I wrote this yesterday. Since it was published, I’ve read a lot of columns from people who had the same thoughts I did, more or less, with one significant difference: a consensus has emerged that Trump knew exactly what he was doing, exactly what he was saying, and that this wasn’t just what he thought was a joke. Trump has a documented history of inciting violence at his rallies, and everyone who is in Trump’s base (and adjacent to it, in the larger Conservative movement) knows precisely what someone means when they say wink wink second amendment wink. Look no further than the attempted assassination of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by a lunatic with a gun who bought into the paranoid Right Wing fantasy, peddled by the NRA, that aggrieved citizens can take up arms against their government if they believe the government is “tyrannical” (which is entirely subjective, of course). So with that context:
I don’t think Donald Trump sincerely believes that anyone will actually go shoot Hillary Clinton. I don’t think he was explicitly saying Hey someone go shoot her. I think he was trying to make what he thought was a joke, but because he’s such a complete asshole, it wasn’t funny.
But that doesn’t matter, because the threat that he made today isn’t limited to Secretary Clinton. When someone in the position he is in — a celebrity entertainer who is the Republican nominee for president — suggests that not only would it be acceptable for the Second Amendment Crowd to go take care of her, but laughs about it, he is normalizing violent behavior, on a national stage.
Someone who wants to go shoot Secretary Clinton doesn’t need Donald Trump to tell him (because it’s almost always a man who does this sort of thing) to go do it. But what about the angry alt-right guy who wants to go use his Second Amendment Remedy to take care of another high-profile woman who bothers him? What about the unhinged guy who hates me, or John Scalzi, or Jessica Valenti, or Anita Sarkeesian? What about that guy, who is waiting to hear someone say what the voices in his head are saying? How much did the danger to us and people like us go up today, because Donald Trump normalized and amplified his thinking?
We never know what it’s going to be that sets a dangerous and mentally ill person off. Charles Manson heard The White Album, and in his disturbed mind, that was the call he needed to hear to set his murderous rage into action. John Hinckley was inspired by a movie. David Berkowitz was moved to kill by a barking dog.
My point is that there are mentally unstable people out there who don’t need a lot of encouragement to turn their fantasies into real life tragedies,and Donald Trump may have spoken loudly and clearly to them today. That is truly dangerous, and — like so many things he’s said and done — it further disqualifies him from holding elected office.
Exhibit A if anyone has doubts: http://www.biography.com/people/gabrielle-giffords-20550593
No one supports the tragedy of the Tucson shooting of Gabrielle Giffords, and 18 others. While she is a victim of unsubstantiated violence, once again Wil doesn’t get the “not-so-informed-joke” that Trump was making. He didn’t imply nor advocate violence against anyone. He did imply violence against everyone, specifically a tyrannical government, or anyone that would do violence against him specifically.
Send the secret service to my door, but I specifically advocate violence against anyone that would intrude my house, family, residence, or nation. That is the essence of the 2nd Amendment, and I’m quite saddened that Wil hasn’t figured that out yet. He admits fear, but expects government to protect him. And the government is never your solution, it’s a backup plan.
If you haven’t read the 2nd Amendment, you should, as it expects you to defend yourself, since no government can. They just take notes after the fact, and try to prosecute the crime…. after the fact, and after you’re already dead.
I would think that anyone with any humanity at all, doesn’t support any mass-shooting event.
But here is the awful awful fact that people like Wil Wheaton refuse to believe: some people are broken, some people are evil, and simply don’t care about your principles. They will take, rape, plunder, murder, and destroy. And you will be the victim, if you don’t take proper steps to defend yourself.
The other awful fact is that you cannot stop any mass-shootings, even in the most gun-regulated restricted places. That’s a terrible concept to understand and realize. France has, as a nation, nearly the most restrictive gun laws in the world…. yet still they found a way. Shall we also restrict vehicle rentals given Nice? Norway also has nearly the same gun laws, yet a madman killed was able to find a way to kill 65+ people.
