These are strange, distressing times for America. As an American myself, I’ve never been more concerned or pessimistic about the future of the country I love. There are many reasons for that. But rather than get overly political and go on another rant, I want to offer some important advice to any American who might find this.
Regardless of what you see in the news or in rage-baiting headlines, you still have rights under the Constitution.
The current people in power have shown time and again that they are very willing to undermine those rights. You cannot let them. As an American, it is your responsibility to protect and defend those rights. Believe it or not, you do have the law on your side, even if those enforcing it would have you believe otherwise.
To understand, I’d like to refer to an old YouTube video from 2012 that I often share with people who don’t understand the law, the Constitution, or rights in general. It’s a lecture from a former criminal defense attorney at a law school. He makes the case better than anyone before or since that you, an American citizen, should never under any circumstances talk to the police.
It doesn’t matter if you’re innocent. It doesn’t matter if you’ve never broken a single law in your entire life. Thanks to the Constitution, specifically the 5th Amendment, you have the right to not talk to the police. And you should use it. If you want to know why, just watch this video and share it with everyone you know.
Hopefully, you now understand and will act accordingly, should you ever encounter the police or any law enforcement official. There are plenty of other videos on YouTube that document police encounters. But this one is still the most informative from a purely legal perspective.
Also, I would supplement this video with a few other details that are worth mentioning. If the police ever knock on your door, don’t open it unless you have a screen door separating you and the officers. Unless they have a warrant, they cannot legally enter your home by force.
And if possible, record your encounter and let the officers know that you’re recording. It doesn’t matter if they have body cameras. Make sure you document every detail of the encounter. And make sure the video you’re recording is stored somewhere other than your phone. If you ever have any legal issues, that video will be instrumental.
Lastly, and this is something that I doubt the men in the video could’ve foreseen, but these rights apply to everyone in the United States, regardless of their citizenship status. It doesn’t matter what anyone in the reactionary media say. The language of the 14th amendment is very clear.
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
Note the bold text. It says person and not citizen. Anyone who claims otherwise is an idiot, a liar, or both.
I really wish I didn’t have to make a post like this for my fellow Americans, as well as those aspiring to be American. But these are the times we currently live in. They suck. They’re probably going to get a hell of a lot worse. But at least for now, the Constitution says you have rights. And now, more than ever, you should cherish and defend them.
Seriously, for the good of America, the world, and the human species as a whole, just stop what you’re doing.
I hope I don’t need to go into specifics. If you know what I’m talking about, you can probably fill in the blanks based on the first sentence alone. But if you’re blissfully unaware, I’ll only offer the basics.
Jubilee isn’t just the name of a beloved X-Men character. It’s the name of a YouTube channel that specializes in debates/clickbait. They claim they seek to provoke greater discussions and create better connections between those with different points of view.
That’s bullshit.
Everyone working for this channel knows it’s bullshit. If they’re capable of putting their pants without assistance, they have to know.
They’re not in the business of thought-provoking discussions. They’re in the business of clickbait/rage-bait/anything that will get them trending on social media. They invite controversial figures, mostly “influencers” who operate on the extremes of the political spectrum. And they put them in a room surrounded by people who are diametrically opposed to their viewpoints. Then, they engage in timed debates on various controversial issues.
Now, in the pre-internet era, this would’ve been harmless. Even if you put it on TV, it probably wouldn’t have too great an impact. It would just be a temporary spectacle. But this isn’t just a world dominated by the internet. This is a world where extreme voices can make the most noise and gain both attention and power.
That’s not merely an exercise in free speech. That’s enabling assholes by giving them a large platform, a big audience, and an opportunity to completely change/destabilize public discourse on important topics. I liken it to letting random strangers have a say in important medical decisions while your doctor tells you things you don’t like hearing. Yes, people are free to share their opinions on such matters, but listening to those opinions you prefer is going to have serious consequences.
Now, I admit I did watch a number of these Jubilee debates. I’ll even concede that some of them are entertaining and memorable. But at no point do I ever feel like these debates are productive. I guarantee that not one person changed their mind or even reconsidered a position by watching these debates. If anything, all they do is make everyone more extreme and entrenched.
