Anger as the new Indignation

     I keep reading about someone exercising their "right" to free speech in a non-violent manner, disagreeing with Group XYZ's attempt to become THE dominant social power in the west, and that person being met with angry protest. Normally they'll be decried as "racist" or their words being the result of "white, cis-gendered privilege", or something similar. Rather than face the writer or speaker directly and express similar non-violent disagreement, supported by logical (though apparently logic is sexist) arguments, the protesters simply scream and cuss with the apparent intent of drowning-out a voice they disagree with. When removed from the property, or arrested, the protesters claim their right to free speech is being violated.
     Violence against Anglos, especially males, is now socially acceptable, and somehow that is not racist. I recall being told that we're all equal and that initiating violence against anyone is wrong. Apparently that's part of my Anglo cis-male privilege.

"hatred or intolerance of another race or other races" (Dictionary.com). Seems fairly straight forward to me. If you dislike someone based on ("progressive" definitions of) race, you are racist. (though the definition of "race" seems somewhat nebulous anymore, and seems to be contemporary slang for phenotype if I understand correctly). However, since only Anglos are capable of racism, I must be wrong. (since Europe is regularly used as the example of what America should be, I love using references from European publications).
     We're supposedly in the midst of a social revolution. Unfortunately, it seems those active in this "revolution" haven't studied much history beyond what they thing supports their own views. One of the problems with every violent revolution is that it might be successful in the short-term, but it just continues the same problems in the long-term. Group A hates being oppressed by Group B, so they revolt and take over. In their anger, they then oppress Group B. They justify this with the history of Group B's historical oppression of them. Eventually (usually over the course of a few generations) Group B gets sick enough of being oppressed that they revolt, take over, and oppress Group A with the justification of the history of oppression Group A engaged in against them. And over and over and over, etc, ad nauseum. Look at the former Yugoslavia and how the Serbs slaughtered Muslims in response to how the Ottoman Empire oppressed them for a few generations. Revolutions go 'round and 'round, and 'round, with everyone losing in the end.
   

     I am of the belief that this is all simply fueled by a social...evolution(?) away from self-restraint, towards impulsiveness, leading to a cultural-level anger addiction. (here's a wonderful article about how "follow your heart" is horrible advice). The push for spontaneity has lead to various groups behaving in childish ways, and this is being reinforced by politicians who enjoy operating in chaos and misleading those who would rather not think for themselves. It's easier to scream, yell, burn, and smash than to sit down with someone you disagree with and have a reasoned discussion with them on the matter. Heck, you might find yourself (gasp!) AGREEING with your "enemy" in some ways. You might find that (OMG!!) they have some legitimate points. You may learn (No, It Can't Be True!!!) that you can disagree with someone without hating them.
     Yah, right. That won't be happening anytime soon. Anger is too much fun!

     As usual, I'm going slightly off-track. My point has been that destructive anger has taken over as the primary means of social discourse. Instead of behaving like a rational adult (I know, that statement is a micro-aggression. I'm not sorry), Americans have decided to do away with equality, equal opportunity, peaceful coexistence, and now want to have everything given to them, and for their juvenile temper tantrums to be acceptable. This reminds of a 4-year-old I knew quite a while back. With the right guidance, she grew out of that. It was a phase that needed direction towards something more constructive. We, as a society, were on the way to that. We were working towards "whatever floats your boat, so long as it doesn't sink mine" (which is one of my personal-favorite bumper stickers). "If you work hard and are good at something, you can be successful" has been replaced with "I shouldn't have to work. Your ancestors were mean to my ancestors, so you should give me what you have worked for". That isn't in a specific "racial" context, it is the underlying cry of every social group in existence now. Black, brown, Muslim, female, immigrant, whatever. Everyone can find a period of history in which their group was treated badly by another, and they've been taught that they therefore deserve to have things given to them.

