I want to talk for a moment about laws. Specifically, I want to talk about when it is acceptable to break laws.
The first set of laws I want to talk about is the Laws of Physics. These are the laws by which the entire universe operates. It is impossible to break these laws as long as the universe remains a closed system. The only time these laws appear to be "broken" are during instances of miracles, and even then whether or not miracles actually "break" any laws is disputed. Humans are unable to break these laws even if they wanted to. We cannot jump 100 stories. We cannot walk through solid walls without the aid of a door. We cannot create matter from nothing. Therefore, asking when it is acceptable to break these laws is incoherent and pointless.
The second set of laws is the Laws of the State. These laws are established by government entities, drafted by legislators, enforced by executives. Sometimes these roles are filled by the same person: a Monarch. Sometimes these roles are filled by different people: a Republic. These laws are therefore made by man are only binding so long as the government in question has the power and the authority to enforce their laws. However, breaking man's law is sometimes acceptable, and even necessary. Any law that would violate your conscience or cause you to commit moral evil must be disobeyed, regardless of the consequences. It is not acceptable to disregard laws that you merely find frivolous; you are not above the law, after all. So, when it comes to the Laws of the State, one's moral principles must always take priority over one's desire to obey the law.
But what about the Laws of Social Etiquette? This is where things seem to get unclear, and this is where I really want the discussion to be focused. Here is something that many people do not consider:
In the United States of America, it is not illegal to call someone a cunt.
Rude? Certainly. Uncalled-for? Almost certainly! Abusive? Without a doubt. Illegal? Not even close, nor should it be, and here is why: every human being on this planet has the God-given right to Freedom of Speech. Your government may not recognize this right, but it is a right you have nonetheless. In the presence of God, you may speak freely.
That is where the Laws of Social Etiquette come in. It is not a violation of the Laws of Physics to interrupt someone. It is not a violation of the Laws of the State to curse someone out. No, these practises violate etiquette. They're not illegal, they're socially unacceptable, they're in poor taste, they're RUDE.
Physical and State Law can be enforced, but what about the Laws of Etiquette? You can't go to jail for flipping someone the bird, or questioning the legitimacy of their birth, but society can still punish you if it sees fit. Ostracism, criticism, being left out of social functions, and being called "disrespectful" are the penalties that society can inflict on rude people. Depending on your rude behavior, you can lose respect, your job, or even friends. There exists no entity that enforces these social customs. They just happen, like a Newton's Cradle swinging to the beat of cause and effect. Call a woman fat, and she will slap you. Ruin a friend's party, and you won't be invited to the next one. Throw a pen at your teacher, and you are excused from class.
Or, in Milo Yiannopoulos' case, people set a city on fire and your autobiography's publishing is canceled. Why? Because Milo made some very rude jokes, and had a very poor choice of words that made him sound like he endorsed pedophilia. Pretty serious, right? Wrong. There is no evidence that Milo actually supports pedophilia (his track record in outing prominent pedophiles indicates he loathes the practice), and saying mean things does not warrant rioting or book-cancellation, right?
Well, according to the Laws of Social Etiquette, it seems that the publisher was right to cancel Milo's book. It's their right, after all. They don't have to publish anything they don't want to (and in that regard I support their decision wholeheartedly). The rioting, on the other hand, violates the Laws of the State, and therefore was not warranted by Milo's crude sense of humor at all.
With all this in mind, let's go back to the original topic. When is it acceptable to violate the Laws of Social Etiquette? It is my firm believe that you are free to disregard Social Etiquette whenever you want. My reasoning is pretty simple: you can't tell me what to do. No belief is too extreme, no joke is too offensive, and no word is too terrible. You have the right to think, believe, and say what ever you want, and anyone who says otherwise is a threat to your personal freedom and should be wiped off the face of the earth.
That sounds rather extreme, doesn't it? Of course it does. It was supposed to. I'm not saying it because I believe we should kill people who tell us not to say rude things. I'm saying it to make a point. I have the right to say those things whether you find them offensive or not.
I have the right to say "Women who are raped deserved it." You don't have to listen, you don't have to agree, and you don't even have to like what I'm saying. You have just as much a right to criticize me for saying as I do to say it in the first place, and that's how it should be. (And because some of you are too stupid to figure this out on your own, I don't actually think women deserve to be raped. I was making a point again.)
