I have no intention at all of spending my days on Earth arguing over opinion or a particular taste in music, or film, or cuisine, unless there are extenuating circumstances. An example might be a film that is rife with trash politics or racist or misogynist overtones or messages. Then I will argue the overtones or messages and thereby the value of the film. Any particular technical merits like cinematography or whatnot can go right in the toilet with the shitty content.

The reason for this semi-proclamation though is this idea that we must “hear out” the “other side” of an issue or party through civil discourse. There are some recurring arguments being bandied about the last few years about the importance of said civil discourse, like being civil will raise the righteous side above the unwashed masses and through that morality will always prevail.

That’s bullshit.

I’m talking about ideas that hurt people. I’m talking about politics and philosophies that hurt people. No, they will not be “heard out,” at least not through my ears. I will either shut you out, drown you out, or knock you out.

Be forewarned.

Civil discourse is often the privilege of those who don’t have a boot on their necks. Those that do know better and their voices should be the first heard. Let me amend that. Theirs’ should be the only voices heard. We can be civil after that part of it is sorted out. There is no moral imperative to hearing out the concerns of those wearing the boots. We break their legs, and then since they’re seated anyway, we tell them how it’s going to be. That’s not fascism, as some would suggest. That’s self-defense.

Know the difference.

In the meantime, I might for the sake of shits and giggles throw out obnoxious or provocative statements or arguments, but that’s banter. There is no malice aforethought. It’s just kicks.