Certain debates have been plenty controversial, given the figures they’ve invited onto this show. But the one that prompted this post involved journalist Mehdi Hasan, who was tasked with debating 20 far-right conservatives.
Now, I don’t want to provide a link to this video. The last thing I want is for this channel to get any extra clicks at my expense. I’ll just say that the label “far-right conservatives” was too generously. Even calling them outright fascists would’ve been too kind. These people who “debated” Mr. Hasan are just assholes in the highest order.
Their politics have nothing to do with policy. They revolve entirely around being a dick to whoever they want, facing no consequences, and getting paid/empowered by their dickish behavior. These aren’t just people who want to live in conservative utopia. They want a world where they’re masters on a planation and everyone else is a slave who does their bidding.
But to write them off or claim they’re not representative of conservative values is missing the point. The fact remains that Jubilee sought them out. Jubilee platformed and emboldened them. Their rhetoric wasn’t just stupid, hateful, and irresponsible. In this current system of clickbait, bots, and algorithms, their assholery will be rewarded.
Sure, one of the participants lost his job for basically espousing Nazi talking points. But then, he used a go-fund-me to raise thousands of dollars to ensure he’ll be rewarded. And any system or society that effectively rewards people who champion Nazi shit is doomed to fail.
Now, as someone who makes YouTube videos who will never have the audience of Jubilee, I understand the desire to get more views, clicks, and subscribers. But at what point is it worth empowering people who champion Nazi shit? No amount of money is worth it. History has shown what happens when assholes like this are emboldened. We cannot let that history repeat itself.
Once again, I call on everyone behind the Jubilee channel to take a step back, think hard about what you’re doing, and realize this shit isn’t just irresponsible. It’s dangerous. If you want to host more debates with Skip Bayless and passionate sports fans, then go for it. That’s far less likely to involve Nazi shit. But what you did with Mehdi Hasan was far beyond any line that should never be crossed.
You have the power to stop.
You have the power to delete the video or at the very least, apologize for it.
Use that power wisely. Because the people who talk Nazi shit sure as hell won’t.
In general, I try not get involved in religious discussions. Even though I talk about religion every now and then, I always make it a point to distinguish the individual from the ideology. There many good and decent people who identify as Christians, Muslims, Hindus, and plenty of other faiths. I have religious people in my own family. I love and respect them. And I make it a point to avoid talking about religion or any politics related to it.
That being said, there are some instances where I just can’t be that understanding. And in recent years, I’ve noticed the number of those instances increasing at an alarming rate. In the coming years, I may look back on 2025 as a major tipping point for me. Because that’s when the disconnect between religion and its adherents just became too vast to overlook.
The big moment came just the day after the new Presidential administration was sworn in. That’s when Bishop Mariann Budde delivered an impassioned sermon at Washington’s National Cathedral in which she urged the newly elected President to exercise mercy, compassion, and empathy for everyone. This is not a wholly unreasonable request. It’s not even overly religious, in general. It’s just basic human decency. Isn’t that exactly what you’d want for anyone who occupies a position of power or influence?
Well, apparently that was too radical, too offensive, and too un-American for many “Christians.”
And yes, I put that word in quotes for a reason. Because the people who took offense to this sermon have as much right to call themselves a Christian as I do to call myself a Wookie. In this instance, I cannot be understanding or accommodating. Because this bishop wasn’t being disrespectful or condesending. She was literally just preaching some of the most basic teachings of Jesus Christ.
You don’t need a PHD in theology to understand those teachings. Pretty much every translation of every bible says the same thing. Jesus taught his adherents to love and care for one another. He emphasized having mercy for others, even when they wrong you. That is not a radical interpretation. It’s one of the few values that Jesus and most denominations agree on.
And yet, Bishop Budde faced a severe backlash, not just from the President, but from many people who dare to identify as “Christian.” I’ve even seen a few make these long, semi-coherent rants trying to quote mine the bible or other “Christian” principles to justify their outrage. But the mere fact that this was their recourse, arguing with a Bishop who just asked people to be merciful, speaks to a disgusting hypocrisy.
