If you prefer to listen rather than read, this blog is available as a podcast here. Or if you want to listen to just this post:
- Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Courts by: Ilya Shapiro
- The Secret of Our Success: How Culture Is Driving Human Evolution, Domesticating Our Species, and Making Us Smarter by: Joseph Henrich
- Rhythm of War (Book Four of The Stormlight Archive) by: Brandon Sanderson
- The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914 by: Margaret MacMillan
- Nobody Wants to Read Your Sh*t by: Steven Pressfield
- The Minuteman by: Greg Donahue
- There is a God: How to Respond to Atheism in the Last Days by: Hyrum Lewis
January started off with a bang, and I was worried that there would be more bangs in between the 6th and the 20th, but fortunately things were pretty quiet. Also, as far as that subject goes I think I’ve already said quite a bit, and other people have said quite a bit more than that, so I thought I’d talk about something lighter. Since this is my book review post it always feels appropriate to talk about books and reading, so let’s do that.
January is a weird month for me when it comes to reading. Every year I have a big annual goal, plus I’m motivated to beat the previous year’s page count (last year it was 37,215, a new record). What this means is that I generally push to finish any book I’m in the middle of by December 31st, so when January dawns I’m not in the middle of any books I’m starting fresh with everything. Since some books may take me several months to finish, I end up doing a significant amount of reading in January I don’t get credit for, i.e. it’s not reflected in the books that show up as being finished that month, it shows up in subsequent months.
At this point you’re all thinking that this is exceptionally boring, and more than you wanted to know, but I do have a point, and as is so often the case that point is that I screwed up. Knowing that this is how January always goes, instead of focusing on some shorter books, I decided to read the latest 1200 page monstrosity from Brandon Sanderson. Which was so huge and started off so slowly, that there was a small chance that when it came time to do this, that would be the only book I would be reviewing. Fortunately, I was incredibly disciplined in January, and I managed to finish just slightly less than my average number of books. Though I will say that as of the 28th of last month, I had only finished three of them, the other four books were all finished during the last three days of the month…
I- Eschatological Reviews
Supreme Disorder: Judicial Nominations and the Politics of America’s Highest Courts
by: Ilya Shapiro
256 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
Supreme Court confirmation battles throughout history, with some additional emphasis on the more recent battles (This was written after Kavanaugh but before Barrett.)
Who should read this book?
People who want historical context for the current battles over nominations. Or people who want a deeper dive on what happened during those battles, along with opinion on the same from a moderate libertarian perspective.
General Thoughts
The look back through history was very interesting, and I recommend the book just for that part. Obviously contentious politics was not invented in 2016, or in 1987. It’s been around for a lot longer than that, and that goes just as much for the Supreme Court as for anything else. But it is clear that the post war years were unusually calm, and when we compare something happening today to how it’s “always been done” we’re comparing today to that post war period, if you go farther back most of the things that are happening now happened at some point historically. That said, though the fights look similar, Shapiro argues, and I agree, that the stakes are different, but before we get to that some random notes I made while reading the book:
- Early on in the country’s history they were less concerned with the ideological balance of the court and more concerned with regional balance. It was felt that one member needed to be from Virginia, and one member had to be from New England, etc. So that regional concerns were properly protected. Interesting to think about this in the context of how balanced the current Supreme Court is on specific dimensions, for example: Ivy League vs. Non-Ivy League. (Spoiler: It’s currently 9-0. And arguably worse than that, all current justices went to law school at either Harvard or Yale.)
- Shapiro puts forth the theory that if Reagan had nominated Bork first, and then Scalia, rather than the other way around, that he probably would have gotten both nominations through. Scalia was charming and would have gotten through regardless, and Bork, who was frank to the point of being combative, would have had an easier time if he hadn’t been the second conservative nominee.
- Shapiro spent a lot of time praising Clarence Thomas, particularly his work ethic. (I myself have often thought that Thomas is unfairly maligned.)
- With that partiality in mind, his take on Anita Hill and the nomination of Thomas to the bench was interesting. I had always had the impression that it came down to his word against hers, and they went with him. But Shapiro seems to indicate that there was almost no evidence to support Hill’s accusations and significant evidence contradicting it. That at best she was exaggerating incidents, and at worst she was outright lying.
