A Theory of Lopez’s Theory on Incivility [posted here; it seems to be held up for moderation for now]
As I have noted elsewhere, many nutjobs, conspiracy theorists, losers, racists, cranks, etc., associate with movements like libertarianism, conservatism, militias, common law courts, etc. I think the reason is, in part, that when a view is marginalized by mainstream American–e.g., libertarianism, militias, etc.–then successful people tend not to associate with it, since they have something to lose. Some of us have the fortitude and type of careers that allow us to swim against the tide anyway, yet still keep a foot in a successful career, but not everyone.
So these movements tend to draw disproportionate numbers of those who have little to lose–i.e., losers, uneducated, those on the bottom rungs of society. This is why, for example, at libertarian-party or similar events I’ve spoken at or attended, where, e.g., the topic might be something academic like whether decentralized legal systems (judge-made law, courts, common law, Roman law) are superior to centralized, legislation-based systems, many of the people who show up are uneducated Harley riders who ask you over and over again about the nutball “common law court” stuff (this happened to me one time at a FEE-sponsored discussion group in Valley Forge), or ask you to show where in the tax code you are “required” to pay income tax, etc.
And this is why militia movements, for example, which in the older days would have upstanding citizens and “patriots” as its supporters, now are populated with gun nuts, racists, skinheads, anti-semites, etc. These are the type of people who have nothing to lose so have the luxury of joining a marginalized movement, thereby making it even more marginalized and crankish.
So it’s understandable that the only people willing, by and large, to openly challenge mainstream views by endorsing views marginalized or ridiculed by conventional society are those with little to lose. Sometimes someone with stature or courage or backbone will buck the trend, or become martyrs, but by and large, it’s understandable why those with little to lose–who are either losers, or retired billionaires–predominate.
(As an aside–something like this has been true for some time regarding politically correctness. For a couple decades now there were things you just could not say or question–especially if you were (no offense, Lopez) a white male). But just as explicit socialism has crumbled along with the Soviet empire, so the majority are starting to shrug, like Atlas, the burden continually placed on them by the PC Seriosos. They are sick of being told they are evil for being white or in the majority, or for holding preferences similar to those held by the whining minorities or special interests; and the escalating, shrill cries of the politically-correct have become ever more absurd, making them sound ever more like bleaters. They have diluted and distorted and twisted concepts like racism, bigotry, anti-semitism so much that no one bats an eye any more when a dimwit cries “racist!”; people roll their eyes and move on. And this is as it should be. So my point here is that it’s becoming more and more acceptable to be “politically incorrect” as the PC standards are revealed as being hypocritical, strange, unfair. Again, no offense, Lopez.)
This brings me to my point, though. Lopez (and Kennedy? I can’t recall) seems remarkably passionate about not following any rules of civility. I suspect one reason for this is he is just a marginal nobody with nothing to lose. While I do criticize him elsewhere, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all, just a hypothesis. From what I know of Lopez, he is a blogger and a blogger only; no real publications or books, no credentials or status, no “name,” etc. This is true of most of us so again, I don’t mean this to be a criticism at all. It’s in part a suggested explanation as to why some blogger types will be so incivil–because they have nothing to lose–no book deals, no TV interviews, no teaching positions, etc.
Now, no doubt some might try to rebut this by saying that I, Kinsella, am also incivil. This would be ridiculous, for a few reasons.
First, so what? So what if it applies to me too? So what if I’m a hypocrit? It does not mean I’m wrong.
Second, I am not generally incivil, but only to the marginalized losers who are incivil because of this status. Mainstream society does not frown too much on responding to losers, as long as one is not a loser himself.
