The problem is that politics is, in important ways, the very antithesis of religion, and in a democratic society, the more politics takes on the shape of faith, the more intractable and dysfunctional it becomes. That’s because politics, when put to its proper use, is the search for what disparate groups share in common, and the bargaining over their differences. Religion is practically its inverse; at its root, it’s tribal. And so as our politics have taken on the character of religion, they have become tribal, too.
Read the whole thing. Woodhouse shares my view that the banning of heretics is central to the religious version of progressivism.
The Twitter dogpile is the political equivalent of the banishing of the heathens — perhaps not in the gravity of its consequences, but in the function it serves of reproducing the community of the elect. And given the sadistic glee with which so many partake in it, it may also serve as a virtual experience of collective effervescence. We revel in the ritual of casting out the sinner, because it affirms the existence of the Tribe of the Woke, and our membership within it.
What “banning heretics” looks like:
Ambassador Ron Dermer: “We must never forget that political opponents are not enemies and that there is no cause that justifies murder.”
Bari Weiss: “Steve Bannon is an enemy of the Jewish people.”
https://twitter.com/bariweiss/status/797952287591243776
Imagine responding this way to “no cause justifies murder.”
This sort of thing doesn’t register to you because you’re saturated in tribalism and lack self-awareness. If people were interested in sober, intelligent voices, no one would listen to Bari Weiss. “She’s less insane than NYT woke-ists who drove her out” is a feeble endorsement.
No one would listen to Bari Weiss of almost 5 years ago, Nov. 2016, when she sent that tweet.
You can’t imagine her thinking to have changed since then? Mine sure has!
Sure, maybe her thinking has changed. And no one is in a better position to tell us so than Bari herself. But has she?
Handle: has your thinking changed yet on the mccloskeys?
I said at the time that they would plead to something because they were obviously guilty of something.
You disagreed at the time.
https://news.yahoo.com/mccloskeys-plead-guilty-charges-gun-195300768.html
Fair question. My thinking hasn’t changed on their situation, but there are a bundle of claims here, so let me break them apart in order to clarify.
Note: I am not re-opening the door to a debate on the details or merits of the case, so while I know you are sorely tempted to do so and will likely try anyway despite this clear request not to do so, please don’t bother. You asked about my thinking then and now, and that is the only question I am addressing.
1. Were the McCloskey’s ‘obviously guilty of something’ by natural or traditional American common law? No.
2. Were the McCloskey’s ‘obviously guilty of something’ by the relevant positive statutory and case law in the jurisdiction where they lived, as judged by the typical disposition of similar cases in places with similar laws? Mostly likely no.
3. Regardless of 1 and 2, was the local district attorney’s publicly bragging and raising campaign money on the promise to throw the book at them and go after them with everything they had? Absolutely.
4. Would it make perfect sense for very rich people who are innocent under 1 and 2 to nevertheless plead ‘guilty’ to petty “””assault””” charges for small-ish fines (and loss of personal property) that in total cost less than a top criminal defense attorney’s retainer, because of the severity of 3, the likely incessant campaign of public demonization, and the general terribleness of having to go to trial, even if they stood a good chance of prevailing, eventually, on appeal, after years? Yes.
I never said that they wouldn’t plead guilty under such circumstances, on the contrary, I think almost anyone in the same situation would do exactly that.
A lot of the anti-plea-bargaining advocacy out there right now is pretty dumb, however, this kind of situation provides good support for one of the strongest arguments against what the modern system of plea bargaining has evolved into, specifically, that the incentive cliff is so high that it is effectively a kind of extortion which coerces innocent people into falsely confessing their ‘guilt’, and thus ought to be prohibited under a Miranda-like analysis.
In short, pleading guilty doesn’t mean they (a) were guilty, (b) would have been convicted at trial, or (c) that the prosecution of them wasn’t abusive and malicious. My claims were about a-c, and my beliefs about a-c haven’t changed.
“Note: I am not re-opening the door to a debate on the details or merits of the case, so while I know you are sorely tempted to do so and will likely try anyway despite this clear request not to do so, please don’t bother.”
I’m not tempted in the slightest. This was a cut and dry case. The only debate was misdemeanor vs. felony.