- As you might imagine, after the controversy over Merrick Garland not receiving a hearing, Shapiro spends quite a bit of time talking about nominations near the end of a President’s term. He calls it the Thurmond Rule, after it’s first invocation in 1968. And it turns out that not a lot of justices have been nominated and confirmed near the end of a President’s term. Of course having been written between Garland and Barrett he doesn’t cover the full impact of its presence in modern times. But overall the book gives an interesting history of the idea without either dismissing it or advocating for it.
Eschatological Implications
I have often talked in this space about the way in which the Supreme Court has increasingly become the de facto rulers in America, and even the way that this transition somewhat mirrors the end of the Roman Republic. This is increasingly why presidential elections are often decided by what sort of justices the president will nominate. (Would Trump have won in 2016 without this consideration?) A President’s later success is judged by what justices they did nominate. And the nomination of those justices have become far more contentious than any potential legislation because the Supreme Court will be the ones who ultimately decide whether that legislation will take effect.
Various ideas have been offered for how to reverse this trend including getting rid of lifetime tenure, giving each president a set number of nominations, expanding the number of seats, etc. Shapiro reviews several such proposals in the book, but in the end he contends that none of the proposals is going to work as long as the Supreme Court continues to wield such enormous power. That there is no way for the nominations to become less contentious if you’re fighting over the ultimate power to decide the course of the country. Now obviously, as a well known libertarian, Shapiro is going to make this argument, but at the same time it seems self-evident to the point of being tautological. People are going to fight for power, and if ultimate power is vested with the Supreme Court, that’s what they’re going to fight over.
The historical stuff in the book is all important because it illustrates that the Supreme Court didn’t always wield such power, and so perhaps they can return to that state. In this endeavor Shapiro praises the idea of textualism, and in particular Scalia’s championing of it. And he is very critical of Roe v. Wade, pointing to it as the point when things went off the rails. Now it is not my intent to relitigate Roe v. Wade, I have said that I don’t think it will be entirely reversed, even after Barrett’s nomination. (Though certainly if it were ever going to happen this would be the time.) Also it’s worth pointing out that even the Ginsburg thought it was a bad ruling from a legal standpoint. All that aside, I think there’s a credible argument to be made (which is what Shapiro does) that this is when the court took a decisive turn in the direction of absolute power.
I see some similarities here to how the Gracchi brothers used their near absolute power as Tribune of the Plebs to implement their reforms. Reforms which were sorely needed. (This is what the pro choice crowd also argues.) However in the end the only response to such absolute power was for one of the brothers to be clubbed to death (the first such political violence in 400 years) and the other to commit suicide before he could be clubbed to death.
I keep bringing Rome into things because I feel like there’s this similar process happening where loopholes and legalistic interpretations are being invoked more and more rather than relying on the initial understanding of how things are expected to work. The Tribune of the Plebs was not supposed to threaten to veto everything. The Supreme Court was not supposed to invent rights from “penumbras and emanations”, the minority party in the Senate was not supposed to filibuster everything, and the Vice President is not supposed to have the power to change the counting of the Electoral Votes in such a way that it reverses the election. And yet all these things have been attempted. It’s interesting that only the last one failed.
by: Joseph Henrich
446 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
Another answer to the age old question of what separates humans from animals. Our contender this time is the human ability to transmit knowledge in the form of culture. That we don’t just adapt to our environments through genetic mutations but through cultural mutations as well.
Who should read this book?
Similar to Seeing Like a State, a book I reviewed last month, this book was also the subject of a Slate Star Codex review. Both reviews were so good they just about obviate the need to read the actual books. The one for Secret was thorough enough that I used it as the basis for a podcast episode of my own which, even after having read the book, I still stand by. That comparison aside if you felt the need to read one of the two books I would recommend this one over Seeing Like a State.
General Thoughts
As I mentioned I already wrote a blog post about this book. In preparation for this review I re-read that post and I think it still mostly covers my thoughts on the subject of cultural evolution. But, as not all of you will read it, and as it is pretty long. I’ll summarize my previous point.