Now, there’s a lot I could say about that kind of hypocrisy. I used to foolishly believe that hypocrisy was one of the few traits that most people cannot tolerate in the long run. Sadly, I was wrong. Between shifts in politics, trends, and simply dealing with these people more directly, I no longer believe that. This kind of hypocrisy isn’t a bug. It’s a feature.
What else could justify people who call themselves “Christian,” yet are deeply offended by the literal teachings of Jesus or any sermon that dares to demand adherents to exercise empathy? What happened with Bishop Budde isn’t even a one-off. There are pastors who have been forced out of their positions because parishioners complained that their teachings were too progressive, liberal, or “woke.”
Just take a moment to wrap your head around that kind of mentality. Someone who calls themselves a Christian, goes to church, listens to a sermon, and doesn’t like what a bishop or pastor says. But their first instinct isn’t to re-evaluate what it means to be a Christian. It’s to whine, complain, and protest like a kid who just found out they actually have to be good in order to get presents on Christmas.
Instead of introspection, their first instinct is to get angry and whiny. That’s childish.
Their next instinct is to go out of their way to find some justification for why the Bishop or pastor is wrong and they’re right. That’s just self-centered and self-serving.
If they’re too lazy to do that (and most of them are), their final recourse is to call whoever delivered that message some agent of evil or part of some sinister agenda. That’s just plain fucking stupid, as well as overtly narcissistic.
It basically reveals that these “Christians” don’t give a damn about teachings, principles, or anything of the sort. They just want their pastors and bishops to tell them what they already believe. They want to be vindicated in everything they feel, even if it’s wrong, dumb, cruel, or sadistic. Most importantly, they want a version of their faith that justifies them doing whatever it is they’re currently doing or whatever it is they seek to do.
Even if they seek to do the exact opposite of everything Jesus taught, they want to be justified. They want to be able to commit every sin that Jesus preached against, but still be able to call themselves “Christian” without any cognative dissonence.
I don’t doubt for a second that, in their own twisted minds, they think they’re the “true Christians.” They think that call for empathy and compassion was somehow wrong, flawed, or inappropriate. To those people, I cannot be kind or subtle with my sentiments.
If you believe that what Bishop Budde said about mercy and compassion was wrong or even just inappropriate, then you are not a Christian. You never have been. You never were. And unless you actually come to grips with what Jesus actually taught, according to the bible, you never will be.
I’ve been using the internet for a good chunk of my life. I’m old enough to remember the days of slow dial-up, AOL chatrooms, and messy Geocities websites. And while I don’t miss those days, there are certain elements of my internet experience that have remained fairly constant.
One of them has to do with debates. And if you’ve ever talked politics, comics, anime, or movies with anyone on any medium, you know how heated that can get.
Believe me, I know this as well as anyone. I still haven’t forgotten how heated some debates got on the old comic book message boards I used to frequent. Some want to say social media ruined discourse by making it too easy to engage in such debates. But I respectfully disagree.
This sort of tension between people always existed. Human beings have always had their share of strongly held opinions that they were debate, discuss, and defend far past the point of reason. It doesn’t matter how smart, educated, or well-informed they are. The passion with which they hold their views has always been strong. The internet and social media simply made it more prominent.
I’m bringing this up for two reasons. For one, I see a lot of debates and arguments online, especially in comments sections and on social media. I freely admit that I engage in some of that discourse. It’s rarely productive. And I’ve yet to meet anyone who has been convinced to change their position on something based on a point someone made in a Facebook comment.
Second, I live in the United States of America and this year happens to be an election year. Debates about politics, issues, and policies are bound to get more heated. And that’ll only escalate the closer we get to Election Day on November 5, 2024. I fully expect to see plenty of discourse that will make me lose my faith in democracy, the future, and humanity in general.
For those reasons, and plenty others I don’t care to articulate, I want to present a simple hypothetical to anyone seeking to debate others in any capacity on any issue, be it political or otherwise. It’s not a thought experiment. It’s just a simple perspective that I hope provides greater context into the nature of discourse. It goes like this.
You and one other person are standing in a room. You both hold opposite positions on a particular issue. You spend five minutes making your case to the other person. Then, the other person spends five minutes making theirs. You are not at all swayed by their argument and they are not at all swayed by yours.