And Here is the last terrible fact: When does the violence end? It only ends when the good guys with guns show up, and have to kill the bad guys.
Other than when the cowardly curs who do that violence kill themselves, when does the violence end? When good people, people of courage actually take up arms and kill the bastard doing the violence. It’s sad that we have people that would kill innocent people, it’s encouraging that we also have people that will apply violence to stop it.
I totally understand Wil’s aversion to violence. Very few seek it. But sometimes, violence MUST be applied to stop the broken ones.
Trump was pointing out a very specific delineation between freedom and tyranny, and made a joke that you may feel inappropriate. But the 2nd Amendment was NOT about hunting or sport clays. The 2nd Amendment was about you stopping my freedom. As long as you don’t stop my freedom we’re all in agreement. The 2nd amendment supports all the other amendments… freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of privacy, freedom not to have you take over my house and use it to quarter military, freedom to not incriminate myself (not that I’d ever need it), freedom of the STATES to do what they will.
Sadly, Wil Wheaton doesn’t get it, and sadly doesn’t understand the history of the country. He’s a tech mogul, a pretty good actor, a philanthropist, and a voice for technology. He’s also a grandfather, and my age, and doesn’t even understand the basics of American History.
I respect Wil, but as long as he continues his angry tirade against guns and the 2nd Amendment, he’s really just ignorant.
Wil,
Love your work, but despise your political action,
Respectfully,
Jaman M. Swearingen
I didn’t mean to say “unsubstantiated”, obviously it happened, I meant to use the term unprovoked. Anyone with any compassion, feels for the anguish she and others came upon that day.
What I really fear is that someone else doesn’t understand the interpretation of the laws and will go all “Henry II’s well-meaning but dumb knights…”
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Becket#Assassination
Well, here is what we in Germany think about Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjWP5FN3D0s (it’s with subtitles)
Exactly. While we cannot take responsibility for the mental gymnastics that a mentally unstable person will do to warp our words, or a song, or a video game to fit their inner world, can we all please agree that OUTRIGHT STATING, “Hey, go shoot her” is a really bad idea? And maybe, if this is the sort of thing you find funny, examine that? Possibly with someone you pay to listen to you, if that’s helpful.
A very relevant example of the dangers of this sort of rhetoric is the shooting Yitzhak Rabin in 1995 in Israel. There was alot of right wing/settler rhetoric, much of it with violent content and subtly encouraged by Netanyahu, who probably didn’t realize it would push some nut to shoot his opponent. But it happened anyway. Its bad enough that HRC has to wear full body armor under her clothes on many occasions because the Secret Service is terrified someone is going to take a shot at her.
“ like so many things he’s said and done — it further disqualifies him from holding elected office.” <–
Sure, we can’t control when an unhinged person turns to violence, and we can’t expect to monitor every word that comes out of our mouths for fear that it could potentially fuel an unhinged person (because anything could fuel an unhinged person). The larger issue is that when you are running for the highest office in the land, you are and should be held to a higher – the highest – standard. Regardless of his intentions and what he “meant to say”, someone who has this much trouble articulating his points without inciting major controversy and discord is not fit for this office.
I’m thinking if this was a “one time thing” we’d let it slip or be looking at it differently. However DJT has bombarded us with so many nonsensical, racist, violent, stupid, position-switching, idiotic things that – quite frankly – we’re left debating just how bad this is and not so much WHY the hell that kind of joke is acceptable considering the recent rash of incidents where American citizens who believe they’re not represented have done so many horrible things. And it’s a myth. Yes, the system needs an overhaul, but we’re still in the land of the free, we still have a better shot at life than most and we can make the change we want without shooting/bombing/poisoning innocent people.
If this was a one-time thing, you said. I agree with your point.
Exactly. The fact alone, that there is a team of people having to explain what he actually meant with virtually everything he says should be one hell of a red flag.
