A.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023

If your rules don't include checks and consequences against those who have no regard for the rules, then you don't have rules.

If such checks and consequences exist, and those charged with imposing them lack the will or the ability to do so, then they don't exist.

As we see.

Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023
A group of authoritarian supremacists tried to murder their colleagues and overthrow the government 2 years ago, and most of the rest of their team went along with it, and none of them faced any consequence, and we see the inevitable result: they're in charge of the workplace.
Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023
It's an *inevitable* result. If you go to your place of work and try to murder your colleagues in a violent takeover, if your department then backs the attempt, if leadership deems that your summary dismissal is a greater infraction against the rule of order than your murderous attempt, you will learn—correctly—that rules do not apply to you, and that you are, effectively, in charge.
Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023

The weakness in our system is supremacy.

I think it was because our system was built to optimize for supremacy, and there are many historical and political reasons to believe that.

But in any case, our system has no guard against supremacists, who would rather kill than share.

Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023

That these supremacists are willing to own and use and harm and kill all those they believe beneath them in order to establish and maintain their self-perceived domination makes them supremacist.

That our system has no apparent choice but to accommodate them makes us a supremacist nation.

We can change that.

Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆Jan 7, 2023

They showed us how to change it; those murderous jackals, those supremacist Republican insurrectionists and their supremacist Republican lackeys.

They changed the game by deciding the game was their own domination and supremacy, and then loving that game more than any rule.

Show threadA.R. Moxon, Verified Duck 🦆

I want to ponder this line of thinking for a while more, but I'll just leave with this thought, and an essay I think is related.

Rules exist to define and accommodate the game—but the game is the point, not the rules.

So what game are we playing?

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/the-respectable-game

The Respectable Game

One last one about the atmosphere. What does it mean to be respectable? Let’s ask it another way: Whose respect do you seek—and why?

The Reframe
Jan 7, 2023 at 2:13pmWeb
Show threadSex Crazed SaltShaker of DeathJan 7, 2023
@JuliusGoat Bill Watterson invented the "game" years ago. I suspect he would be aghast at the level to which the republicans have taken Calvinball.