But before you start any further discussion, a third person enters the room and pulls out a special phone containing critical, indisputable information about the issue.
In one scenario, the phone contains information that vindicates your position.
In another scenario, the phone contains information that completely disproves your position.
In which scenario do you actively fight for possession of the phone?
What I just described is situation that I hope adds context to the what, why, and how of debating others. Because if you approach this hypothetical in good faith, it puts you in a difficult position. Either you admit you seek vindication and are willing to fight for it or you actively avoid the implication that your position is wrong.
Call it confirmation bias.
Call it cognitive dissonance.
Call it an impossible scenario that will never play out because there are too many issues that cannot be completely verified beyond any and all doubts.
If you’re honest with yourself, you know how you’ll react in that scenario. And if you’re honest about how most people operate in heated discourse, you’ll know how your opponent would react in this scenario.
However you feel about what I just presented, I only ask that you keep it in mind as you engage in further discourse moving forward.
Like many Americans of a certain age, I was elated when I heard that Jon Stewart, the Walter Cronkite of an entire generation, was returning to the Daily Show. It may sound strange, being so thrilled with a comedian returning to a job he hasn’t done in almost 10 years. But Jon Stewart is no ordinary host/comedian.
This is a man whose comedy, wit, and insights made the news palatable for millions of people who were disillusioned, dissatisfied, and mostly disinterested with the issues of the day. He could take something as complicated as gun control, abortion rights, international relations, and war and present in a way that most ordinary people could understand and even laugh at.
But the comedy didn’t come from making light of these issues. They were a natural byproduct of Jon Stewart’s innate ability to confront the absurdities and the bullshit that often lay at the foundation of these issues, as well as the people or institutions who were supposed to deal with them.
It didn’t matter where anyone was on the political spectrum.
It didn’t matter if they were republican, democrat, or independent.
If there was even a trace amount of bullshit behind the political machinations, Jon Stewart would highlight it, confront it, and present it in a way that made it feel important. It’s a big reason why, despite an increasing amount of political polarization, Stewart often ranked high as a trusted name for people of many persuations.
But there were also times when comedy was not enough or not appropriate. In those instances, Jon Stewart could be both serious and passionate. When Congress threatened to cut benefits for 9/11 responders, Stewart made a very public, very impassioned plea that ultimately resulted in the benefits being passed. If you need any proof at just how powerful one voice can be, just watch the testimony for yourself.
There’s a lot more about Jon Stewart that I can say. I understand he’s one of those rare celebrity figures whose voice carries more weight than most. But I’ll dispense with those sentiments because, after seeing him return to the Daily Show and demonstrate his remarkable skill for confronting bullshit, I have one important message for him
Jon Stewart, on behalf of America and everyone who cherishes the values it espouses, please run for President.
I know it’s a hallow and somewhat absurd plea. It’s not like Jon will ever read this, but I’m not the only one who has made this plea. Others with far larger platforms have implored him to run. Even though Stewart has gone on record as saying he doesn’t want the job, that just makes him even more qualified in my mind.
Now, I love America. And I consider myself a proud American. But I don’t deny that this country I love has taken a dark, disturbing turn in recent years. Between the rise of Christian Nationalism and the rollback of basic rights, we are not heading down a good path. And if we’re not careful, we could end up electing the kind of narcissistic wannabe despot who would gladly destroy America’s democratic institutions for his own personal vanity.
You know who I’m talking about. I won’t say his name. I refuse to give him more attention than he deserves.
But Jon Stewart is the perfect candidate to counter that kind of self-centered bullshit. He’s not just someone with the wit and charisma to appeal to voters. He’s not afraid to directly confront toxic people with toxic politics, even on live TV. If you need a reminder of how effective he is, just watch this.
During contentions times like this, there aren’t many individuals who can navigate the bullshit and resonate with people of many backgrounds. I would even make that case that none of the candidates currently running for President or showing an interest in running have what it takes to do the job.
But Jon Stewart is one of those individuals. He might very well be the only person whose name, skill set, and public persona is strong enough to carry both an election and the duties necessary to undo the damage that has been done to America.