You’ve never said thing untoward? You’ve never stumbled upon your words when 25000 people were looking at you? Oh wait… most people have never known an audience of 25000 people. Only entertainers do that. It’s a lot of pressure, I spoke before about 350, and nearly wet my pants.
If your measure is that “The larger issue is that when you are running for the highest office in the land, you are and should be held to a higher – the highest – standard.” Then shouldn’t you actually follow the law?
Shouldn’t you actually follow the law? Yes, I’m going to repeat it again because you anti-Trump people don’t seem to understand that Hillary Clinton has been criminally negligent, and an outright criminal, for over 30 years.
Take a deep breath and think objectively.
Objectively, who invests $1000 and gets $100,000 in return… may be a lucky investment but extremely unlikely.
Objectively, who was Secretary of State, and suddenly had 100’s (that’s 100’s) of MILLIONS of dollars donated to the Clinton Foundation, based upon her “negotiations” with Saudia Arabia, Qatar, Russia, etc.
Objectively, who makes $250,000 per speech, and quite demands it? No One I know… do you? The FBI already stated that everything she stated to Congress about the Benghazi investigation and her ignorant private email server was a lie, but they refuse to prosecute because Obama’s administration refuses. You have felonies upon felonies and this person is smart enough or fit to be President?
When the 3 AM call came she chose to ignore not only American safety, but tragically 4 lives that didn’t need to be lost.
Objectively, with no emotion whatsoever, this woman needs more prison time than campaign time. She and her husband should both be in shackles…. any objective observation would show that.
I’ll take an asshole or an idiot rather than an obvious felonious liar. Never Trump may be your rallying cry, but Jail Hillary is what most sane, objective people think.
Beautifully put, Wil. It is scary to think of Trump getting national attention for his insane comments.
For the sake of argument, let’s go with he was trying to say “NRA lobbyists and Second Amendment enthusiasts will stop any anti-gun laws she tries to pass.” It still shows he can’t be trusted to not open his mouth and offend a foreign leader.
That’s the spin I was expecting…
Trump is a madman, Wil.
Write him off as an eccentric lunatic like chess player Bobby Fischer.
I think the novel “Catcher in the Rye” motivated Mark David Chapman to kill John Lennon.
He didn’t learn from the dross Sharron Angel was spouting six years ago? Inconceivable! Trump does mean what he thinks it means…
Check whatever morbid sense of humor you think you have at the door when “jokes” at that level can have global ramifications.
Wil, while I appreciate your perspective, the tone at the end of your piece seems to (inadvertently) raise alarms against individuals who are working on their mental health. Individuals like you (I’ve applauded your willingness to own and pipe up your personal experiences with depression), and myself (who faces mood disorder and high anxiety) are really only one to two degrees of separation from the subjective “diagnosis” of bipolar, schizophrenia, and so forth. I’ve personally seen friends and colleagues discriminated and feared because they disclosed they were bipolar. I assume you weren’t making the case deliberately, but it kind of took me back and made me think…are me and you so different from the mansons, the oswalds, the hinckleys? And if so, what delineates that difference?
While it’s true that certain mental health diagnoses can lead to unfair discrimination, that doesn’t really take away from the accuracy or appropriateness of Wil’s comment. There are mentally unstable people, (whether formally diagnosed with a particular disorder or not is both unknown and irrelevant), who are a hairs-breadth away from doing something drastic and violent, and it is true that people in that situation can be “put over the edge” by dangerous rhetoric. We’ve seen the truth of that enough times to know that even if Trump didn’t mean to imply that someone should kill Hilary, there are people out there that will easily take it that way and want to act on it. Wil was essentially just reiterating a well-known fact.
Honestly though, I kind of feel like your comment, that mood disorders, depression and anxiety are just “one to two degrees of separation” from a psychotic condition like schizophrenia, is more likely to cause people to lump all mental disorders together and consider anyone with any kind of disorder as being equally dangerous, despite the fact that we know this isn’t true.