Cultural evolution is similar to biological evolution in that it can lead to things which take up a lot of resources, but which don’t actually provide a survival advantage. The classic example from biological evolution is peacock feathers. They may be useful for convincing peahens to mate with you, but they don’t do much to help you get away from predators, i.e. it’s an adaptation which is good for the genes but bad for the individual carrying those genes. From the standpoint of cultural evolution you can imagine funny memes occupying a similar position. Being funny helps the meme to propagate, but spending all of your time on reddit consuming memes may have a negative impact on the survival of the person engaged in the behavior. As memes, and culture more broadly, can be created with less time and effort then developing six foot long feathers, one expects that maladaptive examples of the former should be more common. Accordingly, anytime we examine things that have evolved culturally whether they be traditions, taboos, flourishes, art or what have you, we are faced with two questions. Was this bit of culture useful? That is, did it help people with that cultural package survive? And is it still useful? That is, could it help us survive?
At one point the knowledge of how to make stone weapons was fantastically useful, but these days even if you could somehow acquire it, it would have no value other than as an object of curiosity. To see how we might apply it to the debates of our own day: historically there has been a strong tradition of monogamous heterosexual marriage (MHM) among nearly all cultures, especially larger ones. When we ask our two questions about stone tools the answers are obvious, “yes, it was useful” and “no, it’s not still useful” respectively. When we ask our two questions about MHM, the answers are not nearly so clear. In my previous post I gave some standards for how to answer the first question, and concluded that MHM probably had been useful, but it’s possible that it’s not still useful.
Eschatological Implications
While there is and will continue to be lots of debate over whether a particular bit of culture was useful in the past, there are vast implications for the future of any culture in figuring out what traditions and practices are still useful. I think people want to imagine that the forward march of technology has changed everything, but I strongly suspect it has changed far less than people think. While Henrich doesn’t directly address MHM, or, probably wisely for him and his career, really any of the hot button cultural issues of the day, he does address, and at significant length, how difficult it can be to determine what utility a particular cultural practice has. Things that seem clearly to be nothing more than primitive superstitions like reading animal remains to determine where to hunt, turn out to play a critical role. And as both this book and Seeing Like a State point out the negative effects of abandoning a particular tradition or practice can take decades or even centuries to manifest.
II- Capsule Reviews
Rhythm of War (Book Four of The Stormlight Archive)
1232 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
The fourth book of a planned 10 (supposedly two five book series) in Sanderson’s epic saga of the world of Roshar, and the return of the Knights Radiant.
Who should read this book?
If you’ve read the first three and enjoyed them you’ll probably enjoy this one, though it was my least favorite of the four.
General Thoughts
Sanderson has the life I dreamed of when I was in my early 20s. I don’t think I’m bitter about that, but I might be, so you should take that into account with this review. With that potential bitterness in mind let’s start with the bad stuff:
- As already mentioned this was my least favorite of the four books.
- Sanderson is great at writing action and there just wasn’t very much of it in this book.
- I’ve had the impression since book two, but particularly after book three, that whatever character progress was made in the last book gets undone at the beginning of the next book. This is particularly true with Kaladin and Shallan.
- I don’t have any problems with characters dying, but in high fantasy you expect characters to die in a noble fashion. Sanderson seems to do the opposite of that. (I’m thinking in particular of a specific death at the end of the previous book, but a similar thing happens in this book.)
- There’s some big developments right at the end that feel like they came out of left fied.
- There had to be some way to make this book shorter.
And now for the good:
- While I can’t stand Moash and cringe every time he shows up, some of the other bad guys were really good in this one.
- Adolin continues to be one of my favorite characters and I really liked his arc in this one.
- Despite what I said above, this book’s resolution of Shallan and Kaladin’s arc was more satisfying than I expected. Though I fear in book five we’ll be back to square one or at least several squares behind where we ended in this book.
- As usual Sanderson’s world-building is top notch and the way in which he expanded on the “physics” of the world in this book was both cool and interesting.
If you’re interested in having a spoiler filled discussion feel free to email me. In particular if you’ve also finished the book. I’m curious what other people think.
