Oh, look. A Democrat
Being a Democrat.
I have noticed recently1 that Democrats are really against “violent rhetoric” … 1) When they get caught using it and someone tries to hold them accountable; or 2) When a (non-Democrat) someone else uses their own “violent rhetoric” against them.
The thing is that their voters keep letting them get away with it — not only getting away with it, but rewarding them for such. And you get the behaviour that you tolerate. Or reward.
Case in point: Jay Jones, Democrat politican running for the elected position of Attorney General of Virginia. Apparently Mr Jones not only is enthusiastic about uttering “violent rhetoric”, but seems to proudly hold the odd political position that his opponents need to have family members murdered before they’ll “move on policy”.
I’m guessing that he has … Democrat … ideas on policy, and is frustrated that Republicans won’t blindly back his policies2.
Anyhoo, he also is perfectly ok with putting his “violent rhetoric” in writing:
His fellow Democrats in the Virginia race have called upon him to apologize3, so he did the usual American political fan dance of issuing a non-apology apology4, and when that didn’t work, he followed the next step in the playbook by issuing a slightly5 more apologetic apology6.
Since his fellow Democrats didn’t metaphorically7 backhand him out of his comfy chair and tell him he was done this election, they’re tolerating his “violent rhetoric. And since you get more of the behavior you tolerate …
What really sets my teeth on edge is the plain and simple fact that this vicious parasitic little weasel is going to receive votes. Voters in Virginia — voters who have seen the texts, read the texts, understand the texts — are going to cast votes for him anyway.
And if you think tolerating behaviour gets you more of the behaviour, wait until you see what rewarding that behaviour gets you.
You say you don’t want any more Charlie Kirks? You opine that we must bring “civility” back to “political discourse”? You want to reassure me, and millions like me, that we don’t need to go around armed on the daily because it makes you all twitchy and nervous?
Stop tolerating this bushwa.
And that goes for all sides. One of your lizards runs his/her cakehole with “rhetorical violence”, you kick them out into the cold. Remove their party membership. No more party support. No more party funding. No more party backing. Nothing from the party. And when you catch other lizards in your political party helping them on the sly, same thing happens to them. Shun them, and make it stick. You call for the death of the family of your opponent, then you’re out of the Lizard Party, forever. Period.
Stop tolerating it, and make it hurt when they do it, and the “violent rhetoric” will stop.
But you won’t do that, will you? Nah, you’ll continue to tolerate “violent rhetoric”, you’ll continue to reward “violent rhetoric”, because it’s useful for you.
A pox on both houses.
Ian
I won’t say “recently” as in “geological definition of recently”, but …
How dare they.
Insert “dismissive wanking gesture” from your Humble Scribe here.
“Geez, I’m sorry you were offended.”
VERY slightly.
As an aside, is anyone else annoyed by the American position that a verbal apology is good enough? I was taught that a verbal apology without sincere actions to back it up was just words. Just me? Ok.
-ish.
I’d like to go back to the days when men carried sticks and canes and just whacked the heck out of each other in the halls of government when they’d had enough. Nothing encourages civility like the threat of instant retribution.
“Geez, I’m sorry you were offended.”
More often it's "Geez, I'm sorry you're so stupid that you misunderstood what I said, and were offended by what I could not possibly have meant (but totally did mean)."