I don’t normally comment on politics, but this has nothing to do with what party you’re affiliated with. He has become seriously dangerous.
His comments are certainly outlandish but not illegal as some pundits are suggesting. That’s according to Watts v. United States and Brandenburg v. Ohio. Here’s a good read on the topic that’s worth your while: https://popehat.com/2016/08/09/lawsplainer-no-donald-trumps-second-amendment-comment-isnt-criminal/
I don’t like either Clinton or Trump, but I certainly don’t want them to meet a violent faith. Trump’s camp is now saying that he meant 2nd Amendment enthusiasts will use their voting power to defeat Clinton in November. Despite the tap-dancing, the Secret Service has already met with some of Trump’s people.
In the meantime, I’m actually enjoying the sight of the Republican Party slowly committing suicide before a national audience. It’s almost exciting enough to make me have an orgasm! I know that’s so wrong, but I can’t help it. 🙂
I agree. Now, would you please write a piece on all the things that disqualify Ms Clinton from holding the office? Thank you.
Respectfully,
Bob
Why don’t you write it instead? 😀
Easily.
But, Sir Wheaton wrote and posted a rhetorical position to the world. If he isn’t taking a supporting political position with this article, he could/should do the same type of piece on the D candidate. If he IS taking a supporting political position, then that should have been clear up front. The sad fact is both major parties now have candidates who are disasterous for the USA and it’s citizens.
Still waiting for your article. Easy right? Not that Will needs any defending but his piece is in reaction to a major blunder, per usual, by Mr. Trump. Can you point to something of equal value on the other side that doesn’t feel like a witch hunt? Because the email “controversy” is grasping at straws (not to mention it has been done by actors from both parties before).
Now my opinion is that Mr. Trump knew damn well what he was saying. Remember, he is an associate but he is not stupid. He is in this election primarily to gain awareness of his brand name. As such he wins no matter what comes out of his mouth. Win or lose the election, it really doesn’t matter to him. In fact, I think he probably was surprised that he gain as much traction as he did.
Trump is in it for Trump and no one else. I sincerely wish the best to his supporters because to take his candidacy seriously they have to feel abandoned by society. Given the ever widening margin in salaries between the middle class and a fluent people, the over reliance on the middle class to carry the tax burden, can’t say I blame them.
But take a deep, serious look at your candidate before you vote. Look at his history. Trump has never been an upfront honest guy. Do you think he will not treat the USA as his personal playground (or try his best to anyway) given the chance?
When Ms Clinton calls for the second amendment people to prevent Mr Trump from appointing a judge after he’s been elected, then Wil probably will. Until she sinks to his level there is no need.
I really don’t like either candidate. The only time anyone should have to choose between Trump and Clinton is when picking out a Halloween costume. Seriously though, words matter. They can influence and incite, they can calm and comfort. Such a foolish man to abuse that power.
Donald Trump seriously scares the crap out of me. I mean..how far will he go? If elected, will he try to make Christianity the religion of the United States? What would that mean for those of us who aren’t Christian?
I can envision him becoming president and setting up camps for the Muslims..to keep them “safe” of course and to keep them from blowing shit up. It’ll be like the Japanese internment camps all over again.
:sigh:
I’m afraid..I don’t want this man to be president, but I may end up with no choice in the matter.
Trump is a Christian in the same way the moneychangers in the temple were Christian. He panders to Christians, but not really any more than any other politician.
And we all know what happened to them. Tables were flipped. Money went EVERYWHERE. Shit went DOWN because Jesus (who I do quite like..he’s a groovy dude) was like, “DUDE. This is NOT cool. GET YOUR CRAP OUT OF HERE NOW!”
Well said, Wil. I am so truly greatful to be a Canadian citizen, living in Canada. Y’all are facing some truly scary shit in your neck of the woods. I hope for everybody’s sake (and I mean everybody on the planet) that reason prevails in November. These are truly scary times.