You argued innocence on the grounds of self-defense, which was completely unreasonable based on the circumstances that everyone has had the opportunity to view on video.
If someone pulls a gun on you absent the counter threat of lethal violence, how should the legal system treat him? What does the law say? Is it even remotely controversial?
BTW 1 – as stated previously, we are completely pro 2A and we’ve got the AR-15s, shotguns, handguns to prove our bona fides. But, don’t let these negligent gun owners drive the narrative.
BTW 2 – she was much more guilty than he was and the penalty reflected this.
BTW 3 – if you ever point a gun at us in a threatening manner then you will be unceremoniously ended. Full stop.
BTW 4 – we are two shots to the vitals at 7 yards in <1.9 seconds from concealed holster. Good luck!
Here’s hoping that 1.9 seconds is always enough time to avoid making a bad decision.
Always fun to get lectured by right coast liberals with zero gun experience.
The clock starts well b4 the 1.9 second mark and boils down to “threat discrimination” training. I would never draw my weapon absent a lethal threat. Case solved.
Any more great insights for me? Wanna lecture me on “stand your ground” laws next which you guys got consistently wrong in the Zimmerman/Martin incident?
This is my preferred carry weapon at the moment (+ a red dot). Boom!
https://www.sigsauer.com/p365-xl.html
Apparently opinions vary about which was the lecture in that exchange and which was the one sentence expression of hope that it all works out for the best.
I actually agree with you about the legal aspects of the McKloskey case Kurt. If everyone involved had had your attitude and training towards firearms though, the McvKloskeys would both be dead now. I don’t think that would be a better result for anyone even though I am no fan of the McKloskeys. So that’s one aspect you could give a little more thought.
Another is whether or not your real life threat assessment is guaranteed to be as foolproof as in your cowboy fantasies of your imaginary response to Handle drawing on you.
Prior to “threat discrimination,” there is something called “threat avoidance.”
Due to that latter concept, I have no intention to ever violate private property signs with several hundred of my closest friends. Case solved yet again.
We gun owners have far more common sense than you’ll ever give us credit for over in the presumptuous blue states.
And yes, draw and point a gun in a threatening manner at me or my family and you will be ended. No apologies ever.
It’s got nothing to do with being a cowboy (thanks for the compliment though). It is the law in *all 50 states* as preceded by a fairly robust common law on self defense.
>—“We gun owners have far more common sense than you’ll ever give us credit for over in the presumptuous blue states.”
Who exactly is “we gun owners”? And what exactly do you have what in common regarding common sense?
The McKloskey approach is much more popular than yours. Were you invited to speak at the Republican National Convention like they were?
Did you get to promote a Senate run on Tucker Carlson like he did? This gun incident is the only thing he is known for and it has made him a folk hero among the majority of gun owners and Republicans
“That’s because politics, when put to its proper use, is the search for what disparate groups share in common, and the bargaining over their differences.”
Naive democracy yet again? Come visit the GWB library here in the Dallas area if you’d like to learn more about it.
There’s only so much disagreement that a political system can tolerate before it all falls apart. Monoculture populations are probably more advantageous than multicultural populations when it comes to building stable societies.
In other words (in econo speak), debating issues at the margin is substantially different than debating issues at polar opposites.
Separately and complete unrelated, how is that democracy building going over in Iraq and Afghanistan?
Back to Rauch: Quillette Sat. published a segment of Rauch’s book, which is a decent one, i.e.:
“If we are then told, that the fault lies with *the user*, for failing to figure out on her own what is true or false, we reply that error-prone humans *need help*. We need our information systems to steer us away from error and bias, which was *what the institutions* and standards of modern science and journalism were set up *to do*.”
Those who barf out, that “fault lies with *the user*”, show themselves to be shills for (allies of) the Elite institutions, whose 20th century prestige hinged on their capacity to help the user.
“and the bargaining over their differences”
But of course part of bargaining involves things like setting the narrative, using misinformation and withholding damaging facts, etc.
Imagine what would happen to the status quo is everyone had to play is straight? Wouldn’t a lot of vested interest lose out? So why would they start?