Vol. 140: Violence? Hate speech?

Here’s where we stand

As part of the Trump administration’s campaign to chill dissenting voices, the Attorney General’s Office recently ordered all media outlets to submit copies of their policies regarding violence and hate speech. Since we had no such policy here at The Contrarian’s Notebook, last week I hastily convened our board of directors to hammer one out. I am pleased (and, frankly, also relieved) to report that, following a contentious three-hour meeting, our board resolved, by an overwhelming majority— 12 to three, with two abstentions— to stand united in our condemnation of violence of all sorts.

This condemnation extends not merely to guns, but to all violence, including stabbing, clubbing, strangling, poisoning, torture, firebombing, dismemberment, raping, groping, gouging out someone’s eyes, dropping somebody out of an airplane, binding and gagging a helpless victim and feeding him or her to a crocodile, roughing a passer, face-mask violations, and tush pushes.

Our three dissenting directors sought to carve out some exceptions where retaliatory violence might be justified, such as when a mass murderer breaks into your home with a machine gun and opens fire, or when some inconsiderate jerk cuts ahead of you on a supermarket checkout line. These are reasonable arguments with which men and women of goodwill may disagree in an atmosphere of mutual respect. But as our majority directors pointed out, any exception would put us on a slippery slope: Once you justify some violence, someone could someday justify any violence. And who, ultimately, would decide which violence is acceptable? So we beat the shit out of them.

The case for capital punishment

Of greater concern to me were our two abstaining directors. The very life blood of a democracy depends on the courage of citizens to stand up and say what they believe. These gutless cowards not only refused to tell us where they stand, they also refused to tell us where they live. Right now they’re cowering in some attic or cellar somewhere. If I get my hands on them, I’ll really give them something to cower about, believe me.

We who condemn violence in society must inevitably support stringent enforcement mechanisms against it, if only to demonstrate that we take this issue seriously. That is why our board— except for the three dissenters and two abstainers— vigorously supports capital punishment. If we don’t execute people, how will they learn?

As for hate speech, I speak for our entire board— except, again, for the three dissenters and two abstainers— when I say unequivocally: We hate it.

Pompous professors

Americans must understand once and for all that there is a difference between words and actions. If, in the course of a discussion, someone calls your mother a two-bit whore, that’s a reflection on him, not on you or your mother. If he produces a bag full of quarters with your mother’s name and address on it, then you have a problem.

The best way to contend with an argument is to engage with it rather than denounce it. For example, if you favor the current 15% long-term capital gains tax rate on income over $48,350 ($96,700 for married couples filing jointly) and she prefers the previous threshold of $47,025 for single filers ($94,051 if filing jointly), attack her with logic, not guns. Point out that she can still calculate her taxable income by subtracting the greater of the standard or itemized deductions from her adjusted gross income. What could be simpler?

Tell your adversaries, “Sticks and stones will break my bones, but names will never hurt me.” If they throw sticks and stones, that’s another story.

Suppose you’re dealing with some pompous professorial type who demolishes your arguments with facts and figures in a condescending way that makes you feel like an idiot. Is that any reason to handcuff him to a chain-link fence, strip off his pants, slather honey all over his private parts, and release a swarm of killer bees in his direction while you chortle with delight over his slow and painful death? Who would even think of such a thing?

Internet problems

Remember what Gandhi said when he was beaten by a British soldier during one of his non-violent protest demonstrations: “I’d like to kick that motherfucker right in the balls. But in the long run, that would be counterproductive.”

Better still, hold fast to the immortal words of Thomas Jefferson: “I have sworn upon the altar of God eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But I’m not quite ready to give up my slaves. I’ve got a family to support, you know.”

We at The Contrarian’s Notebook (aside from our three dissenters and two abstainers) recognize that we live in a unique time. The digital transformations of this century have pushed us into personalized bubbles of ideology and information. On the Internet, everyone poses as a journalist. Even some dogs and cats. At such a time, the best solution for all of us is to develop a healthy sense of skepticism. But some things don’t change with the passage of time. The saving grace of civilizations past and present can be boiled down to a single word: kindness. And if you disagree, screw you.