Oops, should have proofread that before hitting ‘post comment’…make that “grateful”; I hope I’m not nearly as narcissistic as Trump ;-)!
Canadians had a close encounter last election cycle, did you not? But I am thrilled with you current PM. Seems like a genuine guy, willing to work for his country and it’s people.
While I despise Trump I’m torn over the specific comment.
On the one hand it could be taken as an invitation to do harm, but it was ambiguous enough it could have also honestly been a rallying cry to voters of a certain segment (and one he isn’t universally popular with yet btw). Then there’s the possibility of a ‘joke’ or inane comment, as you said.
However, the other side of this whole thing is that he’s highlighting something very real: there not only IS a threat of violence over politics in this country, it’s a requirement of our particular system by design (and I say this as a historian/political scientist).
Our nation was founded on three-fold violence – genocide of native inhabitants, enslavement of a remote race, and war against our own people over rights of individuality and political representation. Rather or not any of those were valid violence (at the time or now) is a matter of debate, but there is NO debate that they in fact DID occur, especially the third one (which is what we’re talking about here).
It all comes back to this: “That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Obviously all prudent persons would expect this to be non-violent when possible, however educated people will also realize that non-violence isn’t always successful (in fact, it almost never is), and so be willing to entertain violence as needed. This was the course of our founding, the revolutionary war. We attempted to make changes in government peacefully, and failed. We protested (vigorously), and were met with force. So we fought (and won), and so were able to forge a country we could accept. This is a fundamental right of all persons, always.
It was again attempted during the civil war, though in this case the reforging was unsuccessful. There’s certainly a good argument that it was for the better this time, but that’s definitely not a decided issue either. Point being, twice in our national history we have followed the wisdom enshrined in the Declaration of Independence, and basic political thought – sometimes you have to fight (violently) to get the country you want & deserve.
Our founders prepared for this with the 2nd Amendment, and tried to prevent the frequency of its use by avoiding a standing army, preventing a strong federal government, limiting power and scope of any government, warning against partisanship, separating church and state, and a host of other measures. They sought to reduce the likelihood, but never sought to prevent the possibility. Indeed, it was considered not just a right, but a responsibility of citizenship.
So getting back to Trump’s comments, there is a valid possibility in what he says. Clinton openly pursues the limiting of what many view as a fundamental right and necessity (that of private arms), and her actions (directly, or through court appointments) actually could be seen as treasonous acts of force against those people. As such consideration of violent resistance to such acts, up to and including all-out war to reforge at least some of the nation into a more ideologically representative political entity, is valid.
While that view may not be popular, it is historically, sociologically, anthropologically, psychologically and philosophically (from a political standpoint) valid. People who believe in the right of private arms will NOT surrender that right – EVER. We WILL kill or die to maintain it. So understand that any significant attempts to infringe upon it very well might lead to actual open warfare.
So overall I see Trump’s statement as rhetoric, but with a very real warning at the core – stop trying to infringe on our rights, or suffer the consequences.
I would also like to point out that just as pro-gun people have an absolute right to arms, so anti-gun people have an absolute right to exist without arms. The issue is when one side attempts to use force (even lawful, political power) to inflict their personal preference upon those that don’t share it. This should never occur, and is the very ‘line in the sand’ that I’m talking about above. Without a peaceful method of fragmentation and reforging (i.e. secession) in place people eventually have no other recourse but violence. I’d much rather we split the country up peacefully and let everyone get a resultant country they could be proud of. If people refuse that (as the only reasonable option I’m aware of) I’m willing to risk everything to ensure that I maintain my fundamental rights and liberty (even if it leaves you all with nothing).
Ask yourselves what you’re willing to risk to get ‘your country’, because if it isn’t at least as much you’ve already lost.