What about jokes? Surely there are some jokes that just take it too far, right? Wrong. There is no such thing as an "inappropriate" joke. No topic is off limits when it comes to humor. None. Humor doesn't care what you think is rude. In some cases, it COUNTS on your thinking it's rude or offensive. Look at racist jokes, for example. Racist jokes aren't funny because racism is cool or good. Racist jokes are funny because racism is MORALLY REPREHENSIBLE. The same is true for jokes about rape, or the Holocaust, or suicide. Jokes about these topics wouldn't be funny if they weren't all terrible, tragic, and disgusting.
Milo's jokes about pedophilia (and thanking his childhood priest for molesting him) are no exception.
Here's the thing about Milo, and President Trump, and even myself and my closest friends: we all typify many facets of the Jacksonian tradition (named after President Andrew Jackson, one of the most controversial presidents in US history). Jacksonians, generally, prefer to mind their own business and keep their noses out of trouble...unless you poke the bear. The Jacksonian bear is slow to wake up, but if you poke it enough, it will turn and devour you in the most violent manner possible.
Andrew Jackson was a bear. The Native Americans woke him up after attacking hundreds of cities and destroying thousands of American lives. Remember the Trail of Tears? That was Jackson the Bear devouring the people foolish enough to poke him.
Donald Trump is a Jacksonian bear that awoke after being prodded by the economic and social decay of his country. His endless executive orders and battle with the Supreme Court are Trump, the Jacksonian bear, responding to being prodded constantly by what he perceives to be an attack on the American way of life and the civil liberties of Americans.
Milo Yiannopoulos is a Jacksonian bear that awoke after seeing free speech destroyed in his home country, and traveled to America when he saw the same thing happening here. His offensive jokes, openly gay lifestyle, and inflammatory speeches is how Milo the Bear (pun intended) will devour the Social Justice Movement. Social Justice Warriors, feminists, and other similar groups have created a culture of outrage. Milo's job, therefore, is to be outrageous.
I understand that a lot of you are quite offended by the monstrosities that these men are. Milo is hurtful and divisive. Trump rules with an iron fist and is ruthless against his enemies. Jackson nearly committed genocide. All of these men demonstrate a complete and utter disregard for the Laws of Social Etiquette. They have all done things that "simply are not done", and they don't care.
Remember how I said that one of the penalties for violating Social Etiquette is criticism? Jacksonians are immune to criticism. Andrew Jackson, despite his harsh treatment of the Native Americans and his willingness to send troops to invade South Carolina and his crusade against the banks, he was elected twice, and his popularity soared even after he retired from public life.
Despite all the nasty and terrible things Trump has said, he ascended to the presidency against all odds. He beat out his establishment opponent who spent more than twice what he did campaigning, and he did it under budget and ahead of schedule. Not even voter fraud could stop him from steamrolling the Democratic Party and winning the election.
Regardless of every outrageous thing Milo has done, his popularity continues to climb. After the UC Berkeley riot (which was a reaction to Milo being scheduled to speak there), the ratings for his book increased by over 12,000% overnight. He then went on to appear on national television, and is scheduled to not only return to Berkeley, but also speak in Washington DC. His platform is bigger than ever.
When you criticize a Jacksonian, their power only grows. When you poke the bear, it’s your own fault if you get mauled. Are these men monsters? Maybe, but they are monsters that their critics created. If the Native Americans hadn’t killed countless Americans, Jackson would never have sent them on a thousand-mile march. If the United States government hadn’t failed to protect its citizens, Trump would never have been elected. If free speech had never come under attack in America, Milo would have stayed in England.
Every time Social Etiquette is used to oppress, manipulate, and control people, you can expect a Jacksonian to wake up and disregard every rule, stir every pot, and offend everyone in sight. The bear always kills the man who pokes it, but once the man is eaten, it does not go on a rampage. It goes back to sleep. Criticism doesn't deter the bear, either. It only makes the bear stronger. When Jackson fell under heavy criticism by the National Bank and it's congressional lobbyists, Jackson used it to fuel is reelection campaign, and he won it by a landslide. When you criticize a hungry bear, he eats your critique, and then he eats you.
If you want the Laws of Social Etiquette to remain intact, if you want terrible men like Jackson and Trump and Milo to leave us alone, there is only one thing you can do:
DO NOT POKE THE BEAR, and if you do, DO NOT EMPOWER HIM WITH YOUR CRITICISM.
The gatekeepers of the Laws of Social Etiquette have poked the bear twice: once by accusing Donald Trump of sexual assault, and once by accusing Milo Yiannopoulos of defending pedophilia. All because these two men have said mean things. Because of their decision to poke the bear, the current cultural attitudes of politeness and rudeness will die, and they will die in a spectacular and bloody fashion.
The only way to defeat Trump, Milo, and Other Terrible Men is to make sure they never awaken from their slumber in the first place.
