The Game Played by Bullies and Bigots
Aug. 2nd, 2016 10:19 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastChances are, whether willingly or not, you've been a participant in this game. In fact, a large part of the game is in getting people to play the game. Trickery, physical force, manipulation of authority figures, all are allowed to get people into the game. But, once in, the first rule is important.
Rule #1: The Target cannot win.
Have you ever asked "what have I ever done to you?" and got the response "you were born"? That's this rule in play. It's rule number one of the game. The rewards for victory in the game are feelings of strength and power and social acceptance and political power.
But, that's a rudimentary version. Children will sometimes play it. There's a new wrinkle that has to come in and, here, things get complex.
Rule #2: Never admit to Rule #1.
If you stick to Rule #2 just perfectly, you'll live by Rule #1, but never even acknowledge it within the depths of your own mind. You can speak it as clearly as possible but never actually believe that you've spoken it. So, at the same time you identify the losers of the game, you provide encouragement for them to win even as you ensure that they cannot.
I bring this up for a reason. This isn't just played on individual grounds. It's also played on big grounds, national playing fields for big rewards.
Rule #1 has to be hidden for the game to work. And, it's easy to hide Rule #1 behind a veil of ignorance.
If someone tells you that Black Lives Matter has to denounce violence and the targeting of police, that's Rule #1 being hidden. They already have, but they have to do so in such a way that the speaker hears of it and remembers it among the repeated calls for them to do what they've already done. If someone asks why BLM isn't interested in black on black crime, despite other organizations already existing to focus on that issue, that's Rule #1 being carefully hidden.
But, Rule #1 has to remain hidden. It's an important part of the game. If other people notice that Rule #1 is in effect, they call you things like "bigot" and you lose out on what you're supposed to be winning.
Because of that, sometimes, you've got to hold back from the attack. Sometimes, in extreme cases, you've got to let them have something of a win. Otherwise, Rule #1 comes into focus.
That leads us to current events. Trump has been plying Rule #1 on a number of groups. That's how he's gotten the Republican Nomination. If you're a Muslim, you can't win with Trump or his base. If you're Mexican, you can't win with Trump or his base.
If you're a Muslim family who's son died a war hero...
The story of Trump getting the Republican nod is the story of Trump crossing lines that didn't make internal sense in the first place. Favoring the criminalization of abortion without any penalties for women who have abortions? Favoring a refusal to accept Muslim refugees, but not stopping Muslim immigration otherwise? Declaring all Muslims suspect and misogynist, but not stopping with a family morning the loss of a son?
Why would Trump see these lines at all? They don't make internal sense. And, for two of those, they do make sense in terms of Rule #2.
Now, I'm not saying that all the Republicans who've criticized Trump for his attacks on the Khan family are acting out of pure cynicism. I am saying that Rule #2 works best when you can convince yourself that you're not playing by Rule #1. And, Trump's attack laid Rule #1 bare. It was impossible to look at that and not see Rule #1 at play.
We could say that there are boundaries they will not overstep, because they're just that step too far. But, in many cases, what makes that step make sense? Why is it the case that Muslims are such a threat that they must be targeted for extra-investigations and such an evil that they must all be tarred with the practices of foreign nations, but this particular family can't be so targeted?
Because, if a young man can join the US armed forces, defend America and die to save the lives of other troops and still have his family so targeted, Rule #1 is there. And, Rule #2 allows you to feel like you're the good guy.
Rule #1: The Target cannot win.
Have you ever asked "what have I ever done to you?" and got the response "you were born"? That's this rule in play. It's rule number one of the game. The rewards for victory in the game are feelings of strength and power and social acceptance and political power.
But, that's a rudimentary version. Children will sometimes play it. There's a new wrinkle that has to come in and, here, things get complex.
Rule #2: Never admit to Rule #1.
If you stick to Rule #2 just perfectly, you'll live by Rule #1, but never even acknowledge it within the depths of your own mind. You can speak it as clearly as possible but never actually believe that you've spoken it. So, at the same time you identify the losers of the game, you provide encouragement for them to win even as you ensure that they cannot.
I bring this up for a reason. This isn't just played on individual grounds. It's also played on big grounds, national playing fields for big rewards.
Rule #1 has to be hidden for the game to work. And, it's easy to hide Rule #1 behind a veil of ignorance.
If someone tells you that Black Lives Matter has to denounce violence and the targeting of police, that's Rule #1 being hidden. They already have, but they have to do so in such a way that the speaker hears of it and remembers it among the repeated calls for them to do what they've already done. If someone asks why BLM isn't interested in black on black crime, despite other organizations already existing to focus on that issue, that's Rule #1 being carefully hidden.
But, Rule #1 has to remain hidden. It's an important part of the game. If other people notice that Rule #1 is in effect, they call you things like "bigot" and you lose out on what you're supposed to be winning.
Because of that, sometimes, you've got to hold back from the attack. Sometimes, in extreme cases, you've got to let them have something of a win. Otherwise, Rule #1 comes into focus.
That leads us to current events. Trump has been plying Rule #1 on a number of groups. That's how he's gotten the Republican Nomination. If you're a Muslim, you can't win with Trump or his base. If you're Mexican, you can't win with Trump or his base.
If you're a Muslim family who's son died a war hero...
The story of Trump getting the Republican nod is the story of Trump crossing lines that didn't make internal sense in the first place. Favoring the criminalization of abortion without any penalties for women who have abortions? Favoring a refusal to accept Muslim refugees, but not stopping Muslim immigration otherwise? Declaring all Muslims suspect and misogynist, but not stopping with a family morning the loss of a son?
Why would Trump see these lines at all? They don't make internal sense. And, for two of those, they do make sense in terms of Rule #2.
Now, I'm not saying that all the Republicans who've criticized Trump for his attacks on the Khan family are acting out of pure cynicism. I am saying that Rule #2 works best when you can convince yourself that you're not playing by Rule #1. And, Trump's attack laid Rule #1 bare. It was impossible to look at that and not see Rule #1 at play.
We could say that there are boundaries they will not overstep, because they're just that step too far. But, in many cases, what makes that step make sense? Why is it the case that Muslims are such a threat that they must be targeted for extra-investigations and such an evil that they must all be tarred with the practices of foreign nations, but this particular family can't be so targeted?
Because, if a young man can join the US armed forces, defend America and die to save the lives of other troops and still have his family so targeted, Rule #1 is there. And, Rule #2 allows you to feel like you're the good guy.