Thank you, Kristin, for pointing out some inconvenient truths of American history: the decimation of our indigenous peoples and the enslavement of thousands of Africans. Those basic facts always seem to be left out of the historical narrative. Here in Texas, even moderate-minded folks like me have had a rough time dealing with the evangelical, far-right inhabitants of the state school board – the same clowns who tried to hoodwink people into believing that Native Americans were saved by Christianity and African slaves were guest workers.
As for the 2nd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, its adherents conveniently forget the “well-regulated militia” part of it; just like they jump over the 1st Amendment, which guarantees free speech and the right to vote.
Since, like most Americans, I don’t fit the single-axis mold (not democrat nor republic, not liberal nor conservative) I’m frequently in a position to point out uncomfortable aspects to others. While you’re correct on the 2nd, remember too that ‘well-regulated militia’ meant every individual being practiced at marksmanship and other aspects of combat…and NOT a government controlled collective body. The foundation of our nation is specifically the exact opposite of a government controlled collective body. We were to be a Republic of yeoman farmers…armed and skilled individualists in a nation without a standing army or politically controlled law-enforcement branch. While I prefer a standing army and public law enforcement exist, they need to do so balanced by the exact same armed and skilled citizenry in order to prevent their use by a corrupt government (which is inevitable).
@Kristin Guttorson,
“While you’re correct on the 2nd, remember too that ‘well-regulated militia’ meant every individual being practiced at marksmanship and other aspects of combat…and NOT a government controlled collective body. ”
Of course a MILITIA is subject to government control and oversight, the word for independently organized groups outside of the government mandate is not Militia it is mob, vigilantes, rebels or terrorists.
A Militia and the right and mandate to form it is a relic of the times when a border was not easily defendable from centralised posts of a standing army. See “indian Wars” for enough examples of external threats that required local defense forces. And of course the “United” States would hand over that task to the states that were far better equipped to make both quick assessments of threat and need for Militia groups and had the proximity advantage for organisational purposes. But States are still “governments”.
Why does nobody amongst these selfproclaimed “patriots” that always emphasize how important it is to protect “themselves” against “the government” notice or remark on the existence of articles punishing treason if the constitution was meant to legalize armed resistance against any higher order you do not agree with?
And then there is the LITTLE precedent by Mr Lincoln who did pretty much make a statement (supported by Congress and the courts) that sedition and secession is not included amongst the bill of rights… forcing the states AND their militias to reintegrate into the United States, where today they still dream from “keeping us save from the government” while needing per head a lot more subsidiaries than any other population group in the country…
No, we don’t forget the “well regulated militia” – which in that time was LITERALLY every man capable of firing a weapon. Everyone was expected to take personally the safety of their home, family, city, and nation. We didn’t pay for a standing military, we WERE the standing military.
I totally agree. Everyone with leftist, communist, socialist thoughts go and form your own country. You can have CA, OR, WA, the northeast… even take Florida… but LEAVE US ALONE! Please stop dragging us into your miasma of incompetence and governmental idiocracy. Everyone in the “fly over states” are very tired of your condescension, mismanagement, and governmental interference.
It’s not racist, it’s not classist… it’s really based on competence. No blue state is not in debt… That’s not something that’s subjective… it’s objective. No blue state has less crime than a red state. That’s simply a fact.
Stop flooding the red states, and just secede already… because we already know who will eventually pick up the tab for $20 trillion in debt… the red states.
We obviously don’t agree on anything, so take your blue states and form the Socialist States of America and be done with it. Hell, as long as I’m still in the United States of America, I could care less if we didn’t have the blue states in our union. Hell!, with a rewritten constitution (not that blue states have ever followed one), you could have a 3rd term Obama presidency! So please secede and leave us alone.
We can split the debt, but guess who pays it off sooner? Almost assuredly the red states would.
