Author: M. Buck

Toxic Masculinity Is Real but Doesn’t Affect All Men

Mae Buck | United States

Many ultra-traditionalist conservatives might have you believe that toxic masculinity is just an excuse for boys who aren’t “boy enough” to exist and for men who aren’t “men enough” to exist. It’s the lack of masculinity that causes erratic violence, right? But, is it the surge of masculinity (and perhaps its friend, testosterone) that catalyzes “good” violence? The same masculinity that gives rise to calculated violence against deserving enemies and makes enemies in the first place?

Continue reading “Toxic Masculinity Is Real but Doesn’t Affect All Men”

Advertisements

Do Nazis Deserve Free Speech in America?

M. Buck | United States

There comes a point in political dissent where one might advocate for the erasure of someone else’s rights while relishing in their own. They might partition their speech as being worthy of liberal treatment. Meanwhile, they could see others as not deserving the same rights. If this sounds like a conundrum to you, you’re not alone.

To be specific about using social rights to try to erase those of others, take deplatforming on the Internet. One side uses the anonymity and liberality of the Internet to disenfranchise a group from their own (an Antifa member doxxing Nazis or vice versa, for example). One might conclude that the lack of consistency makes this unjust, but the notion is still worth looking at.

Free Speech and Violence

To start, we can analyze how deplatforming works and what it means. Antifa, a decentralized, militant organization of folks committed to ending fascism, understands how to doxx and deplatform effectively and rather stealthily. They infiltrate private groups of fascists and other far-right fringe groups, get them to reveal just enough personal information, and spread it online for all to see. They also engage in both offensive and defensive violence at rallies. Why are they doing this? What does it mean, and is it right?

The answer, as you’ll see, isn’t so clear-cut. Reading it plainly, you’ll see a double standard of who gets to talk and who doesn’t. This is expected, isn’t it? Really, any government will guarantee some compulsion in which citizens are forced to do something. It leads us to what underpins the entire argument of regulating free speech: is compulsion necessarily bad?

First of all, we could argue that compulsion is unjust because it goes against a natural sense of autonomy; the natural ability for someone to be free does not reconcile with force. Because of how natural autonomy is, it doesn’t make sense to coerce people into speaking “correctly”. After all, it will only lead to a damaged and unnatural state of mind. So, we let free speech exist absolutely.

But what about free speech existing for those who can monopolize it? For those who can use their free speech to occlude others from using theirs or do away with free speech entirely? Is seeking absolute free speech a good idea if it will end in recklessness sooner, rather than later?

Controlling Nazi Speech?

So, enters the argument for control. The people do not inherit goodness just naturally, they are molded that way. There is no natural state of autonomy because hierarchies exist naturally and we live under them. Thus, limiting free speech would create social cohesion so no group would have to question their existence in a state, thereby obstructing the government. (Note: this argument does rest on the assumption that certain people don’t know what’s good for them). 

But what about eventual questionings of the state? How would governments liquidate rebel political movements from influencing public opinion? Both arguments have their pitfalls, and one must evaluate these questions not to find an answer, but just to reach another conclusion.

To move back to the real world application, two violent groups who vehemently oppose each other are playing out the argument. Sure, it’s polarization, but one must remember that it is not banal. It is violently separating one group from the community and taking their ideologies out, with a knife or a cyber attack. Is this for good reason?

It’s not this article’s place to judge that. However, one must understand the brevity of the circumstances we are in currently and make just decisions. I encourage every reader to think and see for yourself.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.

On Degeneracy and the Concept of the Imperative

M. Buck | United States

Ted Bundy was a serial killer many criminologists have intensely studied. His furtivity, brutality, and public look all entrance these investigators in ways unimaginable and catalyze every paternal fear of a daughter brutally molested or murdered. He is also a figure that, perhaps in response to this paternal fear, is idealized in a set of killers. In a sense, he is a peak of degeneracy to many.

It becomes hard to tell what this degeneracy is. The often pseudo-scientific term was appropriated from language in systems biology and used in social degenerative theory. The theory’s findings of the demise of civilization due to genetic factors define it.

The Background of Ted Bundy

Beyond definitions, one can see how degeneracy would be a comfortable causal factor to point to for the making of Bundy. He slew 30 or more women brutally, lied pathologically, and was manically depressed. It seems only inevitable to conflate illness with breaking from the norm.

Yet, enablers of degeneracy, as some eugenicists may say, did not raise Bundy. His parents raised him in a Christlike environment. He went to church regularly, had a relatively pleasant boyhood, and experienced the nuclear family. Also, neither of his parents had a known history of mental illness. However, schoolmates recall that he was “different”, and thus gained some sense of pariahs. He had no girlfriend, no close friends, nothing loving, one could posit.

This is the case with individuals who commit serial crimes too; sometimes they come from normal backgrounds, sometimes not. The most important takeaway of all this is that there is not a specific causal factor in this stream of crime. Rather, there only exists individuals who make decisions based on their wills and ideas; they have no duress of genetic incompetency.

Degeneracy, from this explication, becomes just a disguise for personal disgust. The only purpose of it to exist is to give angry people mediocre reasoning to get their point across. Of course, this disgust of brutality is valid. Must we have an imperative, though, to fix it?

Should We Combat Degeneracy?

Must we fix this “degeneracy’? These things we find ugly in our society, things that ravage it? Things that dissolve the adhesive of society’s structure? What should the layman do, besides the violent and immoral policies of eugenics?

To begin this question, one must ask what presupposes the imperative. What must motivate us to police this violence other than the obvious loss of material beings?

The answer, one might realize, is not uniform; there’s no purpose of finding this. The point we ought to make is that this is something that has been circumscribed to the private world of academia, and deserves attention from the everyday man. Why? This imperative underpins policing, pedagogy, culture, and many other institutions, that we may or may not have a license to police ourselves for potentially violent behavior. Do we allow social media policing in order to correct possibly violent behavior that could culminate into violent actions? Do we act as if any potentially violent message could engender a serial killing? Or, do we leave it alone completely?

The answer is as relevant as the perp walk we watch, as the marrow we collect from the bones of violence. The good stuff, the nitty-gritty. Are these degenerates at heart? Filth, scum? What is our imperative to these actions? And thus, the labyrinth ensues.


71 Republic is the Third Voice in media. We pride ourselves on distinctively independent journalism and editorials. Every dollar you give helps us grow our mission of providing reliable coverage. Please consider donating to our Patreon.