What’s Happening to My Conservative Friends on Social Media?

I have noticed less and less cockiness from my conservative friends on social media.  Indeed, some have left the forum entirely.  Among many who have stayed, however, there is a sense of victimization – maybe persecution is a better word – in what I see online in the days since Donald Trump has been elected and taken office.

I am too timid to copy and paste examples even after covering names and images, but I hope my experience is common enough where you do not need my examples to understand the point.  Just log on and take a look.

Recently a friend posted a meme featuring a why-can’t-we-all-get-along quote from Dave Matthews.  The laments that followed in the comments would have been unthinkable 12 months ago.  One person blamed Barack Obama for creating the “Us vs. Them” conflict through a process of indoctrination using the schools, media, and something vaguely called “the social constructs” (cf. Richard Dawkins) that turn against people who want to think outside the box.

That is bewildering.  Even funny.

Another blamed the mainstream media for perpetuating the “Us vs. Them” tension.   He sums it up simply:  “Perpetuated by the mainstream media. Promoted by the mainstream media. Instigated and formulated by the MSM.”  Perhaps this person has a problem with the media doing its job and calling a spade a spade, however, this person also ended his post with an exclamation point: “Let’s call a spade a spade.”

Sadly, among the problems with meaningful discourse today, is the tenuous relationship people have with facts…or even alternative facts.  For some people, just not agreeing with a fact is enough to make it false.  Quite literally.

Let’s review a couple things.  First, who is president right now?  It isn’t Barack Obama.  It is Donald Trump.  If Obama is the reason why we cannot get along, is he also the reason why Carrier saved a few hundred jobs in Indiana?  Should we be sending Barack a thank you card for pushing the Dow over 20,000?  Come on, this sort of blame game is trite.  It misses the bigger point anyway.  If President Barack Obama were so good at indoctrinating people into seeing things his way, why did he have so much trouble promoting his political agenda?  Why did we have so many people giving Trump what Trump thinks is a historic victory?!

And the mainstream media canard.  Hahaha!  Oh, good lord, it is precisely the act of calling a spade a spade that rankles a thin-skinned Donald Trump and cows his supporters.  They are offended by facts.

I find it quaint that conservatives try to co-opt the bullied underdog.  We see it happening with indignation among conservative leaders who whine about “obstruction” when the right made obstruction its raison d’etre for eight freaking years!

So cry me a river.  Not buying it.  The difference doesn’t necessarily boil down about opinions of who is right and who is wrong, but it does most certainly stand on who has been more faithful to facts, reason, and integrity in recent years.  On that ground, conservatives – however befuddled, fooled, or sheepish they may be now – have no place to claim.  Besides, I am not convinced one can be the victim of his own misdeeds.  Tragic heroes the right is not.

Melissa Harris-Perry’s “Insulting” Discussion of Star Wars and Race

Until tonight I had no idea who Melissa Harris-Perry is, but a rant posted on Facebook about her claims that Star Wars is racist because Darth Vader is black caught my attention.  Not knowing who Melissa Harris-Perry is or seeing the supposed offending clip from her television program didn’t really matter.  I knew there was something here that wasn’t going to make a lot of sense.  Let me briefly get it off my chest.

First off, Melissa Harris-Perry does not go off on some rant condemning Star Wars as a racist film because Darth Vader is black.  Melissa Harris-Perry shared feelings from her childhood that matter to her.  She did not condemn the story.  Instead, the segment gives her a chance — very briefly — to share those feelings, and go on to explain that it is good to see more diverse role models in the new Star Wars film.  That’s it!

The posts condemning Melissa Harris-Perry are outrageous and silly, damning  her as a liberal “fucktard” and all the rest.  (My friend reposting the link thinks Harris-Perry should be fired!)  All I can say is calm down, your outrage betrays your shame.

David Prowse as Darth Vader in The Empire Strikes Back (1980) (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Overall, the discussion of diversity in Star Wars was smart and simple, highlighting the positive roles across race, gender, and even animals and machines!  Barbie dolls get a mention, too.  It is all harmless and, frankly, enlightening.

I don’t know a lot about the black and white dichotomy where black is associated with evil and white with good in our society.  I suspect it has something to do with the Old Testament where we are told on the first day god divided light from dark or some such thing, right?  We can debate how relevant that is or should be, but I don’t think there is any offense in pointing out the dichotomy.  In any case, it really has little bearing here.

Rather, I would suggest that people who find something wrong with this sort of comment — people who feel that there is something insulting about it all — have other not-so-hidden issues.  Can you feel outrage if there isn’t something personal being attacked?  What threat does a discussion of race in a film raise?  And why?

