Jordan Neely was a person.

Our society left him stranded, and, because of his desperation and our warped priorities, his existence filled people not with sympathy but with fear. Then he was killed, and that is a tragedy, because he was a person.

I’m saying obvious things, because they’re clearly not obvious to everyone.

Not just that Neely’s death was a tragedy, but that he was a person.

These are controversial propositions.

I know, because there is a controversy.

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/jordan-neely-was-a-person

Jordan Neely Was a Person

One Nation Under Fear - Part 1

The Reframe
There are people outraged at any suggestion that Neely’s death was a tragedy, an outrage that seems born out of a reaction to the inference that he was a human, because the things these people say only make sense if they have decided that he was not a person.
I notice that many of these outraged people are the exact same people who seem to think every daily police lynching or vigilante act against a marginalized person is justified, and get outraged at every suggestion that the latest atrocity was tragic or unjustified.

This outrage is validated in our halls of power and our media as one of many equal competing perspectives, which means that instead of serving as a shocking revelation of collective cultural inhumanity toward one another, it becomes a debate instead—a *controversial* debate.

So, to repeat: Jordan Neely was a person, a human, and his death was tragic because he had the same measure of humanity as his killer, or you, or me, and observing these facts is one side of a controversy.

Also controversial is any attempt to establish the humanity of anyone who our society has marginalized, which is a word that means ā€œthis human’s humanity has been systematically ignored.ā€

To briefly change the subject somewhat, I’ve been told that I ought to make more of an effort to understand other points of view and perspectives.

That’s interesting, because I am not unhoused or marginalized, so I thought that this is what I was already trying to do.

However, "understanding the perspectives of unhoused or otherwise marginalized people" isn't what is meant.

What’s meant is that I should try to understand the perspectives of others, who refuse to understand any perspectives other than their own.

Anderson Cooper is the most recent person to tell me this, which he did after his network platformed our previous president and filled their studio with fans of our previous president, so that the previous president could defame E. Jean Carroll, a human being who he at the very least sexually abused (her claim, which I find entirely credible, is rape).

Sexual abuse is a crime, and it is the habitual practice of the former president, according to none other than him, for which (along with defamation) a civil jury had just found him liable.

And he also tried to murder Congress and overthrow democracy in the United States.

And he is guilty of many other crimes as well, some of which we watched him do and brag about, others of which we must only presume. And he once took out a full page ad in New York newspapers calling for the execution of some Black kids for a crime they didn’t commit, and so on.

When pressed about doing this years later, he pointed out that there is still disagreement on the matter.

So there's another controversy for you: whether those kids, who killed nobody, killed anybody.

Anyway, mere hours after being found liable to the tune of $5 million for defamation and sexual abuse, the former president and lifetime criminal was given a town hall by CNN, and he immediately proceeded to defame the victim of his sexual abuse.

And his crowd of supporters that CNN picked to clap and cheer everything he said clapped and cheered, which only seems possible if they don’t consider E. Jean Carroll to be a person.

This is the sort of behavior American conservatives really seem to love.

And I’m told by Anderson Cooper that this represents an important perspective for us to listen to and understand.

So I’m going to do that now.

I’m going to try to understand the perspective of people who think that a former president found liable for sexual assault is funny and good, or who believe that Jordan Neely’s killing was a good or at least necessary and justified thing, and who maybe think both things at once.

I’m told that Jordan Neely was scary.

And I’m sure sometimes unhoused people are unnerving, even scary, and sometimes do pose a threat, maybe even one requiring self-defense.

Desperation makes people desperate, is something I’ve sometimes noticed.

And I’m often scornfully asked if I would like to share a train car with a desperate person who is behaving aggressively and shouting in a threatening manner.

And I must confess to you: no, that does not sound like fun.

Being the desperate person sounds like less fun, though.

I might make the point that it seems to that it is a chronic and society-deep desperation that seems the problem most in need of a solution, not the people experiencing desperation … but I’m trying to understand different perspectives, so let’s focus on the scariness.

That Jordan Neely was scary would be a hard thing to disprove. All you have to do in order to be scary is to scare somebody, and all that has to happen for you to scare a person is for that person to be scared.

And people are scared of a lot of things these days, and more and more of them think being scared justifies immediately and summarily killing the thing that scares you—and I say ā€œthingā€ purposefully.

Nobody making this argument seems to be thinking of Jordan Neely as a person.

With each extrajudicial killing of each marginalized person I’ve noticed an unusual rhetorical project immediately begins, in traditional and social media, in conversation, and in people’s internal structures of belief.

The project involves convicting the victim with a crime.

It's crime that retroactively convicts them of some crime worthy of death, some crime that makes them the perpetrator of their own killing.