But in times like this, we can’t let the past obstruct the present. When a country and a society is on a bad path, we need to rally ourselves and others to navigate these dangerous forces. Nobody can do it alone. One leader isn’t going to fix everything. But someone like Jon Stewart is one of the few who could help America realize that it’s not too late.
I don’t claim to know what will happen with American politics in the days leading up to the election. I just know that, even if there’s no such thing as a perfect candidate, Jon Stewart is pretty damn close.
As a general rule, I do not look to celebrities to inform my opinions on politics. And I strongly recommend that approach for everyone. Getting your politics from a celebrity is like getting medical advice from a plumber. It’s both misguided and irrational.
That even applies to celebrities with the star power of Taylor Swift. I’m fully aware that, in terms of celebrity star power, she’s on a very different level compared to most. I even referenced her when I said nobody should ever be as famous as Michael Jackson. Be that as it may, she might very well be the only one to come close to that level of star power.
Now, I don’t consider myself a full-blown Swifty, as they’re called. But I do have friends and relatives who are as passionate about all things Taylor Swift as I am about superhero comics. And I totally respect that. I get that kind of passion. But even those die-hard Taylor Swift fans understand on some levels that she’s not a political figure. She’s an entertainer and, by far, one of the most successful of the past 25 years.
Then, there are those who are angry at Taylor Swift for her recent politics. But unlike other instances in which celebrities mix star power with politics in objectively awful ways, this anger is even dumber than usual. It barely even has anything to do with politics, which makes it even dumber when people try to put a political spin on it.
While I’d rather not get into all the drama surrounding Taylor Swift’s foray into politics, going back to 2020, the current source of outrage is this. Taylor Swift is dating Travis Kelce, the star tight end of the Kansas City Chiefs. And her presence at Chiefs games has had a significant impact on both the ratings of those and the overall interest in this relationship.
Naturally, the NFL loves the extra attention they’re getting from Swift’s legion of dedicated fans. But there is also a sizable crowd of angry, politically motivated individuals who hate the attention she’s bringing to the games, as well as the “politics” she’s engaged in. And I put “politics” in quotes because the criteria these people are using is too stupid for me to put into words.
Officially, the only real political activity Swift has engaged in since 2020 is encouraging people to register to vote. She never told anyone who to vote for or even what party to vote for. She just used her massive platform as a celebrity to get people out to vote. In most circumstances, that’s an objectively good thing. Getting people to participate in the democratic process helps the country, as a whole.
But unofficially, those who hate this brand of “politics” think she and Travis Kelce are part of some elaborate conspiracy to rig the 2024 Presidential Election against their side. They genuinely believe in a real, tangible conspiracy theory that has shadowy political forces manipulating Swift into influencing the upcoming election in a certain way.
Again, it is too stupid for words. I could write an entire book on how stupid it is, but it still wouldn’t be enough.
So, without getting too deep into the politics, I just want to convey one important message to those who are angry with Taylor Swift, her politics, her current relationship, and her public persona.
Getting angry at her for such petty reasons is a huge mistake.
That’s not a warning or anything. That’s just a simple, logical observation. Because targeting public figures for their political views is bad enough. We’ve already seen this same crowd of angry reactionaries target companies, comedians, school boards, and even a children’s hospital.
Yes, they actually got angry at a children’s hospital. That, alone, should tell you all you need to know about the nature of these peoples’ anger.
But going after Taylor Swift is different. She is not someone who is unaccustomed to public scrutiny. She has been a celebrity for over a decade, long before the current political climate. She also is familiar with dealing with hostile fans. So, she’s likely not going to be intimidated by that sort of fiery rhetoric.
Most critically, Taylor Swift has legions of passionate fans who won’t hesitate to defend her. And in this case, they would be perfectly right in defending her because she’s doing nothing outrageous. Again, all she has done since 2020 is encourage people to register to vote. And the fact that this is what enrages these reactionaries so much is both telling and pathetic.
It’s as though they know for a fact that if more people vote, they’re more likely to lose major elections. They’re aware that their views are unpopular, untenable, and just plain wrong. And the only why they have a chance of winning is if enough people aren’t motivated to vote.