The War That Ended Peace: The Road to 1914
744 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
Events in Europe leading up to the start of World War I
Who should read this book?
As I mentioned I have read a lot of books about World War I recently. I think I would put this at the bottom of the list. Even if your interest was specifically the pre-war years I would read Dreadnought by Robert Massie before this one, despite Massie’s narrower focus.
General Thoughts
This was the final book of my year long dive into World War I. From the previous section you may come away with the impression that I thought that it was bad. This is untrue. It’s more that the other books were all so good. This book did have lots of details about the various crises leading up to the war, particularly those centered in Austria-Hungary’s relationship to the Balkans. This included the Bosnian Crisis and the Balkan Wars.
I’m sure these events were mentioned in the other books I read, but it wasn’t until this book that I quite realized how close in time they were to the actual war. The Bosnian Crisis was 1908-1909 and the Balken Wars happened from 1912-1913. Despite this 1914 started relatively peacefully.
From this sequence I think we can draw three potential lessons:
First, each crisis depleted the “crisis handling reserves” each nation possessed. Everytime they backed down they looked weak. Everytime they peacefully resolved a crisis only to have a new one erupt a couple of years later, the tactic of peaceful resolution suffered. And after each crisis their views inevitably shifted from, “we avoided war” to, “we should have ended up in a better position or gotten more concessions”. Essentially the whole idea that peace was better gradually eroded, and it had been so long since the last war that the idea was never that strong to begin with.
Second and somehow working in the opposite direction, with each crisis that didn’t end in war, it seemed more obvious that such crises would always be peacefully resolved. And therefore (following the above) we can demand more and be more intransigent. (See the demands Austria-Hungary made of Serbia right before the war started.)
Finally, and perhaps most troubling. In the end it would have been better for Germany to have started the war sooner. Had they begun things in 1908 Russia’s position would have been much worse, and even France would have not been quite as prepared as they were in 1914.
And of course there’s the lesson one takes away from all books on World War I. The Kaiser really made things much worse.
I leave it as an exercise to the reader to draw parallels between all of the above and our own time, but there are a lot of them.
Nobody Wants to Read Your Sh*t
210 Pages
Briefly, what is this book about?
How to write well, with a particular look at the various genres of writing (Advertising, screenplays, novels, etc.)
Who should read this book?
Probably anyone who wants to be a better writer could benefit from this book. It’s short, dense with information, and entertaining to boot.
General Thoughts
There are many self-help books out there, though sometimes they’re disguised as autobiographies. And there are many examples, particularly in that latter category of people who claim to give you the secret to success, but what their story really boils down to is, don’t be lazy and get lucky. “I worked really hard while I was at Harvard and had the good fortune to meet <Fill in name of famous person>.” The idea being that the numerous things which had to happen in order to get admitted to Harvard were not the lucky bits, it was developing a relationship with the professor while you were there.
On the other hand, occasionally you come across a book by someone who really struggled, who spent decades failing before they finally started to get a little bit of success. Who really did have to figure out how to do something, they weren’t just handed it. Steven Pressfield is in this latter category. And I find books written by such people to be both far more enjoyable, and far more useful.
If you have any interest at all in writing I would recommend this book.
by: Greg Donahue
Only available on Audible 1 hr 54 minutes
Briefly, what is this book about?
Domestic Nazis and the Jewish gangsters who beat the crap out of them in the years before World War II.
Who should read this book?
If you’re looking for a domestic predecessor for Antifa, or you really like stories of Nazis getting punched. This is your book.
General Thoughts
During prohibition Sidney Abramowitz, aka Nat Arno was an enforcer for the Jewish mob. When prohibition ended that job largely ended as well. Fortunately for Arno shortly thereafter Hitler came to power and with that came the rise of Nazism in America. This book is the gleeful recounting of how Arno organized former enforcers like himself and other New Jersey Jews into a band of vigilantes dedicated to disrupting American Nazi rallies by throwing in stink bombs and then ambushing the attendees as they ran away—beating them with baseball bats and brass knuckles.
At least it came across as gleeful, also vigilante is my term. I don’t recall it ever being used in the book.
