It is interesting that even now, at such a late hour, countless people — Ms. Plec included — choose to play the blame game. One has to wonder how late the hour must grow before the rhetoric of divisiveness loses its appeal. Even now you likely search through my first three sentences to see ‘which side’ I fall on. Either to attack my words with the bitterest of your vitriol or to support them with various versions of ‘yeah, what he said,’ a share, or a thumbs up or two.
We need to hear what others are saying. We need them to hear what we are saying. Can we restate their view accurately before lavishing on ourselves the gratification of telling them what we think? How are these difficult concepts to grasp?
How pathetic this country has become. The Information Age as a paradoxical excuse for unprecedented stupidity. We can pay attention to nothing very deeply or risk ‘missing out’ on the latest episode of Game of Thrones. Thus we do our drive-by assessments halfheartedly putting all our whole heart into things. We certainly have not ‘allocated the time’ for such things as this.
Here’s a brief synopsis of what we have here:
- A vote for anyone but Hillary was a vote for Trump.
- If you did not vote for Hillary, you support racism, sexism, negativity, fire, and brimstone.
- Because Trump won the election, all non-Hillary voters as well as all non-voters are responsible for the hurtful and hateful repercussions of ‘their fellow monsters.’
Ms. Plec implies a simple answer to a complex question. At best this is overly simplistic thinking, at worst a logic fallacy — plurium interrogationum. Yet it resonates with people (180 of them as I write this) likely due to the emotional appeal of the words. A compulsion to feel righteous which cannot easily be distinguished from self-righteous. A compulsion for finding the root of ‘the problem’ thereafter to blame something. Certainly to approach it with a modicum of political correctness — don’t blame a person — merely blame the ‘Privilege’ that person possesses. That way you can hate without hating, blame without blaming, point without pointing. A mere gesture in the general direction everyone who agrees with you agrees is a hot stove recently touched.
Unfortunately for you, Ms. Plec, at least one of your readers is paying attention. One who has no corresponding issues with pointing directly.
You’ve used your platform to spew illogical rhetoric, Julie. Defensible only from the loosely pragmatic perspective of rallying hate cries from those who pretend to be non-haters. The piece is preserved solely by Carina’s positive and proactive words, but if we set those latter aside for just a moment — as icing befitting a cake more than a cowpie — we can take a more careful look at the spicy manure you seem to enjoy shoveling around. As though the platform you earned were a thing which could more effectively be used as a pitchfork than a bullhorn or a shepherd’s crook.
Lead, follow, or shut the hell up.
You haven’t done any of those things here. Your mournful cries about how your privilege ‘makes you sick’ solve nothing. They certainly show some solidarity with the people whose protector you may well imagine yourself to be, but while those words may gain you a couple of extra followers they sure as hell don’t make you a leader. Don’t imagine that they ring anything other than hollow in the sense of the larger issue at hand. They don’t.
Racism, sexism, nationalism, “I’m-better-than-they-are-ism” — whatever the kind — none of it is supported in rationality. But here’s the trick:
How much would you even be writing about it if Trump hadn’t won the election?
And while you’re pondering that, ponder this one:
Is closet racism, sexism, homophobia better than open displays of such hatred or vice versa?
And this one:
How much relative damage can we expect to happen as a consequence of a Trump versus a Clinton presidency, and on what do you base your conjecture?
The air of haughty presumed superiority and ‘obvious’ conclusions you’ve drawn here, erring more on the side of guilt and anger than on awareness, responsibility, and empathy do not benefit anything more than they benefit the standard you bear — which paradoxically reads justifiable hate.
You have the supreme audacity to use Christ’s words — almost —
“I would like to say “Forgive them for they know not what they do,” but I can’t yet. I am too angry.”
It is hard even to parse out what you’re saying here. I suppose a reader could take two meanings:
- Jules is very Christ-like, but these Satan-worshipping non-Hillary supporters have just flipped her very last switch and she couldn’t show up to do the Lord’s work, not on this day. This day it was too hard, so Christ was going to have to carry her today — spewing frothy-mouthed words of poorly-disguised hatred from her mouth as He did.
- J.P. is the new Morgan of morality, exceeding even Christ. Those words are not sanctimonious declarations from the apex of yon ivory tower but a guiding declaration to her myriad followers as to the direction they must take to walk in her blameless footsteps.
In short, I appreciate what you were trying to do here, but until you wake yourself up from the now-centric view of human importance, and realize that nothing that happens in the next four years (at least in terms of a relative comparison between Clinton and Trump and their respective marriage licenses to the Fossil Fuel industry at large) makes the slightest difference to future generations — well, if you realized you and virtually everyone else in the world is practicing now-ism…era-ism…you’d know that your words are nothing but spittle in the winds of a hurricane brewing.
A Trump presidency is likely to wake people thoroughly up and finally convince them that they can’t wait for the government to get the real work of this country done. They’re going to have to do some of it themselves. By voting differently with their money, for example.
Because votes in a booth aren’t the only — nor even the most important — sort of votes we make.