OP-ED: My Thoughts on the Capitol Riots

Look, this site is about pastel-colored pony adventures, and this post? Clearly not. So I'm not even going to post the excerpt here. Just this link to the full post. I'll keep this one firmly on my site.

Comments

[son_of_heaven176]

I read the post. Well thought out. And I think that this is a highlight:

{I}n just two decades[, Trump] changed parties four times, and was a member of three different political parties.

Now, there’s nothing wrong with that at its core. We’re supposed to go with our own leanings. The issue is that Trump has built himself up as the “core truth” of the Republican party, and dragged a lot of Republicans with him even as he’s continued to jump just as many fences. We’ve seen this with the “party loyalists” like Barr and Barret that Trump has suddenly turned on the moment they wouldn’t do what he wanted. It’s not that they’re Republicans with different ideas about things, no. They are “traitors” (as he actually said in his speech on that infamous Wednesday) to him and therefore to the “Republican Party.”

Basically, Trump pitches himself as “The Republican party” regardless of how far afield his actual behavior may be from the core tenants of the party, and constantly reminds the party that if they disagree with him then they’re not “real Republicans.”

May we learn to avoid cults of personality in the future. No person, no matter how important, is to be in and of himself the definition of a party.

[Wild Zontars]

I bring this up as an example of why to me the rule of law should be obeyed even when it isn’t in your favor.

I’ve seen a lot of people after last Wednesday step back and say “What am I doing? What have I been supporting?”

See, here's the problem. You, and the people you're talking about, have principles. However, the age of principles in politics is (for now, at least) over. It's all about interests now. If you keep holding to principles when your opponents pursue their interests, well...

64.media.tumblr.com/8af5471ea884302c4875ee16253a8e30/tumblr_mp62hhAo1Y1rl43cyo1_1280.png

[Bugsydor]

The bit with Paanchi was insightful. Personally, I was reminded of the King Men and their reaction to discovering that they didn't represent the voice of the people. That's somewhat of a recurring theme in the book, isn't it? And one that's repeatedly associated with widespread suffering.

It's good to hear that a lot of people were startled awake by Wednesday's events, at least. A shame that that reaction wasn't universal, even among people I otherwise deeply respect.

[Viking ZX]

5436155

If you keep holding to principles when your opponents pursue their interests, well...

To that I would reply with two quotes on the subject from two different thinkers. The first from Nietzsche—

Beware that, when fighting monsters, you yourself do not become a monster...

—and the second from Martin Luther King Jr.—

Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that.

I had a long discussion with a friend over this very topic the other day, one which sadly we were unable to come to an agreement on. They were of the stance that in order to fight things like fascism, one must adopt the standards of fascism itself for the "greater good," as the only way to win was to use the same tools, to "fight fire with fire."

I disagreed. I am of the opinion that if you sacrifice the principles you're standing for to "win," then you have in fact lost. It's a pyric victory in which you've become the very thing you've fought against, and in doing so simply amplified that which you fight against. If your principles aren't sound enough to achieve your aim, then the principles themselves may need tweaking, but if you throw aside your principles in order to "win," all that proves is that they weren't of value in the first place, and the other side was "correct."

Sometimes our principles aren't correct, and need to be modified. That is knowledge and learning. But I don't think that our principles shouldn't be something we cast aside simply because a "foe" has cast aside theirs.

Tying it back to what's currently going on, if the principles we cling too are truly so weak that they cannot overcome another's lack of principles, then what's the point? If we truly have conviction in what we believe, we won't toss it aside even when we face an obstacle that we may not see a way around.

Just my two cents.

[Wild Zontars]

5436749

If your principles aren't sound enough to achieve your aim, then the principles themselves may need tweaking, but if you throw aside your principles in order to "win," all that proves is that they weren't of value in the first place, and the other side was "correct."

Devil's advocate: if your principles cause you to lose, perhaps the other side was correct, in the Darwinian sense. They continue to advance their interests. You can no longer advance your principles.

(Of course, this is rendered moot if the "losing" side believes in divine justice, in which case the "loss" is temporary, as is their opponent's "win". Better to follow the official rulebook, in that case. "Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.")