They're talking about a military coup right now and if it doesn't happen we're going to be told the best way to heal is pretending it never happened.

This is how abuse works.

3,000 people are dying a day and after nearly a year of this Congress is releasing the barest fraction of the economic relief needed to keep people safe and only in exchange for the promise that we can't sue those who endangered the dead.

This is how abuse works.
We have a president who spent 4 yrs lying every time he opened his mouth, obvious lies everyone knew were lies, which his followers believed mostly because the sight of them believing lies caused the rest of us distress, and they loved our distress.

This is how abuse works.
We've endured the sight of police brutalizing our fellow citizens for years, a horror magnified by the knowledge that for Black people this brutality has been a constant way of life, but we're told change must wait, because we aren't asking right.

This is how abuse works.
We have been menaced and lied to and confronted with a daily litany of atrocity that has only made the Republican rank and file happier, and the only message we ever get is that we need to be better at relating to the feelings of people who find comfort in suffering.

It's abuse.
The undergirding load-bearing superstructure upon which our entire society is built is abuse and enablement, and it's sick, and it has to stop.

We need to stop this deadly unreasonable practice of expecting people to accept unacceptable things in order to be thought reasonable.
In order to have healing, we first need to cleanse the wound.

This healing needs rage.
Rage, and consequence, and a real reckoning.

Anything less is just pretending it didn't happen. It's how abuse works.
They're going to ask you to pretend that none of it happened. It's appropriate to be angry about that, because it was real, it was abuse, asking you to pretend otherwise is enablement, and it's always appropriate to be angry about enablement.

Enablement of abuse is abuse.
They're going to tell you that your anger makes you just as bad as them, as if it's anger that is the problem, rather than the reason for the anger.

It's appropriate to be angry when you're told that, because that is enablement.

Enablement of abuse is abuse.
They're going to tell you to look ahead, not behind—as if their unconcern with the trauma is maturity, which you can only share in by matching it.

It's appropriate to be angry, because making people pay the cost of their own trauma is enablement.

Enablement of abuse is abuse.
This shit happened, it was absolutely unacceptable, and anybody supporting it, or anybody wanting to ignore it to avoid a reckoning of real consequence, should not be allowed in polite company.

Refuse to pay their tax of abuse.
Your rage is yours, and it's appropriate, and it's necessary right now. The reason abusive enablers want it gone is simple: It's evidence.

Abusive people and their enablers dislike evidence.

Evidence leads to conviction.

Conviction, to consequence.
Reject the abusive notion that your anger is the problem, not the abuse that made your anger appropriate.

Reject the enabling notion that abuse is an unfortunate necessity, changing it is unrealistic, and demanding better is immature or divisive.

Refuse to pay the tax of abuse.
They're going to tell you that your anger is causing the abuse:

*Your anger demonizes abusers.
*Your anger leaves no room for them to be redeemed.
*Your anger makes abusers angry.
*It's forcing them to be abusive.

All this is how enablement of abuse works.

Enablement is abuse.
The redemption of abusive people is their project, not yours.

Your anger is appropriate. It's evidence. It mustn't be hidden, and those who suggest it should should be rejected.

Those who suggest a reckoning is unrealistic, or badly timed, or divisive, should be rejected.
This is how we break this cycle.

Refuse to pay the tax of abuse, as proxy for those who were harmed, to the benefit of abusers, all in the name of healing.

That is how abuse stops working.

More from A.R. Moxon

People have wondered why I have spent 3 days mostly pushing back on this idea that "defund the police" is bad marketing.

The reason is, it's an example of this magic trick, the oldest trick in the book.

It's a competition between what I call compass statements. And it matters.


There are a lot of people who think "defund the police" is a bad slogan.

But it's a directional intention. A compass statement.

The real effect of calling it a bad slogan, whether or not intentional (but usually intentional), is to reduce a compass statement down to a slogan.

Whenever there is a real problem and a clear solution, there will be people who benefit from the problem and therefore oppose the solution in a variety of ways.

And this is true of any real problem, not just the problem of lawless militarized white supremacist police.

There are people who oppose it directly using a wide variety of tactics, one of which is misconstruing anything—quite literally anything—said by those who propose solutions—any solutions.

They'd appreciate it if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion.

The reason they'd appreciate if if you mistake their deliberate misrepresentation for confusion is, it wastes time that could have been spend on the solution trying to persuade them, with different arguments and metaphors or solutions.

Which they intend to misconstrue.
Observe: the lie that "government" is a monolithic entity, from which we are somehow separate.

Government is how we organize, manage and maintain our society, but to acknowledge that is to acknowledge society, and one's responsibility to organize, manage, and maintain it.


Government didn't close churches. Churches closed because people with something more than a childishly selfish view of the world understood their responsibility to the shared life of a society, and government is how that understanding was operationalized and delivered.

Nor does government militarize police. The police is militarized because people with a fearful, hateful or selfish view of the world understand a militarized police will operationalize & deliver that fear, hate, and greed through the mechanism of government.

Government is *us*.

Those who now align with a party actively working to dissolve and demolish democracy in our country do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.

Democracy allows people they fear and hate to be government with them.

So they hate democracy, and government.

People who align with a party standing in the way of any solution, any maintenance, any governance, do so not because they don't understand this, but because they do.

Better to die of sickness, disease, and neglect than allow those they hate and fear to be government with them.

More from Government

The Government is making the same mistakes as it did in the first wave. Except with knowledge.

A thread.


The Government's strategy at the beginning of the pandemic was to 'cocoon' the vulnerable (e.g. those in care homes). This was a 'herd immunity' strategy. This interview is from


This strategy failed. It is impossible to 'cocoon' the vulnerable, as Covid is passed from younger people to older, more vulnerable people.

We can see this playing out through heatmaps. e.g. these heatmaps from the second


The Government then decided to change its strategy to 'preventing a second wave that overwhelms the NHS'. This was announced on 8 June in Parliament.

This is not the same as 'preventing a second wave'.

https://t.co/DPWiJbCKRm


The Academy of Medical Scientists published a report on 14 July 'Preparing for a Challenging Winter' commissioned by the Chief Scientific Adviser that set out what needed to be done in order to prevent a catastrophe over the winter
How does a government put a legislation on 'hold'? Is there any constitutional mechanism for the executive to 'pause' a validly passed legislation? Genuine Koshan.


So a committee of 'wise men/women' selected by the SC will stand in judgement over the law passed by


Here is the thing - a law can be stayed based on usual methods, it can be held unconstitutional based on violation of the Constitution. There is no shortcut to this based on the say so of even a large number of people, merely because they are loud.


Tomorrow can all the income tax payers also gather up at whichever maidan and ask for repealing the income tax law? It hurts us and we can protest quite loudly.

How can a law be stayed or over-turned based on the nuisance value of the protestors? It is anarchy to allow that.

You May Also Like