#ResusWankers

    

    I just read an article titled Freedom Requires Courage. The author makes some great points about Cancel Culture, but something I didn’t see is what the author means by “courage”. Granted, I might have missed it as my mind started wandering off on the tangent I’m writing now.

    The definition I primarily see of “Courage”, in the socio-political context of media, is of people standing up for their stated opinions. “Don’t back down, don’t apologize for saying what you actually feel, don’t withdraw your signature from a document simply because Cancel Culture came for you”. I agree. I think people should stand up for their opinions. They should also be allowed to change their opinions when faced with legitimate evidence. They should also be allowed to be wrong (if they actually are, when discussing something with objective right/wrong solution sets, which do exist). However, I’m going to go the other direction and say that those engaged in Cancel Culture need to have courage. They need to have the courage to allow others to disagree with them.

    As I became more involved with pre-hospital medicine, a good friend told me about John Hinds. He was a trauma doctor who worked motorcycle races in northern Europe. He is, unfortunately, dead now, but his influence continues, and he had a heck of a life. Imagine being a motorcycle-based trauma surgeon at races! Freaking Bad Ass! His “Cases from the Races” videos are amusing when he has to disclose his sponsors. He’s at a medical conference disclosing sponsorship from the motorcycle industry.

    Uhh, Rick, what does this have to do with Cancel Culture and courage?

    I’m glad you asked.

    In “Crack the chest, get crucified”, he is going through his list of the types of people you run into during an After Action Report (AAR), or when discussing a procedure that might not be common under certain circumstances. That’s where I got the title for this post (which he states in the video is open for anyone to use 😊. ). Specifically, I like the idea of “…skeptics are your greatest allies…” (4:33). A true skeptic, not a Wanker, will LISTEN to your argument. They might not like the idea you’re proposing, they will have arguments against you, but skeptics are “…the ones you can turn with a good evidence base…” (5:02). True skeptics are the people who you should engage in “…sensible conversation…” (5:15) with in order to test your ideas.

    Applying this to Cancel Culture, contemporary American social and political “discussion” (more like temper tantrum tirades with arson, looting, and some indiscriminate shooting than “discussion”, but hey, “Tomato/Tomato”, right?): If you support more extensive collectivization of the economy, of goods and services, you should allow free-market supporters to voice their opinions so that you can formulate your arguments in favor of your position. The reciprocal is applicable also: if you are a supporter of a libertarian free-market, let socialists voice their opinions and you can use that as an opportunity to firm-up your arguments. Perhaps both arguments are valid under different circumstances, for different people. I want to live in more of a free-market, you want a collectivized market. Cool. I'll go my way, you go yours, and we can have discussions about it over the interwebs.

    I think this applies pretty much across the board, across the entire spectrum of media-fueled, melodramatic, too-often now violent, “conversations” Western Society is having. Sit down with your opposition and DEBATE the point. Not try to burn down a federal courthouse because you feel entitled to act-out violently in reaction to something that didn’t even involve the federal government, let alone the Judicial Branch. Don’t pull out a pistol and shoot at the feet of an opposing protest, then try to claim self-defense (nope. Nope. NOPE! There’s no self-defense there; you’re just a jackass) (and note: I just called-out both the Left and the Right for violent stupidity, so don't try to accuse me of taking sides in that). Get a latte and a cinnamon roll, and work through your arguments. OMG, you might have to change your mind. OMG, you might have a good point, but can’t articulate it well. This gives you an opportunity to develop better semantics. OMG, your opinion might be objectively right, but for the wrong reasons. OMG, your opinion might be based on good logic, but you came to a bad conclusion. Or, you might be right, have good reasons, articulate it well, and be able to persuade the person you’re talking with. Or, you might be right, have good reasons, articulate it well, and not be able to change their mind. So. What!

    For some reason, We (the collective We), don’t seem to be able to do that. Why?

    My knee-jerk thought is that most people just want their opinion to be made right by fiat, and they want instant results, if not retroactive results. Pass a law supporting me, and that’ll prove that I’m right. Give my side instant "Justice" because we are right and no trial is needed. A police officer murdered someone? ACAB, dismantle the entire institution, and execute everyone in uniform, fire the relatives of officers/agents/deputies/troopers/etc from their jobs simply for being related to someone with a badge. If you oppose me, I’ll dox you and harass you and your family at home, proving that I’m right. Justice wasn’t served fast enough, so I’m going to loot and burn as a means of demanding retroactive justice be applied sans trial.

    Back to Courage (with a capital C). Facing off against SRT/SWAT and throwing Molotov Cocktails at them isn’t courageous, it’s suicidal. No, it isn’t “standing up to tyranny” when you started it by damaging property, looting stores, and engaging in physical violence against everyone around you, no matter their affiliation or intent. That's just being a #ResusWanker. If you don't know already, Resus Monkeys are famous for throwing their own feces all over the damn place. If you can't make the connection...I can't help you.

    Non-violent protests have more than double the success rate of violent ones. Sitting down over a chocolate orange baby bundt (seriously, ya gotta try it, it’s really good) and TALKING is more effective. You’ll be taken seriously, even if you’re wrong. Yes, that’s a form of Tone Policing, and I’m not ashamed of it in the least. Screaming like a 5-year-old who didn’t get the candy bar they wanted does not a positive impression make.

    And listen. Listen to the person you’re talking with. I abhor socialism in all its forms, but I’ll let the socialist have their say. Unfortunately for me, it takes me a week to come up with a well-reasoned retort, but maybe I’ll remember it the next time we meet. I won’t start yelling vacuous moronicisms at him, not letting him get a word in edge-wise, with the intent of “cancelling” his voice. That doesn’t lend credibility to my fundamental message, or me as a person.

    Have the Courage to let someone articulate their view. Don’t “cancel” them for not seeing the world the way you do; use it as an opportunity to develop your evidence and reasoning. Formulate well-reasoned arguments that can turn a skeptic to your view. If you can’t, then accept that you might be wrong (if only in part), and should re-think your position.

    I could probably keep going, but I'm getting hungry and I bet my puppy needs to go out to pee, so you can thank my stomach and puppy for this one actually being short.