Ron Jones is "a Bitter, Angry, Nasty Person"
Taking Flak Over the Target...
The Academy of Ideas has a piece on YouTube titled “MASS PSYCHOSIS - How An Entire Society Becomes Mentally Ill”. The principal idea is that an entire people can buy into a Big Lie, which leads them into the most absurd denials of reality and produces in them previously unimaginable behavior that rejects traditionally accepted standards of common sense, decency and justice as they attack the “enemy” the Big Lie has created for them. (This is also the theme of Mattias Desmet’s book, “The Psychology of Totalitarianism”.) For those who remain clear-headed in the midst of this collective insanity, the proposed remedy is never to give the Bid Lie an inch, never accord it any credence or credibility, never remain silent when it is bandied about, but instead openly label it and ridicule it for the nonsense it is. Big Lies crumble when confronted with truth.
There are presently several Big Lies being foisted off on the American people, including climate change, the Covid Pandemic, the Covid vaccines, and the depicting of Donald J. Trump as the worst human being every born - a rapist, a thief, a fraud, an insurrectionist, a traitor, an election denier, a threat to democracy, a dictator - indeed the very reincarnation of Hitler himself. All of these Big Lies are intended to create fearsome Boogeymen that will terrify the people and herd them in one direction or another, but none of them have roots in reality. Expose any of them to even a little dose of truth and they melt away like the Wicked Witch of the West did with Dorothy’s bucket of cold water in her face.
In another form, one participant (now recently deceased) contributed nothing but irrational, unsupported, rabid, intellectually and morally insulting Trump hatred. I did not know this fellow personally and had only his forum contributions whereby to assess his mind and character. On the aforesaid principle of never allowing any credibility to a lie, when it became clear this fellow was not in the least degree amenable to reasoned, fact-based, honest argument but would continue to spew his mindless hatred, there was nothing left but to label and ridicule him for the hateful nutcase he was - which I did in my own inimitable fashion, always with the invitation to any reader to prove me either inaccurate or unfair in my assessments.
Another participant in that forum thought to take me up on that invitation. This person had some history with the fellow I was making fun of - I again had no experience with him except the exchanges in that forum. Conveniently without any reference to the vitriolic Trump-hating nonsense of his offerings, this lady felt I was being terribly unfair to someone she thought was a fine fellow. She proceeded to declare me “a bitter, angry, nasty person” not worth paying attention to and should be blocked.
Here below is my rejoinder. I share this here because I believe this exchange focuses on an irrational mentality - a Big Lie mindset - that has broadly taken hold among many in American society:
Hi, Alice (not her real name). Thanks for your comment.
As I previously wrote, there are many - perhaps most - forum participants I have never met and do not know at all. That leaves me only the very narrow window of their postings in this forum as a basis for understanding and responding to them. Joe Blow (not his real name - may he rest in peace) was one of those. I had none of the life experience or context that you and other forum members may have had with him.
This is either a disadvantage or an advantage, depending on how one looks at it. It is surely a disadvantage in that, as noted, it allows only very limited information about the person in question - and limited information is always a problem, whatever the context. It enables only limited understanding and doesn't allow for any sort of comprehensive judgment.
On the other hand, one can see this narrow perspective, this limited information, as an advantage in that it allows laser-like focus on the specific reasoning and arguments presented, and on the underlying aspects of mind and character from which they necessarily spring, without the distraction of myriad extraneous circumstances.
I have often recited my little maxim that "The credibility of WHAT you argue is directly a function of HOW you argue. Find the truth in the methodology of argument."
When I observe someone I do not know spewing what is clearly calumny and consistently resorting to unjust, reckless ad hominem attack on another person, what am I to conclude? What should be my assessment of the quality of those arguments and the quality of the mind and character of the person producing them, and how should I respond? Should I simply remain silent and let the calumny stand unchallenged? Or should I label it for what it demonstrably is, and the intellect and morality of the person producing it for what they are?
To get a grasp of the critical dynamics at play here, one need only contemplate Jesus's admonition: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." Where are we individually and as a society when, to serve our own selfish purposes, by means of evil methodology we would never wish to have directed at ourselves, many of us are prepared to participate in or condone the slanderous destruction of the reputations and lives of others? (Apart from the arch-victim Donald Trump, we conservatives, already having long been labeled a "basket of deplorables", are now a collective "cesspool" and "Trump cultists" who must be "formally deprogrammed". Deprogrammed? How do you “formally deprogram” people? Like in concentration camps? What does this language mean? How do people like Hillary Clinton get away with using it?)
Expressing simple dislike for another person is one thing - perfectly legitimate in my view - but there is something profoundly wrong - intellectually, morally and spiritually repugnant - about frivolously accusing another person of monumental, life-changing evil deeds without solid evidence or proof. Reputations, livelihoods and entire lives can be shattered by such evil speaking - and the fact that the object of such slander is a public figure does not justify the moral outrage.