     This is the opposite of equality. This is destructive to the harmony I was raised to see as the ultimate goal. I know, I know, I'm speaking from a privileged position as an Anglo cis-male with an education, secure(?) job, etc. Ignore world history in the mid 20th Century, please; it'll only muddy the waters. Anyway, history has shown that the only way to truly move forward is to forgive. Recognize that things done in the past were wrong. Remember them so that they aren't repeated out of ignorance, but forgive them. Take the advances that have happened in the interim as steps forward, and build on them. Sure, some positive aspects of western society were built with slaves. Instead of tearing those things down as simply representing slavery and oppression, how about we continue to use them for their positive contributions gleaned now, while remembering the bad aspects of how they came to be? "Wow, Thing X really makes my life better. It's a shame its development was made easier because of slave labor a few generations ago. I should remember their sacrifices and not take Thing X for granted. At the same time, I shouldn't hold THAT generation's crimes against the current generation."
     If we aren't supposed to hold the terrorist activities of certain "Islamist" groups against Muslims as a whole, and we aren't supposed to stereotype all of phenotype A based on the activities of Criminal Gang B, whose members are all from phenotype A, why is it ok to hold the activities of people 200 years ago against the current generation? Why is it ok to hold the activities of James Earl Ray against every other "white" person?! ("White" is such a general term. Seriously, do you have any idea how many sub-groups fall under your generalized term "white"? When did Armenians hold slaves in America? When did Swabian Germans oppress Native Americans? Seriously, it gets old!).
     None of my arguments for an objective approach will make a difference. Too many spoiled westerners are addicted to their anger. We will continue to suppress liberal (in the classical sense, not the modern use of the term) speech on university campuses because anyone who doesn't agree with so-called progressives is engaged in micro-aggressions, is racist/sexist/genderist/whateverist and shouldn't be allowed to talk. No matter they agree with the concept you claim to espouse, they just disagree with how you're going about expressing it, as with Professor Weinstein:

     No, we need to shout you down because you don't go along with our narrative. 

     So, I'll shut up for the moment, until I feel another righteous indignation at how inequality is ok, so long as it's directed towards me.

Why do we accept Car Death?

Why are cars acceptable, but guns aren't? Cars are SIGNIFICANTLY more dangerous than guns! How many lives have been saved with cars compared to how many people have been killed by cars?

The conservative estimate of legal defensive uses of firearms in the U.S. in the early 2000's was around 500,000 times annually. Obviously that means that around 475,000 of those uses did not involve shots being fired. And that's on the LOW end; one estimate put it closer to 2,000,000. So, AT LEAST 500,000 instances per year of a firearm being used in legitimate, legal self-defense. Can someone tell me how many lives were saved with cars? How many times did civilians, not EMS, use their car to save a life? How many times did civilians, not law enforcement, use their cars to stop crimes?

Ignoring, for the moment, DUI, negligence, and criminal misuse, MIT says air pollution leads to close to 200,000 deaths annually in the U.S. In Baltimore, MD alone “the highest emissions-related mortality rate in Baltimore, where 130 out of every 100,000 residents likely die in a given year due to long-term exposure to air pollution.” Compared to fewer than 500 in the same location, same length of time, from firearms usage. (number achieved by combining 2015 firearms-related murders with estimates of accidental fatalities from the same year, and rounding UP).

From those numbers, guns SAVE 2.5 times as many people as air pollution kills. That's setting-aside crashes and just looking at emissions. Granted, that's emissions from a variety of sources, but aren't automobiles the largest source of atmospheric pollution? "Mobile sources account for more than half of all the air pollution in the United States and the primary mobile source of air pollution is the automobile, according to the Environmental Protection Agency."  Wouldn't banning them remove the primary source of toxic air pollution? Wouldn't we save MORE lives if we got rid of cars, at least in the large cities where they aren't needed, than from every gun control measure combined?

Londoners are calling for the banning of cars in THEIR city. How about we follow THAT European example? I already posted the article from Sweden about the journalist advocating banning cars in the city because they are the weapon-of-choice by terrorists in Europe.

Looking at numbers for 2015 and 2016, you're around 2.5 times more likely to be killed by the criminal or negligent misuse of a car than a gun:

Found at Gun Violence Archive: Firearms related deaths in the United States for the previous two years: 2015-13,492 2016-15,084

Found at Insurance Institute for Highway Safety: Automobile related deaths in the United States, same time period: 2015-35,092 2016-40,200

Anti-gun advocates have claimed that firearms are too complicated for human beings to safely operate. Mechanically, guns are quite a bit simpler than cars. Elon Musk agrees with me that cars are too dangerous for human beings!

so why aren't we banning cars? Why do we allow these horrible weapons in our cities, to be used by the criminal and the inept? Why do we blindly accept Car Death? Why are automobiles, which are dramatically more dangerous than guns, so much a part of American culture? Why is it ok for someone with multiple DUI convictions to buy another death machine from the dealer down the street, with no background check, no monitoring, absolutely NO legal limitations on ownership, and very few on use, but the firearms industry is the most highly regulated in the U.S.?

Seriously, this is bugging the heck out of me. Every time I see ANOTHER article about people being killed in a terrorist attack, or a DUI crash, then hear screams about how dangerous guns are, I want to shove someone's face in the statistics. I know they wouldn't care. Cars are fun. Cars are freedom. Cars are...a right? How? Which amendment to the U.S. Constitution says "...the right of the people to keep and use automobiles shall not be infringed?" I don't recall that one from civics class.