Friday, April 4, 2014

Guns are for Sissies

Here’s my new YouTube video, which looks again at the American gun cult and the sissification of postmodern men.

And below the video are the notes I used to prepare for this video

Cheers!



American gun culture, but more like a cult: Hollywood myths of power, manliness, and heroism (Westerns, gun fights, meme of American military “performing brilliantly” (22,000 hits on Google)); cops and robbers TV shows, NRA, survivalism, and Christian apocalypse fundamentalism; mysterious in Canada, Europe, Japan, and elsewhere which don’t celebrate guns; Question: Why is the gun cult an American phenomenon? Two-part answer: (1) the US is conservative, whereas most modern societies are more liberal, and conservatives pride themselves on being more masculine (authoritarian, honourable, absolutist; see Jonathan Haidt); (2) the US is the most powerful country so the power spills into its culture and Americans reconcile themselves to their domination with militaristic myths, which entail the worship of guns

Question: Why is the gun culture grotesque and pathetic? Two incomplete answers: (1) Feminization, emasculation thesis (Bill Maher and Fight Club novel and movie): rise of women and machines (globalization); men can’t compete and have lose their sense of masculinity; the gun cult is meant to restore or protect masculine values, whereas masculinity in modern societies is clearly in decline; (2) Freudian gun-as-substitute-penis thesis

Gun cult fails to reenergize men, because guns are for sissies: guns don’t augment martial virtues or inspire masculine heroism, since guns kill in a relatively cowardly fashion, allowing the shooter to kill from a position of complete safety, as in sniping and drones; the gun does most of the work and merely has to be triggered with a finger flick to shoot; compare with ancient bow and arrow and spear, the difference being that in the ancient world, men used those weapons to hunt (to kill for their own food); even when they used those weapons in war, their cultures were authentically masculine, because they didn’t have machine as slaves to take care of the necessities of life; compare Bill Maher’s statement that the 911 terrorists weren’t cowardly, contrary to what the US politicians said (the terrorists were infantile, deluded, and irrational, but not cowardly, since they obviously put themselves in harm’s way as they killed their so-called enemies, as opposed to shooting from a distance)

Manly weapons are swords, knives, or fists, since it’s much harder to kill without putting yourself in jeopardy; true, whenever almost everyone has a gun, as in the US, no one is safe, but you still don’t have to get your hands dirty when you shoot, versus killing an animal with a spear, which teaches you the horror of death (similar to the two views of war, those of soldiers and civilian politicians: the more distance you have from war, the more gung-ho you tend to be, since you’re ignorant); the gun dual is meant to make the fight perfectly fair, but it still doesn’t teach masculine virtues, since it makes the fight turn on a flip of a coin; in modern war too, it’s mostly a matter of luck whether you get shot since bullets fly from all directions, as WWII soldiers found out when they stormed the beaches (low US casualty rates recently, since it doesn’t fight real wars against near-equals)

Rise of mixed martial arts addresses the poverty of the gun cult, since fist-fighting obviously takes more heroic kinds of courage and skill

Gun cult an indicator, then, of modern decadence: impotent, doomed defense of manliness; absurdity of bragging about gun collections or killing in gang warfare, because that modern weapon makes you less of a man; it doesn’t teach you humility or honour; it makes you a monster (psychopath), a coward, or PTSD victim (if you experience the chaotic, dehumanizing nature of modern mechanized warfare)

19 comments:

  1. I'd disagree on the reason for emasculation. The reason is because guns are so damn efficient that you can't use it. It's rather like these days when some kid threatens the cops with a knife and...they eventually shoot him. What would happen in the old day? The cops would move in, clubs in hand and beat the shit out of him - he'd most likely survive and maybe the cops would get a cut or two. So where are we at with guns - actually even cops are emasculated, even as they demand such devices and insurance companies demand they use them or they will hike the hell out of their rates (or in other words, faceless insurance companies are ordering the deaths of stupid kids with knives, instead of them getting the sound beating they used to get). In the old days the cops would take down the kid with clubs. Now they are too weak to do that - they can only kill.

    Guns are too powerful to use, yet the masculine male wants to show his tough guyness - but to do so with just fists or a club or a knife in a gun infested world is to bring a knife to a potential gun fight. But to bring a gun is too much. So they are left with nothing but bitter words - the sort of thing they want to accuse women of using exclusively.


    Also I think the terrorists do qualify as cowardly, given they thought they'd go on to some afterlife with 21 virgins for their enjoyment (side note: I've heard that's a translation error and the 21 virgins actually refers to a type of semi transparent saltana). Mind you you could call the vikings cowards given they think if they die in battle they go to a really, really fun and nice place. What sort of risk is that - it's quite the opposite of risk!