This can be any crime at all.

These crimes are usually presented with a sort of rhetorical flourish, a self-evident finishing move against any attempt to establish the killing as tragedy, an obvious proof that justifies the killing and requires no further embellishment.

Again, this can be any crime at all.

In fact, it usually isn’t even a crime.

Trayvon Martin was wearing a hoodie, in case you didn't know.

Jordan Neely didn’t have a hoodie, but he did have a jacket, which he threw on the ground. So that’s something we can learn by considering other perspectives: upper body wear is apparently terrifying.

And Neely was scary, which we know, because *people* were scared—a categorization that tacitly omits Neely, the only person who didn’t leave the train alive, which makes Neely the person on that train with the most credible claim to fear … as long as you consider Jordan Neely a person, that is.

But that won’t do, because if he could have been scared, too, then he would have been justified in killing people on the subway car, too—at least as justified in killing the man who killed him as the man who killed him was in killing him.

But self-defense is for people, and what makes a marginalized person marginalized in the first place is that they are not considered a person.

Jordan Neely can never defend himself. He can only be the thing people defend themselves from.

Jordan Neely can never feel threatened, even though he was tired, even though he was hungry, even though he had nowhere to live, even though he was the one about to be killed.

Jordan Neely can only be a threat—a threat to *people.*

Jordan Neely can never be scared. He can only be scary.

Being scared is for *people.*

Jordan Neely can never engage in self-defense, and nothing done to him can ever be anything other than self-defense.

Self-defense is for *people.*

And for people who believe that every killing is every bit as just and necessary as the one before it, Jordan Neely is, very clearly, not a person.

He can’t have been, for a very good reason.

Because if Jordan Neely was a person, then we shouldn’t have killed him.

We should have taken care of him.

Huh. How about that? I really *do* learn a lot, when I listen to other perspectives.

https://armoxon.substack.com/p/jordan-neely-was-a-person

Jordan Neely Was a Person

One Nation Under Fear - Part 1

The Reframe

If you liked this essay, you can read the whole thing by clicking through.

If you want more, you can follow my newsletter for free; if you want to support it, you can pick your price. Either way thanks for reading. Here's the link.

https://armoxon.substack.com/about

About - The Reframe

Weekly Essays on Politics and Fiction from author A.R. Moxon. Click to read The Reframe, by A.R. Moxon, a Substack publication with tens of thousands of subscribers.

@JuliusGoat I think that was a master class in rhetoric for the social media age. Thank you.
@JuliusGoat excellent article, thanks. Look forward to part two.

@JuliusGoat

EVERY single New Yorker knows how taboo choke holds are after seeing how cops have brought it to light in recent years. They can not use it.
A trained military guy knows how to use it. He killed Neely.

@GatekeepKen @JuliusGoat Eric Garner wasn't the only black man killed in that section of crown heights by overzealous cops.

Saheed Vassell was shot only a few blocks away for holding a metal pipe in his hand and having a mental health crisis.

@JuliusGoat To which we might add: The definition of such a crime is subject to change at any point, like a Big Tech co’s terms of service. Only the ā€œreal peopleā€ (I think of Sarah Palin’s ā€œreal Americansā€ here) get to consent to such changes.
@JuliusGoat One weird thing is that usually when some group achieves status as real or genuine (e.g. MLB player or Baruch College grad), they’ve had to earn it with effort, but it seems you get ā€œreal personā€ status in this scheme specifically via lack of effort, literally refusing to consider stuff because of laziness. Seems like that’s a potentially persuasive point that would be useful to highlight more.

@JuliusGoat

ā€œhe was asking for itā€

@JuliusGoat

Certain Americans seem to practically worship their own fears and the violence that indulging those fears creates.

Why has fear become something to be promoted instead of something to be overcome?

A truly strong person would have helped Jordan Neely. It takes more strength to help than to hurt.

Too many Americans seem to think that hurting someone shows strength, when it mainly shows fear.

Everyone feels fear at times. How you deal with it shows whether you are strong or weak.

@JuliusGoat I would love to share my perspective on that but this is a sensible subject when talking about politics. Why bringing a 20 years old lawsuit at the moment he’s running again? I haven’t followed the entire thing but a lot of politicians including the ex major of NY and his brother on CNN where also facing the same kind of allegations destroying their career. He’s a failed businessman selling a dream and most of his voters don’t even like him.
@JuliusGoat I guess you have to follow the money to understand why he’s being given an audience. Especially a cable he has been making fun of during his entire term.
@JuliusGoat Apparently this disgusting turn of events is resulting from a right wing takeover of CNN after their unflattering coverage of the MAGA Coup