That, in and of itself, is pretty egregious. But take another step back and look at the larger message this outrage is sending. These people are utterly outraged at Taylor Swift, one of the most successful and celebrated entertainers of all time, for simply not agreeing with them politically. The way she carries herself, the way she navigates the world of celebrity, and the political stances she’s taken in the past are just too much for them.
And that, simply put, is pathetic.
On top of that, these reactionaries are telling Swift’s legion of fans that they hate her for this one simple disagreement. And many of those fans are young, passionate, and likely weren’t even interested in her politics until people from a certain end of the political spectrum started attacking her. How do you think they’re going to feel about those who hate her? Moreover, how do you think that’s going to impact their voting habits?
Personally, I still don’t care about Taylor Swift’s politics. Even if she didn’t agree with me politically, I would still have her songs on my workout playlist. Whenever there’s a disagreement like that with anyone, celebrity or otherwise, it’s just easier to shake it off.
But that apparently isn’t enough for these angry, reactionary whiners. They still feel compelled to attack her for the sin of not going along with their agenda. And they really think they’re more powerful than Taylor Swift’s legion of fans.
Well, if they really think that, by all means. Keep trying to villainize her. Keep pretending that hating her won’t have a significant influence on young people who love her music. Just don’t be surprised if the consequences aren’t something you can easily shake off.
We live in strange, tense, and frustrating times. I know you could say that about any point in any era. But it feels like we’ve been saying that a lot late. I know I have. Just look at some of the posts I’ve made onor near Election Day in the United States. But as someone who lives less than two hours from Washington DC, I tend to feel the politics of these times more than most. And I’ve been around long enough to see some strange and troubling trends.
Then, there are certain acts or phenomena that are just plain stupid on a level that defies parody.
I generally try to empathize and understand where other people are coming from, especially if they have a different background or ideology from my own. There are just some instances where that’s not possible. The breadth of the stupidity is just too great.
That’s exactly how I feel about book bans. For reasons that are too fucking idiotic for me to paraphrase, there are real people living in real places in the United States of America who are advocating for book bans. Some are going so far as to burn them.
Again, this is not 1933. This is happening in 2023. That point is worth belaboring.
Now, I don’t want to name names or organizations. But you don’t have to look far to see who are advocating for book bans. You also don’t have to dig too deep to uncover what sort of ideology they ascribe to.
Here’s a hint. It’s the same ideology the requires stormtroopers, secret police, and prison camps.
But all you really need to know is that these efforts are usually the ones the villains in every TV show, book, or movie get behind. They see people reading books with ideas they don’t like. They worry that those same people, which include children and young adults needed for factories and war zones, embracing or identifying with those ideas.
But rather than confront those ideas, the book banning advocates would just prefer that people never know about those ideas in the first place. The evil, sadistic logic is that if people never read about it, then they can never think about it. And if they can never think about it, then they’re easier to control and guide.
That may not be the reason book banning advocates say out loud, but that is the effect. They’ll usually frame it as “protecting children” or “combating obscenity.” But don’t fall for that. At the end of the day, those who seek to ban books just want to eliminate ideas and stories they don’t like from the public consciousness.
That’s not conducive to protecting children and fostering a healthy society.
That’s a tactic for fascists, authoritarians, dictators, and general assholes.
Now, those tactics were certainly damaging in the past. Until very recently, books were the primary source of important information. If people didn’t have access to books, then they didn’t have access to knowledge, stories, and new ideas. Finding or preserving banned books used to take a concerted effort and many brave individuals put their lives at risk to further those efforts.
However, what makes modern book bans especially stupid is the simple fact that the internet exists. Libraries and book stores are no longer the lone repositories of knowledge and stories. Anyone with a smartphone can access more knowledge in five seconds than an entire university of academics could 50 years ago.
At this point, trying to ban books is akin to trying to censor telegrams. All they achieve now is raising the profile of these books they’re trying to ban. Hell, the book banning advocates might as well identify as free advertising because sales of banned books tend to spike whenever they bitch and moan about certain titles.
So, in addition to being a dick move, as well as tactics used primarily by fascists, it’s completely counterproductive. It wastes time, money, energy, and has the opposite effect of what’s intended. With that in mind, I have just one last message to those who still think banning books is a worthwhile endeavor.
