Sunday, 05 December 2010
The individual in question is a middle aged former Marine that frequents my friend's Vintage Clothing shop. I had on occasion heard this man rant, but I never once believed his rap was legit. But, upon engaging this man in an attempt to probe what makes him so much the bad militant right wing stereotype, I found that the most simple conclusion was so obviously and sadly true: He is clearly just imbalanced and the military was his outlet to kill and quell his hatred justifiably.
Within 10 minutes of a two-hour battle of wits, he proceeded to speak of a deep-seeded desire to kill all Muslims. Why? because he was angry... Great outlet huh? Well this was to backwards a rhetoric for me to let pass, I had to probe. He made subtle illusions to a troubled past, but never quite got to what happened to make him hate so blindly. Simply that, after being in the "War on Terror" he only came out with a more strengthened resolve, but that wasn't the catalysis.
So now I'm left to push buttons to test for a reaction. So I begin a game of Devil's Advocate with him involving a hot button issue: The truth behind the official stance on the events of September 11th, 2001. Instantly, he became obstinate, upset, and angry. I had to see if he was one of those "old guard patriots" that just got all up-in-arms after the events of that day. At this point, he clearly lost any limited diplomatic skill he possessed and went behind the classic buzz line for all lemmings : "Do your research!". I then informed him that while he was so gleefully killing pedestrians in Baghdad, I was studying current events as part of my Social Science degree free of government sanctions. And that one that fails to question is truly blind.
At this point the conversation dissipated, but I came away with this as a general hypothesis:
1.) Ignorance favors the blind
2.) Hatred with free range to kill only breeds a worse kind of monster
3.) The best way to test conviction is a monotone voice (I maintained my cool thru-out, for several reason and chiefly because I didn't want to show to which end I was leaning in)
4.) That some people really are just pre-disposed to be a wort on the ass of any chance we as a society have to function in mutual understanding.
Now, I know some of you might find this post a bit strange, but It did serve a purpose. I felt the need to debate this man because I wanted to see just how screwed up he was and how intelligent he was that he might actually have an intellect worth saving. This was partially morbid curiousity, but also a stand of sorts. I want every backward Conservative I come across to know that their agendas will always have opposition and that all the old money and ill-gotten gains won't always win them acceptance or elections. But as long as their are people like this fellow in the world, they will always have a support system as well. Also, I am by know means a pacifist, I just don't believe in needless violence. The amount of energy expended to attack someone should only be done if it is justified and anger is almost a commitment, so if one is prone to anger it should be about something worth getting angry over. Sad as that is to say, this is the world we live in. Until man casts off such mental bondage fools like this must be suffered.
Have you ever had a completely frustrating argument with a person like this?