That is the real issue here.  It reflects a sort of tribalism — we versus the other — that is defined by race and more specifically race as a point of difference and conflict.

Take a deep breath, inspect your anger!

Businesses, Hammers, and Other Tools in Indiana

U.S Postage Stamp, 1957 (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

While conservatives scramble  to quell the furor caused by the so-called Religious Freedom Restoration Act passed by the Indiana State Legislature, describing it all as a big misunderstanding, I would suggest that whatever the law’s “real” intent, it is largely irrelevant now.  The legislation has become a cultural gestalt, something different from and something more than itself which betrays the absurd intrusion of religion in the quasi-democratic values and priorities that drag on American society today.

Serious people can debate the “real” intent of the law.  Go at it.  What matters now are the lines drawn on either of what people think the law means.  At the heart of the disagreement is a flawed notion of who — and quite literally what — has rights and how they should be exercised and protected.  On one side of this disagreement, religion has merely become an abused prop for weak arguments.

For example, a friend posted on Facebook her support for Apple CEO Tim Cook, a gay man, who wrote an opinion critical of the Indiana legislation.  Comments to her post were hostile, not only attacking Tim Cook and his position, but my friend as well.

Most of these posts I would not share, but part of one  serves my purpose here.  It is the following:

“Equality doesn’t mean people need to sin for homosexuals. If businesses morally believe that homosexuality is wrong they shouldn’t be made to partake. That isn’t freedom.”

There is a lot of moral judgement — and prejudice — in this genuinely misinformed comment. In particular I am puzzled by the idea that “if businesses morally believe that homosexuality is wrong they shouldn’t be made to partake.”  How, exactly, does a business believe anything?

Now I presume our critic really means a business owner shouldn’t need to “partake” and “sin” because doing so “isn’t freedom.”  (That raises questions, too, ones that are not entirely irrelevant.  What does this person think a business owner might be coerced to do that would be a sin?)

In the real world, businesses are tools.  They are a means of organizing an endeavor and an enterprise.  To say that a business “believes” anything is nothing different than saying a hammer believes X or Y.  It is absurd.

And a business owner is someone who owns a tool.  A business owner should not be allowed to use that tool to attack or oppose the rights of another person anymore than he should be allowed to use a hammer to do so.  It is that simple.

For pragmatic reasons Indiana likely will change it is poorly conceived “freedom act”, but that doesn’t change the underlying issues.  Increasingly, making claims for religious freedom has replaced both thoughtfulness and tolerance in our society.  You might think religion would inspire just the opposite, but too often it doesn’t.  And maybe that’s the case because all of this isn’t about religion in the first place.  Not really.

Here’s an Idea…

Responding to a Facebook post where I embedded an honest comment about Sean Hannity (“Trust me on this one…that guy is nuts.”)  a friend asked “What’s wrong with Sean?”

It strikes me that this is a great opportunity to write a book:  “What’s Wrong with Sean Hannity.”  If I had even a drunken interest in Sean Hannity, I might consider this.  Alas, I can think of nothing more pedestrian and dull.  However, some people might both find Hannity somewhat interesting and willing to tell us what’s wrong with him.

Maybe his mother has nothing to do.

Related articles

• Is Sean Hannity Trying To Provoke A Bloody Conflict With Nevada Rancher Cliven Bundy And Feds?
• Unhinged Sean Hannity Demands $10,000 Bet From ‘Elitist’ Rep. Pascrell
• Sean Hannity’s Continued Efforts To Get Somebody Shot

Facebook: I’m Crossing a Line

I am starting to cross a line on Facebook.  Until tonight I refrained from commenting on foolish political posts.  But I’m not sure I can do that any more.  I’ve posted more outrageous things than the truth on Facebook, so shame the devil and tell the truth.

Tonight a friend shared a bogus claim about murder in the United States and gun laws, bungling false numbers and logic all in one.  Of course the implied message here is gun laws fail to prevent murder and protect people, but as I found in checking the claims made here, nothing in this statement can be verified.  Moreover, this statement doesn’t just misinterpret the data, it doesn’t even get the data right from the start.

In 2012 the cities listed in this blurb totaled 1081 murders. As a matter of fact, New York and Washington DC had large decreases in murders in 2012 and possibly record lows based on rate, which would seem to contradict the idea that the “toughest gun control laws” fail to reduce the occurrence of murder.

According to the FBI, the total number of murders in the United States in 2012 was nearly 15,000 so the murders in these four cities account for about 7% of that total number, which is high, but these cities represent large populations.