Violating divine diktat - "Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor" - this sort of willingness to play fast and loose with truth and fairness in order to cater to one's preconceived notions and preferred outcomes gets down to the roots of the individual and collective character of the people and has profoundly negative implications for the future and viability of our country. You, Alice, may not see that, but it is nevertheless so. And it is fair to ask where each one of us stands regarding that manner of treating our fellow human beings...
Evil - what some people, in pursuit of their own selfish interests, are willing to have other people suffer.
Whatever else he may have been as a human being - and I do not for an instant presume to pass any sort of cosmic judgment on the man in terms of the totality of his life and being - he may well have been a good friend, a good father, a talented professional and many other good things - Joe Blow (may he rest in peace) was an irrational, rabid Trump-hater and he frequently and consistently gave expression to that hatred in this forum. That is what and all I knew of him. According to my recollection - correct me if I'm wrong - he contributed little or nothing else to the discussion - no reasoned argument, no thoughtful insights or analysis, nothing but a repetition of his intellectually, morally and spiritually insulting Trump-hating sniping and nonsense.
None of us can expect to have our publicly stated words and arguments separated from the inner intellectual, moral and spiritual wellspring that produces them. Open your mouth or set pen to paper (finger to keyboard) and you'll be brutally scrutinized. Through his postings, Joe Blow (BTW, a Harvad MBA and a very successful business executive) opened for me a little window on critical aspects of his character. By my measure, he was not a scrupulously fair-minded person, and he was prepared to resort to the repetition of slander and calumny in support of his personal hatred for Donald Trump. He was perfectly consistent in this - so much so that it soon became clear that attempting to respond to him with reasoned, fact-based argument was a complete waste of time. Nothing left at that point but to call a spade a spade.
Though you have stood up for Joe Blow as an "admirable person" - something I have no desire to take any issue with because I don't have your frame of reference - I would say that you have not responded to my invitation to point out where - within the narrow confines of my contact with him - I have been either inaccurate or unfair to Joe Blow. Indeed, you have avoided the entire issue at hand - the baseless calumny Joe repeatedly shoveled up, and where and how was I inaccurate or unfair in any of my responses to him or characterizations of him?
Indeed, Alice, what you have done, in effect, is emotively declare that Joe was such a prince of a fellow that he ought to be exempt from having his public statements and arguments, however flawed, subjected to severe scrutiny - and someone who violates that exemption deserves to be labeled "a bitter, angry and nasty person".
Indeed, without apology, I acknowledge being one of those three things - angry. As an informed and patriotic American citizen, I no longer have the luxury of not being angry - angry at what is being done to our country by the intellectually, morally and spiritually corrupt among us. Those who think we are in any less dire circumstances have their heads in the sand.
Way past time to call a spade a spade...
Street fight, not a garden party.
You may not see it, but everything that matters is at stake.
Having been on the receiving end of such calumny and slander in my time, I abhor inaccuracy and unfairness and have repeatedly invited any reader to point out anywhere in my writing where I have fallen prey to either. No takers so far... Grumblers, yes, but no arguments...
Without supporting proof or argument - other than to cry "How dare you ridicule our beloved Trump-hating Joe!" - you have leveled against me the obliterating accusation of my being "a bitter, angry and nasty person" (BTW, thank you for providing us a good example of ad hominem attack - attacking the arguer without addressing the argument.)
"Bitter, angry, nasty person!" Wow - a far more comprehensive and devasting negation of another person than I ever directed at Joe Blow, don't you think? This again without any specific reference to any instance where I was inaccurate or unfair in my responses to Joe, any instance where he was undeserving of my characterization of his offerings. Since I never had intent to be inaccurate or unfair, I do not believe you can cite even a single such instance. I challenge you to find one.
Of course, Alice, you get to block anyone you like. My Mom told me as a child, "You're known by the company you keep." As Popeye observed, "I Yam What I Yam!" No apologies.
Finally, I like the quote from Candice Owens which she offered to some snowflake who was complaining about being exposed to hard words. Worth repeating here:
"Life is hard. Get a helmet!"
I wish Joe Blow smooth sailing in eternity, where I know he'll get full credit for every bit of good that was in him.
"For the power is in them, wherein they are agents unto themselves. And inasmuch as men do good they shall in nowise lose their reward."
- Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Doctrine & Covenants, Section 58:28
Best to you, Alice.
Right vs. wrong, truth vs. lies, reality vs. fantasy, law vs. lawlessness, justice vs. injustice, order vs. chaos, liberty vs. tyranny, good vs. evil, light vs. darkness, God vs. the Godless…
Pick a side. You will, one way or another…
If you can be fooled, you will be…
These are the times that try men’s souls…
Torquemada