Everyone who reads this book understands how bad Nazis are. And I admit there is a certain pleasure at hearing how Jews “fought back” in America. But before lionizing Arno it’s important to remember that this is pre World War II. Most of the evidence we draw on for how horrible Nazis are is based on what happened during World War II, so the people beating the crap out of German Americans couldn’t use that as justification. Also Arno did it in opposition to the police, and to many leaders of the Jewish community, who thought he was making things worse. Also it’s not clear how much of this was actually fighting back. The stories of the Nazis beating up Jews are relatively sparse, but this book has lots of stories of the reverse.
All of which is to say that I think, particularly based on what was known at the time, that Arno was the bad guy. And I’m not even sure his actions are defensible even in retrospect. Certainly I don’t think Arno should be used as a role model for anyone operating today. And this book rather than dealing with any of these issues, mostly came across as a celebration of vigilantism.
III- Religious Reviews
There is a God: How to Respond to Atheism in the Last Days
by: Hyrum Lewis
162 pages
Who should read this book?
If you’re expecting to have a debate soon with a New Atheist this is a great book to help you prepare for that debate. Similarly if you’re wondering what sort of arguments you might make against a New Atheist even if you never plans to ever use them, you might also want to read this book.
General Thoughts
This book is a pretty good collection of arguments against New Atheism. I keep qualifying that we’re talking about New Atheism and not atheism in general, because as we saw in the book The Seven Types of Atheism, which I reviewed back in October, New Atheism is only one of several types of atheism. And even John Grey who felt compelled to write a whole book on the many different types of atheism doesn’t think much of it. Which is to say the book is focused on only a narrow slice of atheism, and not a well regarded one at that. The book’s utility grows more narrow still when you consider that there is much more to winning an argument than logic and reason. It’s entirely possible that Lewis’ arguments are all but ironclad. (And indeed, particularly when paired with Grey’s, they do seem pretty solid.) Despite this I still very much doubt that if I gave this book to someone who was deeply atheist that reading it would turn him into a Christian.
This outcome is what we would expect no matter how carefully crafted the book, but I still think that Lewis could have done better. His tone is pretty combative. A weakness he admits to in the introduction. Beyond that the book is long on argument and short on persuasive rhetoric. My own son considers himself to be an atheist, and while there were moments when I thought about trying to get him to read this book, by the end I felt that the experience would be counterproductive.
None of this is to claim that writing such a book would be easy, merely that knowing he was being too combative it should have been possible for Lewis to tone it down more than he did.
A better writer would have taken Pressfield’s book, used the tactics therein to combine the themes of combativeness, preemptive action and Germans into some wisdom for the ages. Unfortunately I am not such a writer, if you want to help me become such a writer, consider donating.
I also recently finished SA#4:RoW. I thought there was a lot to like in the book, but that Kaladin’s arc dove too deeply into the depression theme. It’s fair to say that Sanderson has established emotional turmoil as a driving feature of character development in the series, but in past books this has taken a different tone. In previous books, characters come to terms with unresolved problems in their past as the reader discovers what those problems are. Once those problems are identified and the character deals with them the reader is left wondering what’s next for the character, oh I guess we’ll wait until the next book. Then in the next book the character has to plumb some new depth we didn’t get to in the last book – because how else are they going to develop as a character? (maybe Kaladin could struggle to learn how to be an effective leader, or struggle to deal with commanders whose battlefield objective isn’t ‘keep everyone alive no matter what else is happening with the battle’) – which means feeling like we didn’t get anywhere in the previous book, thereby robbing the payoff from the last book to make the next one happen.
The problem SA has is that you can only mine that so many times. How many things in Shallan’s past is she going to hide away? Maybe we can ride that train again for a fifth book, but it feels like cheating to bring it back out again. I guess it’s fine that all the main cast members have something in their past they’re trying to pretend away until eventually they’re forced to come to terms with it, but I think Sanderson has written himself into a corner with this otherwise-excellent series by rigidly sticking to the original “emotional turmoil from the unresolved past” format long after it outlived its usefulness.
Well said. Yeah, I am going to be very annoyed if in book 5 Shallan has yet another horrible past secret she has to uncover and work through. But your last sentence is exactly what I wish I had written.