As proud as I am to be an American, I’ve grown increasingly frustrated with politics and discourse. I know that’s not saying much. I didn’t live through the turbulent eras of the 60s and 70s. My parents have told me it has been very bad before, but even they admit that this year is a special case of awful. They almost long for the hippie-style protests of the 60s.
I won’t get into why things have become so contentious, although most people can probably discern the most noteworthy source. I don’t have the patience or the sanity to digest that. Instead, I want to offer an observation that I’ve noticed as this election drama has played out. It has to do with both politics and religion, two incredibly divisive forces with a strong basis in absurdities.
I’ve done plenty to highlight the flaws, failures, and outright atrocities that have been committed or justified in the name of religion. I’ve also touched on some of the frustrations and annoyances that manifest in politics. Together, both can be extremely damaging to people and society alike. History has proven that on multiple occasion.
Lately, however, I get the sense that a new kind of zealotry has taken hold. It’s not entirely political or entirely religious. It just take the most destructive elements in both and channels them in a way that inspires some objectively deplorable behavior.
In essence, the same dogmatic stubbornness that often fuels religious extremists has now been applied to someone’s political leanings. By that, I don’t just mean what party they belong to or who they voted for in the last election. I’m saying they now see their political affiliation in the same light some see their religious adherence.
To some extent, this makes sense. Organized religion, in general, has been in a steep decline for decades. The rise of the internet, as well as a more educated public, has significantly undermined religion’s ability to lock in adherents for generations. However, a lack of a religion doesn’t make someone any less inclined to believe absurd, misguided, or demonstrably false concepts.
The same tribalism that often fuels religious rhetoric is becoming a larger factor in politics. I won’t go so far as to say that political ideology is replacing organized religion outright. I just think that same tribalism is becoming a more prominent factor.
It often goes like this. In the past, I often saw discussions like this play out.
Liberal: I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.
Conservative: I respectfully disagree. I think a minimum wage ultimately harms the working poor by limiting the number of entry level jobs.
Liberal: I don’t think the data bears that out, but can we agree to disagree?
Conservative: Of course.
That’s fairly civil. Ideally, that’s how political debates should go. It’s not an argument about whose deity is better and who’s going to Hell when they die. It’s just a simple exchange of ideas to further a discussion about real-world issues. It can get ugly at times, but it rarely ventures into the same damaging extremism that often comes with religion.
That kind of civil exchange now feels so long ago. These days, you need only look at a comments section or a thread on social media to see how outrageous the discourse has become. It tends to go more like this.
Liberal: I believe the minimum wage should be raised to $15 an hour.
Conservative: You American-hating, baby-murdering, politically correct cuck! What kind of Marxist wannabe are you? Get the fuck out of this country! You don’t belong here!
Liberal: Fuck you! You’re a racist, sexist fascist, gay-bashing hypocrite! Go back to Nazi Germany and beat your women somewhere else! You’re destroying America!
Conservative: No, you’re destroying America!
Liberal: No, you are!
Conservative: Fuck you!
Liberal: Fuck you!
I admit, this is a generalization, but it’s not that far off. Between Reddit, Twitter, Facebook, and 4chan, this kind of hateful rhetoric is fairly common. Even the street preachers who hold up signs, telling everyone that their deity wants to send them to Hell, isn’t nearly this vitriolic. Anyone who tries to be civil or inject some simple facts into the discussion is quickly drowned out by hateful dogma.
The internet and social media has acted as a catalyst, of sorts. It’s one thing to hold extreme, dogmatic political views. It’s quite another to share them in a community that constantly reinforces, reaffirms, and encourages those views. It’s become incredibly easy to exercise your own confirmation bias. If you have an opinion or want evidence for a crazy belief, chances are you can find it on some dark corner of the internet.
It’s at a point where if you try to criticize someone’s political leanings, it’s not just a point of disagreement. It’s treated as outright blasphemy. I’ve seen it on both sides, although I think those who lean right/conservative are worse offenders. Trying to convince any side that they’re wrong is akin to trying to convince a creationist or flat-Earther that they’re wrong. It just evokes more extremism.
