With the recent shooting of Renee Good in Minnesota, a lot of attention has gathered around a single issue. Is it illegal immigration? Nope. Is it federal tax dollars being stolen by foreign scammers? Not at all. Is it, dare I speak it, the proliferation of buttons at the Golden Globes? Yes, but also no.
The focus from both sides of the political shitshow is on domestic terrorism. The Left is pointing at ICE and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” The Right is pointing at anti-ICE protesters and saying, “See? We told you they were domestic terrorists!” And meanwhile back at the Hall of Justice, we have people like me scratching our heads. Mostly because of dandruff in my case, but also because I’m having a hard time understanding how both sides can come to the same conclusion from two different points of view, and yet be completely wrong about it.
Consider this my therapy session. You’re welcome?
domestic terrorism
What the Left thinks it means – right-leaning individuals in the government who are attacking average people without cause
What the Right thinks it means – left-leaning individuals against the government who are attacking ICE to try to prevent them from doing their jobs
What it really means – a term that’s waaaaaaay overused these days
American politics has never been a weak person’s game, although you wouldn’t know it by looking at current Congresscritters like Eric Swalwell or previous Congresscritters like Adam Kinzinger. I mean, we’ve had people duel over political differences, as Alexander Hamilton’s family can attest.
Having said that, today’s version of American politics is a different breed of cat altogether. To say people are on edge is like saying water is wet, fire is hot, and Al Gore is boring. People are willing to die (or in some cases let others die) for an ideological movement so they have a rallying cry. And, without even a hint of irony, they call anyone opposed to them domestic terrorists because, well, that’s how the game is played anymore.
Being a word guy, I take a different approach to word usage than most people. The impact of some words can throw a flaming tanker truck onto the world’s biggest pile of hay drier than the drinks at a Mormon strip club. And let me tell you calling someone a domestic terrorist kinda fits that bill.
Granted, each side has their own idea of what constitutes a domestic terrorist. The Left thinks it’s anyone whiter than Edgar Winter at an outdoor picnic at Ice Station Zero and more to the right than Pat Buchanan. The Right thinks it’s anyone whose hair colors don’t match anything remotely close to natural and have opinions so far to the Left they would make Karl Marx look like Ronald Reagan. Whether you’re MAGA or Antifa, you’re a dangerous extremist to someone.
And therein lies the problem.
With a political landscape so toxic, it gets frightfully easy to demonize your opponents, which ramps up the heated rhetoric. It’s not enough that your opponent disagrees with you; they are your blood enemies. And it even works within the ideological sides, as any Leftist kicked off Bluesky and any Rightist who isn’t 129,000,000% MAGA will tell you, as can your humble correspondent. I’ve been kicked out of so many ideological groups I have boot marks on my ass. Or was that from the time I spent in a sex dungeon in Amsterdam?
Never mind.
The point is when everybody can be seen as a domestic terrorist by one person or another, it dilutes the meaning of the term and makes it harder for us to recognize actual domestic terrorists. Yes, the Left and the Right have their extremists nuttier than squirrel shit, but for the most part they wouldn’t fall into the category of terrorism until they commit acts of actual terrorism.
Which brings us to the “what does that mean” section of the Lexicon entry. And, yes, I realize you ask that question all the time while reading my rants, but this is different. The good folks at Dictionary.com define terrorism thus:
1. the unlawful use of violence or threats to intimidate or coerce a civilian population or government, with the goal of furthering political, social, or ideological objectives.
2. the state of fear and submission produced by terrorism.
3. a terrorist method of governing or of resisting a government.
4. intimidation or coercion by instilling fear
So…that’s neat.
What this means in the context of our current political shitshow is there are a lot of people on both sides (albeit on the extremes) that subscribe to the notion their terrorism is freedom and other people’s terrorism is terrorism. But if you’re using the same tactics, it doesn’t matter if you’re red or blue; you’re a fucking terrorist.
This is why it’s important we don’t lump all of the Left and all of the Right under the same domestic terrorism umbrella. Not everyone is going to pick up arms and start shooting up a Congresscritter’s house. That’s reserved for people hired by Governor TIMMAH Walz.
Seriously, though, we’ve seen how absurd this approach is just by looking at some of the people caught up in the January 6th situation. Yes, there were some assholes in the crowd (I’m looking at you, Nick Fuentes), but not all the assholes got caught, and some of the people who were caught weren’t of the terrorist variety. Of course, that didn’t stop the Left from painting them all as domestic terrorists. Because as we all know grandmas are the real domestic terrorists, amirite?
Actually, I’m not right, in the head or otherwise.
The reason both sides throw the domestic terrorism label around like a football at a barbecue at Tom Brady’s place is because it allows the “otherization” of their perceived opponents. And, yes, Leftists, I see you doing this all the time with your “MAGAt” talk. Not that the “Libtard” calls coming from the Right are any better. Even so, there is a large difference between “MAGAt” and “Libtard” and actual domestic terrorism, but neither side wants to make that distinction because, well, it’s easy, fun, and doesn’t hurt anybody.
At least, not until the guns start firing.
And where we are right now, it’s only a matter of time. All it takes is one asshole to take it upon himself or herself (still two genders, by the way) to take matters into his/her own hands and strike a blow for his/her side. Then, we all become domestic terrorists unless we decide to take a different path.
The first step? Not calling the other side domestic terrorists unless they are domestic terrorists.
The second step is a little harder to accomplish, but it’s no less important. Call out the motherfuckers who are causing all the chaos and tell them to shut the fuck up. I don’t care if you’re Democrat or Republican, socialist or capitalist, a New England Patriots fan or wrong, we have to be brave enough to take on the more vocal provocateurs on our own side. For all of their bluster, there are more of us than there are of them, and judging solely by the idea the loudest voices are often the most chicken shit, they will run for their little hidey-holes the second someone tells them to take a seat.
Then, we get to step 3: realizing both sides of the political divide are people, not ideologies. Granted, some of those barely qualify as sentient let alone human, but we still need to try and find some common ground. I will speak for myself, mainly because I’m the only one who knows me best, but I try to remove the politics from the person and look for something we agree on and go from there.
I love Samuel L. Jackson for no other reason than he has perfected the use of the word “motherfucker.” He and I don’t see eye to eye on politics, but we can groove together on movies. Once you find that common denominator, ideology takes a back seat to fandom. And last time I checked, there has never been a world war started because of a fandom.
Now, online, on the other hand…well, let’s just leave it alone.
But you see the point, I hope. Neither side is comprised of only domestic terrorists, nor should we assume they are. I quote the great philosopher Dave Mason:
So let’s leave it alone
‘Cause we can’t see eye to eye.
There ain’t no good guy.
There ain’t no bad guy.
There’s only you and me, and we just disagree.
And if we can’t trust someone who gave us “Ooh, oh-oh-oh,” who can we trust?
