HOLY HELL. APPARENTLY I’M A LIBERAL NOW.
How a cargo ship, a missile, and one fucking reaction turned into an internet political identity crisis.
Well, this is a fascinating development.
Apparently, I’m a liberal now.
Who knew?
Not me. But evidently, a collection of internet jagaloons has decided that my reaction to an American fighter jet striking a commercial cargo ship was sufficient evidence to completely rewrite my political identity.
Jesus Christ.
Here’s what happened.
I saw the news that an American fighter jet had struck a Panama-flagged commercial cargo ship after CENTCOM said the vessel repeatedly ignored warnings and attempted to violate the U.S. blockade of Iranian ports.
A COMMERCIAL CARGO SHIP.
WITH A MISSILE.
My reaction?
HOLY HELL.
Because, and I cannot believe I have to explain this to functioning adults, watching an American fighter jet fire a missile at a commercial vessel is a pretty fucking extraordinary thing to witness.
Apparently, that was my first mistake.
My second mistake was expressing relief that nobody aboard was reportedly injured.
My third mistake was saying I’d like to hear from the ship’s operator before treating every detail of the military’s account as settled fact.
And just like that, ladies and gentlemen, I became a liberal.
A stupid liberal cunt, apparently.
Who doesn’t understand what a blockade is.
Oh, for fuck’s sake.
WHEN DID SHOCK BECOME OPPOSITION?
Let’s examine this astonishing display of intellectual gymnastics.
I didn’t say the blockade was illegal.
I didn’t say the blockade was unjustified.
I didn’t say the United States shouldn’t enforce it.
I didn’t defend Iran.
I didn’t condemn President Trump.
I didn’t even offer a conclusion about whether striking the vessel was warranted.
I REACTED TO THE FUCKING NEWS.
That’s it.
I was shocked that we had reached the point where American fighter jets were firing missiles at commercial shipping.
And somehow, people managed to transform that reaction into an entire political manifesto I never fucking wrote.
Do I know what a blockade is?
Yes, you condescending turnip.
I understand that a naval blockade is a military operation designed to restrict maritime access and that enforcing one can involve the use of force, subject to applicable law and the circumstances.
Understanding that doesn’t require me to watch a missile hit a cargo ship and respond like I’m checking the weather.
“Oh, look, darling. Seventy-two degrees, partly cloudy, and we’ve just disabled a merchant vessel in the Gulf of Oman. Pass the fucking butter.”
WHAT?
Since when does understanding military strategy require having absolutely no reaction to its execution?
THE BACKPEDALING BULLSHIT
Now here’s where this little internet circus gets particularly entertaining.
Once these self-appointed political detectives decided I opposed the strike, I apparently lost the right to explain what I actually meant.
Because if I clarify my position?
BACKPEDALING!
Oh, that’s convenient.
You invent an opinion for me.
You get angry about the opinion you invented.
You insult me for holding the opinion I never expressed.
And when I explain that I never held that opinion in the first place, suddenly I’m desperately trying to escape my own words.
I DIDN’T CHANGE MY POSITION. YOU ASSIGNED ME ONE, THEN ACCUSED ME OF BACKPEDALING WHEN I REFUSED TO ADOPT IT.
What an absolutely spectacular crock of shit.
This isn’t debate.
This isn’t critical thinking.
This is arguing with an imaginary version of someone while the actual person is standing right there telling you that you’re wrong.
And somehow, the imaginary version wins.
APPARENTLY WE DON’T READ ANYMORE
Here’s what actually bothers me about this.
We’ve reached a point where people don’t read something to understand it.
They read it to classify it.
Is she on my team?
Is she against my team?
Can I call her a liberal?
Can I call her MAGA?
Can I find three words that confirm whatever ridiculous conclusion I’ve already decided to reach?
Forget context.
Forget nuance.
Forget the possibility that someone might have an immediate emotional reaction to a major military development without having formulated a comprehensive geopolitical position in the next fourteen fucking seconds.
Everything must be allegiance.
Every question must be dissent.
Every expression of surprise must be condemnation.
And every clarification must be backpedaling.
What a miserable, intellectually bankrupt way to communicate.
YOU CAN SUPPORT SOMETHING AND STILL QUESTION IT
This shouldn’t be controversial.
You can support a policy and question how it’s implemented.
You can understand a military operation and still be shocked by what it looks like in practice.
You can believe a blockade should be enforced and still want accurate information about a particular strike.
You can respect the American military without treating every initial account as the final, unquestionable word.
And you can ask questions without secretly pledging allegiance to the fucking Ayatollah.
These things are not mutually exclusive.
I don’t need to decide whether every military action is justified before I’m permitted to react to breaking news.
And I certainly don’t need permission from a collection of strangers who apparently believe the entire spectrum of human thought consists of two political teams and a fucking scoreboard.
WELCOME TO THE INTERNET, WHERE YOUR OPINIONS ARE ASSIGNED FOR YOU
This is what makes the whole thing so absurd.
People are no longer satisfied disagreeing with what you actually say.
They need to tell you what you meant.
What you believe.
What political party you belong to.
What your motives were.
And what your next explanation supposedly proves.
They’ve turned reading comprehension into a competitive contact sport, and half the participants showed up without a helmet.
I write exactly how I speak.
Sometimes I’m sarcastic.
Sometimes I’m furious.
Sometimes I’m shocked.
Sometimes I ask questions.
And yes, sometimes I say HOLY FUCKING HELL because something genuinely warrants a HOLY FUCKING HELL.
That doesn’t mean every exclamation point is a declaration of political allegiance.
It means I’m a human being having a reaction.
A concept apparently so fucking foreign to some people that it requires an entire op-ed to explain.
So, for the intellectually adventurous among us, allow me to clarify one final time.
Shock is not condemnation.
Skepticism is not opposition.
Questions are not disloyalty.
And refusing to accept somebody else’s interpretation of my own words is not backpedaling.
I know what a blockade is.
I know what I wrote.
And I know the difference between reacting to an event and taking a position on it.
If you can’t distinguish those things, perhaps the problem isn’t my political affiliation.
Perhaps it’s your fucking reading comprehension.
And if your argument requires inventing my position before you can defeat it, congratulations.
You’ve won a debate against someone who doesn’t exist.
HOLY HELL.
Apparently, that makes me a liberal.
Tomorrow I might express surprise that it’s raining.
God only knows what political party that’ll put me in.
Welcome to the Buttermaker Multisphere.
Where the fucks are plentiful, the questions are intentional, and your inability to comprehend either is not my emergency.
Jagaloons.com