    Calling vikings cowards!? Blasphemy! Especially after they murdered all those defenseless monks - total badasses! ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Oh, also I was keen to see a reply to over here, if it'd please you :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think your point that guns are too powerful is consistent with my explanation of men's emasculation. As I also point out, guns do almost all the work, so the users become third wheels. Of course I'm not suggesting that we go back to swords, clubs, or fists, since then we'd be sitting ducks for those who stick with guns.

      I don't know if the anticipation of heaven makes terrorists cowardly. Selfish, yes, but cowardly? I don't see how that follows. Maybe they're cowardly for not choosing to be more rational.

      I've replied in that thread to Scott Bakker.

      Delete
    2. Why, it's the same cowardlyness as the gun users - you can kill with impunity. What, you think going to HEAVEN for the act is not doing so with impunity!? They don't even lay around with bruises and broken bones in pain, just die instantly and go straight to their heaven.

      It's like killing many other people and then being rushed to a five star hotels presidential suite - that's even more impunity than a gun grants!

      That's the same cowardice as a sniper if not more.

      It only seems selfish to you?

      Of course part of this is the double talk - part of the brain believing in a heaven and another part thinking it'd just die and the heaven believing part vaguely picking up the signals of importance the practical part thinks and treating the heaven thing as important, rather than cowardice. 'Cause you're, like, dying, so it's not just hiding like a sniper does, it's really important - but oh wait, you live off in happy nirvana land after, but it's really important cause you die so no cowardice cause you die like a man, but it's okay because you live!

      It's like listening to two dogs barking at each other from either side of the fence, the fence that divides the two hemispheres of the brain.

      Delete
    3. I think it would be more cowardly if angels came down to help the terrorists in their missions, since then they'd be relying on a higher power. That's what guns do: they allow us to kill without relying on just our power. Guns are like having guardian angels over our shoulder. Thus, we can kill from a position of complete safety since the gun takes care of most of the work; for example, it fires from a great distance. The prospect of heaven doesn't really help the terrorist kill, so it doesn't have the same sort of effect. Likely it boosts the terrorist's confidence level, as would many other delusions, so the terrorist could use the thought of heaven for an adrenalin rush. But is that cowardly? Not in the same way as the use of guns. I still see the thought of heaven as more selfish than cowardly in this respect.

      Of course, there's general cowardice in theism and in any embrace of delusion to avoid dealing with our existential predicament. But that's more general than this issue of killing in various ways.

      Delete
    4. From my position you're shifting the goal posts, Ben.
      (the terrorists were infantile, deluded, and irrational, but not cowardly, since they obviously put themselves in harm’s way as they killed their so-called enemies, as opposed to shooting from a distance)

      Your goal post was they put themselves in harms way. Not your new 'allow us to kill without relying on just our power' - that'd be a charge in regards to manlyness.

      No, you talked about harm and...they face no harm. They go off to heaven land! If I set off a bomb harness around me, killing folk, but it teleports me to a five star hotel, do you think that isn't cowardly of me?

      Delete
    5. Come in for me, Ben! You don't do the usual 'This is how it is and I'm not thinking any further!' that's on the net. So how far can you go *cue limbo music*? Or will the goal shift hypothesis just hit a brick wall with you?

      Side note: Not putting this as if it's a big thing, it's just like challenging someone to chess or hackey sack or something. Just a challenge >:)

      Delete
    6. Actually, near the end of the video I talk about this other aspect of manliness, by pointing out that guns do most of the work. We merely have to trigger them with a flick of a finger, whereas it takes muscle to effectively swing a sword. Thus, there's more than one aspect of manliness.

      In any case, being able to kill from a position of complete safety follows from this point about guns: that they do all the work for us. It's the bullet that kills and bullets happen to travel far, thus allowing the shooter to kill without having to look the victim in the eye. That's the dehumanizing effect of guns. Shooters don't learn how to be brooding, honourable, manly men (tragic heroes), because they rely on that machine. This is really the point of Don Quixote.

      The terrorists did face physical harm, though: they sacrificed their physical life, dying in the plane crashes. Do you really think it took no courage to intentionally fly a plane straight into a tall building? Imagine looking out the window as the tower got closer and closer. Could you keep your foot on the gas, as it were? I agree, though, that any courage here is tarnished by the terrorist's vices. In particular, their theism was virtually insane. And as you say, their sacrifice wasn't tragic in their minds, since they expected to live forever in heaven afterward. So it does sound strange to call them courageous. However, I think it also sounds strange to call them cowards.