This is not a healthy trend. Religious extremism is bad enough. Plenty of people have died because someone was convinced that a certain holy text was literally true and it was their duty to attack those who don’t agree. To religious zealots, the mere act of disagreeing and disbelieving as they do is seen as an insult, an affront, and an act of violence. That can’t be how we treat politics.
At the same time, the ugly forces of tribalism are still as strong as ever, if not more so in the age of the internet. Those influences aren’t going away anytime soon. Being part of a tribe or group is fine. We’re a very social species. It’s part of why we’re so successful. However, that same force that unites us can also inspire the ugliest kind of hate.
At its worst, it makes view anyone who disagrees with us as a non-person. They’re not sub-human, but they are someone we would rather not have in our domain. It’s not enough to disagree with them. We’d prefer they not even exist in any way that affects us.
It’s a special kind of dehumanizing and something religion has done for centuries, weaponizing the age-old us-versus-them mentality. We can only do so much to temper our tribal nature, but there comes a point where the line between differences and hatred become too blurred. We share this same planet. We also live in countries full of people who don’t agree with us.
That’s okay. We can still be friends with these people. We don’t have to hate, scold, insult, demean, or dehumanize them. That’s a conscious choice we make and, unlike religion, it requires little in terms of indoctrination. As society becomes less religious, it’s important to remember why we’re moving away from organized religion in the first place.
In the same way most religious people are decent, good people, most people of any political affiliation are the same. We’re still human at the end of the day, but I sincerely worry that the increasing ugliness of politics is making us forget that.
Jack Fisher's Official Publishing Blog 
An Important Hypothetical Question To Consider (Before Any Debate)
I’ve been using the internet for a good chunk of my life. I’m old enough to remember the days of slow dial-up, AOL chatrooms, and messy Geocities websites. And while I don’t miss those days, there are certain elements of my internet experience that have remained fairly constant.
One of them has to do with debates. And if you’ve ever talked politics, comics, anime, or movies with anyone on any medium, you know how heated that can get.
Believe me, I know this as well as anyone. I still haven’t forgotten how heated some debates got on the old comic book message boards I used to frequent. Some want to say social media ruined discourse by making it too easy to engage in such debates. But I respectfully disagree.
This sort of tension between people always existed. Human beings have always had their share of strongly held opinions that they were debate, discuss, and defend far past the point of reason. It doesn’t matter how smart, educated, or well-informed they are. The passion with which they hold their views has always been strong. The internet and social media simply made it more prominent.
I’m bringing this up for two reasons. For one, I see a lot of debates and arguments online, especially in comments sections and on social media. I freely admit that I engage in some of that discourse. It’s rarely productive. And I’ve yet to meet anyone who has been convinced to change their position on something based on a point someone made in a Facebook comment.
Second, I live in the United States of America and this year happens to be an election year. Debates about politics, issues, and policies are bound to get more heated. And that’ll only escalate the closer we get to Election Day on November 5, 2024. I fully expect to see plenty of discourse that will make me lose my faith in democracy, the future, and humanity in general.
For those reasons, and plenty others I don’t care to articulate, I want to present a simple hypothetical to anyone seeking to debate others in any capacity on any issue, be it political or otherwise. It’s not a thought experiment. It’s just a simple perspective that I hope provides greater context into the nature of discourse. It goes like this.
What I just described is situation that I hope adds context to the what, why, and how of debating others. Because if you approach this hypothetical in good faith, it puts you in a difficult position. Either you admit you seek vindication and are willing to fight for it or you actively avoid the implication that your position is wrong.
Call it confirmation bias.
Call it cognitive dissonance.
Call it an impossible scenario that will never play out because there are too many issues that cannot be completely verified beyond any and all doubts.
If you’re honest with yourself, you know how you’ll react in that scenario. And if you’re honest about how most people operate in heated discourse, you’ll know how your opponent would react in this scenario.
However you feel about what I just presented, I only ask that you keep it in mind as you engage in further discourse moving forward.
Leave a comment
Filed under philosophy, political correctness, politics, Thought Experiment
Tagged as bias, cognitive dissonance, comments section, conservative, debate, democracy, democrat, discourse, Donald Trump, Election Day, hate speech, human psychology, internet comments, liberal, news, political debate, political discourse, politics, psychology, republican, sociology, the internet, Trump