In light of history, don’t we have to consider the fact that the Minutemen were, in the end right? Ultimately in the end Nazis were toxic to democracy because when out of power they used the democratic system to gain it and then turn it against itself (BTW, perhaps the US should have a big sign….”39 days without a coup attempt…tomorrow depends on you!”)
Vigilante is the correct term, but notice the term isn’t in itself a slur (BTW, almost all comic book heros are vigilantes by definition. Even traditional Superman seems to operate aligned with the US gov’t but outside the law itself. The Watchmen toyed with non-vigilante heros who worked for the gov’t, and they didn’t come off well…then neither did the vigilantes). As vigilantism is not in itself a slur, it’s more like, ohhh performing medical procedures on yourself. That is highly dangerous and open to going bad very easily but not always to be rejected and sometimes celebrated.
I think it is important to raise this because we’ve had a pretty big narrative failure over Antifa that’s pretty glaring if anyone pays attention. After a year of hearing about unrestrained violence, we’ve seen more concentrated violence in a few hours than months of protests with many, many more participants produced. This indicates when violence is the real goal, it can happen pretty fast, pretty hard and come surprisingy close to achieving its goals. Which implies a space for the vigilante is something society demands….if only a tiny one.
Do you believe that the ends justify the means? What if you can’t know the end’s clearly at the time? So anything is justified if the person doing it turned out to be right? Does it have to have direct bearing on the eventual danger? Did the Minutemen do anything to slow down Hitler? But it sounds like your justifying their actions based what happened in Europe, not what the Nazis did in the US. Does this mean that you’d be willing to excuse Churchill’s role in the 1943 Bengal Famine Churchill because he was right about Hitler?
This sort of retro-fitted justification seems very abusable.
As far as antifa, are you really confident that the sum total of the Capitol stuff was more violent than all of the protests over the summer? I’m not. The big story out of Capitol was https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Sicknick and his death does not cleanly fit into a narrative of being killed by protestors. At best he may have died because of bear spray? Meanwhile this source (which may or may not be objective) claims that 2,000 officers were injured during the summer riots: https://www.policemag.com/585160/more-than-2-000-officers-injured-in-summers-protests-and-riots
(I’m not even sure there were 2000 cops at the Capitol…)
Certainly it definitely fits the definition of “insurrection” far better. But that’s a double edged sword as well. There’s certainly an argument to be made that it’s more moral to have a riot that actually targets those in power than one which targets innocent bystanders. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Floyd_protests#:~:text=However%2C%20the%20violence%20by%20early,the%201992%20Los%20Angeles%20riots.
You seem to be saying one is clearly worse than the other. I’m saying it’s more like comparing apples and oranges.
I have to do more research on the Bengal famine. I encountered a person who made what seemed like a good argument that Churchill has been unfairly blamed for it, but I’ll have to be careful.
We don’t really know ends. It’s possible if we didn’t fight Nazi Germany it would have burned out on the USSR and left both empires ripe for toppling. It’s possible to play a reverse baby Hitler game where doing the most counter-intuitive things like siding with Hitler or opposing Civil Rights could end up producing something more positive in the long run. So the ends doesn’t quite justify the means winning WWII might end up causing ten trillion people to die in Galactic War III centuries from now whereas losing would have just cost millions and a few generations of oppression. We are just guessing once the immediate impacts are felt, everything else starts having too many other immediate causes to really map out.
To put it more bluntly, the butterfly in Hong Kong might cause the Hurricane that knocks down your house and kills you and your family. Me hitting you on the head with a baseball bat is an immediate wrong to you even if it somehow short circuits a Typhon that would have killed thousands in Hong Kong.
The Supreme Court seemed to recognize this with ‘clear and present danger’ tests for insurrection. In general they seemed to say you have a right to advocate for the gov’t to be violently overthrown, unless we are very close to a mob that’s about to try it, then your right goes away. Notice other rights don’t work like this. You don’t get, say, free speech for pro-lifism but the moment a SC vacancy opens up you go to jail. The state, then, seems to have the view that violence against speech becomes justified if the speech is very bad AND the odds of it resulting in change becomes more likely.