      I'm not sure what you mean by the latter challenge. What do you mean by "come in for me"? Were you just asking me to reply? I've just been busy the last few days. My brother and sister-in-law came in from South Carolina and I had a big Passover feast, hosted by my family.

      Delete
    7. The terrorists did face physical harm, though: they sacrificed their physical life, dying in the plane crashes. Do you really think it took no courage to intentionally fly a plane straight into a tall building? Imagine looking out the window as the tower got closer and closer. Could you keep your foot on the gas, as it were?

      If I was really certain I was going to teleport out to a five star hotel before impact, it wouldn't be terribly hard at all (err, apart from the whole killing lots of innocents stuff). Giving a speach to a large crowd would probably be more frightening for me.

      I agree, though, that any courage here is tarnished by the terrorist's vices. In particular, their theism was virtually insane. And as you say, their sacrifice wasn't tragic in their minds, since they expected to live forever in heaven afterward. So it does sound strange to call them courageous. However, I think it also sounds strange to call them cowards.


      I think the part of us that measures courage has trouble with theory of mind putting themselves in the shoes of someone who thinks they are just going to go to heaven. For whom it's about as scary as going to the dentist to get a tooth pulled. But the courage part just measures it from a bodily harm perspective - quite oblivious to the religious factor. Maybe that's why many religious folk feel themselves heroes - part of their brain thinks they are just being courageous, while the other parts feel safe because of their heaven exit strategy.

      What do you mean by "come in for me"? Were you just asking me to reply?
      I just run into alot of posts on the net where people wont kinda go the extra yard, especially it seems if it involves conceding anything. It's funny, it was so much no big deal for you you didn't even get what I meant, so it was quite the false positive estimate on my part!

      Delete
    8. Ah, are you saying you thought I was going to change my mind about whether the terrorists were cowards? Sorry, but I call them as I see them. Still, I've agreed that it's a mixed bag. Their theism itself is cowardly in Nietzsche's sense. But unlike the Western exoteric theists, they've set themselves on an adventure, going to war with the Great Satan, as they put it.

      I agree that it's hard to think like a terrorist, since they're not entirely sane. Still, delusions can go only so far to mask reality. This is why the terrorists yell "God is great!" when they're doing their evil deeds, to distract them from the horrors they're perpetrating. They chant their mantra to keep their courage up, because the abstract thought of heaven can't entirely counter the concrete realities of flying a plane into a building or of beheading someone.

      Delete
    9. Sorry, but I call them as I see them.

      That seems to be asserting such a thing as a positive, given the history of incompetence in the human race?

      I mean sure, you don't want to instead trust me to call things as I see them, as I'm part of the human race too. But jeez, its possible to give that up without handing it off to anyone else.

      They chant their mantra to keep their courage up,
      Or to keep the reality away - like a sniper rifle does.

      Delete
    10. I wish I could edit! Changing it to:

      That seems to be asserting such a thing as a positive despite the history of incompetence in the human race?

      Delete
    11. What I do, Callan, is just copy the comment, edit it, delete the one from the blog, and then just post the edited version.

      Delete
    12. I guess I aught to have done that.

      Anyway, no reply to the post? If so, ok.

      Delete
  3. The Gun is good! The Penis is evil! The Penis shoots Seeds, and makes new Life to poison the Earth with a plague of men, as once it was. But the Gun shoots Death and purifies the Earth of the filth of Brutals. Go forth, and kill!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This sounds satirical. But I wrote something similar in this article:

      http://rantswithintheundeadgod.blogspot.ca/2012/02/sex-is-violent-why-f-word-is-taboo.html

      Delete
    2. Haha it's from Zardoz. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YOROvO2fxTc

      Definitely the strangest movie that Sean Connery was ever in.

      Delete
  4. Heterosexuality needs to sublimate the fact it produces more death by killing others. By murdering, it can impose its will - I killed the bad person, and I give birth to a son who will continue to kill and so on. By choosing who to kill, my holy self and its acts are made divine.

    The fact that the son who is produced will also die, like the father, is exorcized through the ritual. The father has gone to war and murdered the "bad" person, therefore denying someone the chance to breed. He breeds and therefore imposes his "self" onto the world.

    Technology is making trad heterosexuality redundant, and so it's clinging on desperately in an attempt to preserve its miserable and violent reign. The emasculation and angst just makes you laugh when you think of in this context.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you arguing for antinatalism here? I'm not sure there's such a strong connection between killing and giving birth. Killers surely don't calculate that their kills are balanced by how many children they have. In any case, we all die even if we're not murdered, so reproduction is supposed to address that natural pressure on us to replenish our species.

      You seem to be blaming heterosexuality rather than guns for gun murder. That's sort of a stretch, no? Is that an NRA sort of defense of guns?

      Delete