Situational Compassion

This is in DC. More people are being bullied:

White silence is violence protesters chant #dcprotest #dcprotests #blmprotest #ACAB #blm #Blacklivesmatter #JacobBlake #KenoshaProtests https://t.co/W8DaT7Li9k

https://twitter.com/rawsmedia/status/1298078919527202816?s=19

People who are still supportive of this movement of goons and bullies, is the reason that you have never been bullied yourselves and can’t have any empathy for the people who are being bullied in these videos? Would you feel the same if these were Trump supporters surrounding a person and demanding she put on a MAGA hat? Is your compassion and humanity reserved for slogans and not human beings?

I very sincerely can’t comprehend how you can see this and still want to be associated with these bullies.

I have discovered with my 4-year-old (who has never been bullied) that compassion for a human being (or even a storybook character) who is being piled on by the crowd is a very early human instinct. Did you never develop it or did you lose it somehow? I’m trying to understand how a human being reaches the point of complete indifference to the sight of an individual being hounded by a crowd.

There are dozens of these videos every day. Are you living in such a bubble that you’ve never seen them? There’s got to be an explanation for so many normal, good people sitting by vapidly while this is happening.

10 thoughts on “Situational Compassion”

  1. The BLM people are brainwashed to believe that they stand for something important. For them it’s almost like a religion. And you said yourself long time ago (it really resonated with me), that talking to a religious person is like talking to a person who is in love and trying to convince them that they put their eggs in the wrong basket. They don’t respond to rational arguments. People eventually fall out of love and I hope that this is what will happen with BLM. People will start seeing it for what is is.

    And of course there are the people who want to be left alone. They raise their fist as a “f. you” gesture. I don’t know how I would react myself. If I was in that restaurant with my kids, I probably would not want to expose them to the verbal abuse that comes with making an anti-BLM statement. If I was there with just my husband or alone, my reaction would be possibly more brave.

    Like

    1. It’s definitely true that these bullies themselves are simply cruel, vicious fucks who are using the fact that their sociopathic tendencies have become socially commendable.

      But I’m trying to reach the normal, good people who aren’t running around the streets kicking old guys on the head and pouring paint on little old ladies. The people who wouldn’t do this themselves but are standing by and generating legitimacy for these bullies.

      I know they are reading this. I know they are justifying this somehow. But I can’t believe they are so callous that they look at the bullied people and don’t feel a single pang. There’s no totalitarian state (yet) forcing them to pretend nothing is happening. What is it then?

      Like

      1. I guess it would look suspicious if you raised your fist in solidarity and defended the ones who didn’t. At least in that particular situation in the restaurant. There is also the argument that you don’t get into an argument with an unhinged person because you are only escalating it. I do believe people will make a statement where it counts. Voting booths, not donating to the cause, not joining the “protests”. Yes, I bet even the “protests” will get old in a month or 2 and anyone with three functioning brain cells will be done with BLM.

        Like

        1. I completely understand not wanting to challenge an enraged crowd that surrounds you. But people are still planning to vote for the party that supports this. And it’s probably going to win. That’s what I’m not getting.

          Like

  2. “There’s got to be an explanation for so many normal, good people sitting by vapidly while this is happening.”

    I think the reason is that they know the authorities are allowing this to happen.

    The video attached to your link shows an criminal assault taking place. Threatening words and actions can reach the threshold of an assault even if there is no physical contact.

    “The act required for an assault must be overt. Although words alone are insufficient, they might create an assault when coupled with some action that indicates the ability to carry out the threat. A mere threat to harm is not an assault; however, a threat combined with a raised fist might be sufficient if it causes a reasonable apprehension of harm in the victim.Intent is an essential element of assault. In tort law, it can be specific intent—if the assailant intends to cause the apprehension of harmful or offensive contact in the victim—or general intent—if he or she intends to do the act that causes such apprehension.”

    In normal times, victims of such assaults would call the police and reasonably expect them to intervene to arrest and charge the so-called protesters. But these incidents are common enough for everyone to know that the authorities would be unlikely to intervene.

    The politics of this are obvious – watch how fast a group of protesters who surrounded someone going into an abortion clinic and shouted anti-abortion slogans in their faces along with making threatening gestures would be hauled away by the constabulary and criminally charged.

    Like

  3. Rod linked to a very good article:

    The Grand Old Meltdown
    What happens when a party gives up on ideas?
    https://www.politico.com/news/magazine/2020/08/24/republicanmeltdown-trump-convention-400039

    QUOTE showing Trump supporting cancel culture

    Consider the case of Goodyear. The tire company recently came under fire after one of its locations introduced a policy that allowed employees to wear apparel with slogans supporting Black Lives Matter but not Blue Lives Matter. Also banned, in addition to the pro-police attire, was any Trump gear, including Make America Great Again hats. With the outcry swelling on social media, the president couldn’t resist jumping in. “Don’t buy GOODYEAR TIRES – They announced a BAN ON MAGA HATS. Get better tires for far less!” Trump tweeted.

    The silliness of this defies description. For one thing, using the bully pulpit some 70 days before the election to blackball an iconic American brand—one headquartered in the swing state of Ohio—is political malpractice, particularly given this year’s sweeping economic disruption. (Goodyear shares fell 6 percent the day of Trump’s tweet.) Moreover, Trump missed the point of the uproar. Instead of seizing on the chance to affirm his support for law enforcement, wielding the incident as proof of a creeping anti-police prejudice, he made it all about himself. When Goodyear’s corporate office intervened, reversing the store’s policy to allow Blue Lives Matter apparel (but not Trump wear), it was celebrated as a triumph by conservatives. “Goodyear Caves to President Trump, Reverses Ban on Blue Lives Matter at Workplace,” read a headline from The Gateway Pundit, a far-right blog that posted at least four stories about the tire tiff.

    But where, exactly, was the victory? Some mechanics in Topeka can once again wear their preferred shirts. But no progress was made on the underlying problem of race relations. Nothing was done to strengthen the trust between law enforcement and their communities. Nowhere was a policy remedy advanced or a cultural reconciliation advocated. It was simply another political hit-and-run, Republicans fighting cancel culture with cancel culture, satisfied to cater to the few rather than build a coalition around the many.

    “I think to myself in situations like this, what would Ronald Reagan do?” said Chip Roy, a freshman congressman from Texas. “The difference is, he would have a speech somewhere at some rally or some event. He would make a joke, some Reaganesque quip, that would put Goodyear in their place while making a larger point. But I don’t believe for a minute that he would ignore it, either. He wouldn’t be OK with corporate warlords bending us to their will.”

    Roy’s point—that Reagan would have kept the matter in perspective, wielding it subtly to advance his loftier aims—is probably right. Still, that no Republicans seemed upset with Trump for bullying yet another business was stunning. What happened to not picking winners and losers?

    Like

      1. One thing I always despised about Republicans was how it was always about this inane, primitive libertarianism. Companies good, the bigger the better. But with the rise of woke corporate totalitarianism this became a ridiculous principle to hold. Especially when we have a growing monopolization of the economy.

        There was a brilliant article by Sorab Ahmari recently on the subject. Enough with corporate worship. We might not have any choices of where to shop but do we have to be indoctrinated in the process?

        Like

        1. Bizarrely, many on the right complain about “woke capitalism” while simultaneously continuing to engage in exactly the sort of libertarianism you describe. It’s totally contradictory.

          Like

    1. Where is the cancel culture in this story, though? Who’s getting cancelled?

      As for “where was the victory,” the question is disingenuous. It is a huge victory in battling corporate totalitarianism.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.