insults at each and just sat together to look at the evidence and discuss it, we could see real progress. I say that because in response to Macron’s presidential win in France Bernie Sanders tweeted out something like “France just voted against racism and xenophobia by choosing Macron” which ignores one of Macrons major weaknesses, he has no plan to deal with the violence caused by large Muslim immigrant communities. And he doesn’t have a plan because in order to plan something he would have to first admit there was a problem and he can’t because doing so would be considered Islamophobic by his own party. How many more have to die to terror attacks before both sides can agree that the problem exists? How long before they recognize that other problems, economic problems for instance, which affect peoples of all races and parties, exist? I don’t know because Hillary and her supporters are still busy saying misogyny and the patriarchy were to blame for her loss even though there have been news stories of and news clips of minority Democrats saying the voted Trump because they want fucking jobs.
Obviously there is a right leaning slant to this whole thing because I lean right. But I like to think I’ve illustrated a problem with both sides and why we need to fix it. Name calling and violent protests will no accomplish anything, we need discussion, debate and compromise to move forward. And that should be self-evident because that’s what America’s political system was designed around, but for some reason way too many people on both sides have lost sight of that. So next time you see someone say something you disagree with, consider talking to them instead of dismissing them altogether. Contrary to popular belief most people are not racists, sexists, cucks or idiots. We just have different ideas and priorities and that’s fine. That’s how life is supposed to work. We just need to talk through our differences to find the things we can agree on. And it’s sad as fuck we are in a climate so bad I feel I have to explain this. Thanks for reading.