The moral question for the Minutemen then boils down to how likely were the American Nazis to actually do something. That could include winning an election but could also be less than that. Saying “the ends doesn’t justify the means” could have two meansings. One is that you can’t use the end as a justification….even if the end is accomplished by the means (i.e. killing Hitler as a baby and then telling a German court in the late 1800’s “guys you gotta trust me on this, you didn’t want that one baby to grow up”). The other is that the means are justified but simply not by the ends. Going to war against Hitler is justified but not because we can confidently say less harm will be done than all other non-war options (such as Ghandi’s advice for simple non-violence resistence….which Churchill thankfully didn’t seem to consider much). We live in a state and society that has embraced pretty hard the second idea which actually morally would translate over to the Minutemen even though I admit that is full of dangers and potential problems.
“As far as antifa, are you really confident that the sum total of the Capitol stuff was more violent than all of the protests over the summer? ”
I pretty much guarantee you if I sprayed bear spray at a cop who did a traffic stop on me, and he died I would probably be hit with a murder charge. The ‘pre-existing condition’ argument (thanks Covid truthers) might get me off but still would be tough. Likewise if the cop shot and killed me as I was trying to spray him, I don’t think he would even be charged.
So we have one cop dead either directly or ‘helped’ by the rioters. One I believe who lost several fingers. One who had his eye gouged (I’m not clear if that was gouged out or just gouged but ultimately not out). A pretty rough 4 hours or so. In the 9+ months of Portland protests we had 1 death who wasn’t a cop. Chad/Chaz had two deaths in a shooting that could have easily been ‘normal’ street crime.
The last study of protests had about 93% being totally peaceful. That means a protest where nothing happens. So thousands of protests that took up to 20M people maybe more spread out over months and of the 7% where something happened of that 7% I’m sure there were cases of cops behaving badly, protesters behaving badly, both as well as the now well documented incidents of right wing provakators (man in black a tthe Autozone breaking windows, Bugaloo Boys assassinating two sort of cops in CA, Bugaloo Boy who opened fire on the Minn. police station, let’s not even get into that Kevin kid). I think, of course, we could do much better than that but ain’t easy getting 20M people to just go to work each day without someone losing their shit.
If you had the same ratio of purposeful violence, out of 20M people you would have had tens of thousands executing various operations of varying levels of sophistication. This would have translated to dozens or hundreds of Tim McVeigh style truck bombings, numerous full scale shootouts with cops and counter right wing protesters. In short a full scale insurrection.
I think the guilt by association argument by the right ended on Jan 6th. If you took your kid to a football game and I told you out in Detroit there was a brawl in the parking lot after a game….you’d shrug. If you saw a brawl at the stadium you were in, you’d look at it. But you wouldn’t hang your head down in shame as if you were somehow partially guilty, nor should you.
But then consquentially aren’t you? I mean if there’s a 5% chance a riot will break out if you have 100,000 people together then every event you attend you are contributing 0.05* (1/100,000) of a riot just by being there, right? A modern football game has better crowd control and lots of hidden security but then that just changes the 0.05 to maybe 0.001. Still not zero!
I’ve pointed out the Jake Paul video several times now. My usual rhetorical challenge with it is to demand people show me where the BLM protesters are, or Antifa for that matter…actually even finding someone who isn’t a white kid is pretty hard.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZHacns4n6c
But funny thing is if you watch the video carefully, most people are not doing anything. They are milling about, walking around, looking at what’s going down with just a few people actually smashing a car or breaking down a glass door and looting vodka and cologne. In a certain sense you can try to assign guilt for everyone there since all the ‘spectators’ probably did empower a few people to vandalism and looting.
But we don’t really go by the first meaning of the ends justify the means. Jake Paul may be hit with a tresspassing charge as since the mall was closed, just being there was breaking a law. But if this happened during normal hours, he wouldn’t be. If he stood in the parking lot just filming and talking he would be hailed as a ‘citizen journalist’.
So tell me this, then, why should I take a guilt trip for attending something in NJ because Fox News runs the same Starbucks windows getting smashed 750 miles away 750 times?