Speaking as a novelist, if a novelists were murdering someone every week, my response would not be to protect the inviolable right of novelists to murder people, or to gather with all the other novelists to beat up anyone who dared suggest otherwise. Why give cops that latitude?
What you don’t understand is that in the moment novelists don’t know what a person might be holding. Is it a copy of your book to sign? Is it a weapon? We must assume deadly intent, anyway that’s why I attacked Barnes & Noble patrons with a flamethrower—now suspend me with pay.
I’m trying to decide what novelists to recruit for my novelist militia.
If interested hit me up in DMs. Be prepared to provide blurbs.
I don’t regret the typo in this tweet. Mistakes happen in the heat of the moment. How dare you judge me? I am a novelist, and no matter what, you must support the thin red squiggly underline.
I love people who treat a clear determination to solve an obvious problem as childish "magical thinking," but believe their persistence belief that the solution is still to be found in same incrementalist reform strategy that has led us exactly here is not "magical thinking."
I know which group sounds like children clapping because they believe in fairies, and it's not the ones who want to do the hard work of totally rethinking how we do society, rather than continue trying to treat entrenched violent white supremacy as a training issue.
I'm aware it's difficult. That's EXACTLY what makes it the grown-up decision.
I don't have the exact plan how, so the point is invalid? Oh yeah, b/c 1st we figured out every single detail of how to go to the moon, THEN we decided to go, right? That's the order of things, right?
They insist on waging war in their jurisdictions against the citizens they are meant to protect, so now they have war zones in their jurisdictions.
No police, no war zone.
No war zone, no war.
The police burned down the Apple store.
Society is composed of people. It is a shared human value.
We permit corporations and police to the extent — and only to the extent — they benefit people in society. We mustn't permit them to think they exist to benefit themselves.
If they forget, they should be destroyed.
Any institution that exists to benefit itself at the expense of humans in society is a failure.
Failed institutions will always breed failure.
We can't have peace if we empower institutions to wage war against our own brothers and sisters.
It's time to completely and permanently politically destroy the ideology that equates the right to enact a gun massacre with freedom, that equates police riots with freedom, that equates racist police murder with freedom, that equates their assortments of bigotries with freedom.
It's not that our world is broken. It's that there are people committed to breaking our world, and we know who they are.
They're the people who defend every problems, and oppose event the slightest step toward any solutions.
They're the people that insist the problems aren't real, and were the fault of the victims.
They're the people who threaten violence at the hint of a solution, claiming that the end of the problems infringe their whites—sorry, their rights.
The goals of purposeful ignorance are toxic. The intentions are to harm others, in order to achieve a perceived personal benefit.
It's worth listing these goals. There are three main ones.
THE FIRST GOAL OF PURPOSEFUL IGNORANCE
To reinforce a reality, in which people with ignorant, toxic, and harmful ideas and intentions must perpetually be debated, which subtly insinuates that in matters of public policy they are the people whose permission must be sought
To people complaining “you’ll never convince me with that attitude” when they get mocked for saying purposefully ignorant shit: We’re not trying to convince you. We’re trying to mock you, for being ignorant, to convince everyone else that purposeful ignorance deserves mockery.
If you come with racist or sexist or transphobic or anti-science nonsense, you don’t become some reclamation project who must now be convinced of anything. You’ve proven yourself unworthy of the effort. You become an object lesson on how to deal with toxicity and ignorance.
Assholes of the world: convincing you that bad things are bad and good things are good is far less necessary than you think. Now shut up while we talk about you.
The only thing I would change about those lines, which I wrote not expecting any readers at all, is that I wouldn't say "nobody cares about their motives" because obviously motives are of interest to historians.