Respectfully,
Jaman
The big problem with that is that binary sorters tend to not work on complex issues, and especially not binary based on a single-axis political sorter. Case in point: Washington
Washington state is strongly blue, and in most ways leans what would be considered liberal/democrat. However, Washington is also one of the strongest gun states in the union. We were the 2nd to implement licensed concealed carry, the third to implement pre-emption as it applies to firearm rights, we have among the highest rates of concealed carry in the country (nearing 8.5%), require ONLY $65 and a cursory background check to issue concealed permits, and even allow carry while intoxicated.
Vermont is even more liberal/democrat, and yet even more of a bastion of firearm rights.
This is all true because single-axis sorters (binary systems where you’re either ‘x’ or ‘y’) are incapable of accurately portraying the varied positions of a populace. In this case it fails to differentiate between social policy, foreign policy, economic, and scope/purpose of government. The NW is very good on guns because the NW is largely libertarian (albeit left-libertarian). Therefore looking to fragment the country we can’t think to base it on an overly simplistic ‘red vs blue’ mentality.
In reality the ONLY places which are largely anti-gun to any degree are Hawaii, California, Massachusetts, New York County, Cook County, and Washington DC. Pretty much the rest of the country is largely pro-gun (albeit with some variance in their definitions of that). Unfortunately many more places than that have anti-gun politicians and special interest backers, in an oligarchic and fascist corrupted government system. Hence our problems currently.
Kristin, I respect your analysis but you may have not figured this out:
There are only 10 types of people in this world:
Those who understand binary and those who don’t!
Ok nerd joke aside, I will agree there is no binary solution to the political spectrum, however, entertainers like Wil, live in a political bubble. But we all live in our own political bubble. Entertainers who make $50,000 per episode of working maybe 4 days, really don’t comprehend that most Americans don’t even make $50,000 per year. The entertainer works 36 hours for $50,000 so just the math alone tells us an entertainer makes about $1388/hour.
Other than entertainment, there is no real stream of income for the average American, that pays that. I’m going to use the term “Domestically” to mean those employed in the US, legally, and not breaking any laws, misdemeanor or otherwise.
Domestically, customer service representatives gets paid between $10-$15/hour depending on state and company.
Domestically, a person in the fast food industry gets paid between $8-$15/hour depending on state and company.
Domestically, a person working in mass retail (like target or walmart) gets paid the same $8-$15/hour depending on state and company.
Domestically, a person working in janitorial services at a hotel or something similar gets paid the same $8-$15/hour depending on state and company.
Domestically, a person as a Journeyman Electrician gets paid $24/hour…(depending on state and company) that is $48000/year. Coming close to the $50000/episode that an entertainer makes. He works a year for that… 40 hours/week at least.
Domestically, a person that is Journeyman Electrician (working for specific companies) gets paid $36/hour… (now he’s considered middle class, and brings down about $72000/year) no education really required other than GED, but needs to be sponsored and take a 3-4 year apprenticeship, and massive background checks to ensure they aren’t walking into a substation drunk, etc.
Domestically, a power engineer, controlling the power grid, makes about $65000/year or $32.5/hour, but they have at least BS degree, and go through massive background checks to ensure their reliability and aren’t opening or closing switches that could kill people.
Domestically, a HS math teacher, makes about $24000/year, well below “poverty” level but needs at least an associate degree, but most likely a baccalaureate (B.A.) and certification.
Domestically, a sales/marketing representative, needing only a GED or less, makes between $60,000-$120,000/year depending on experience and company and state.
Domestically, small business owners make between $100-200k per year, This is basically your Dentists, and your GP doctors with private practices, and Value Added Resellers.
Domestically, your average lawyer, (who spent probably 12 years in school to get his JD or JA) makes $300-$500/hour… 600k- 1M/year.
I’m not even going to pander further about “income inequality”, because that’s not my point. I love capitalism and you should choose to make your livelihood how you like.
My point is that entertainers… HAVE NO CLUE about anyone but the bubble they’re in.
The “average American” is not even in their political view or engagement. That’s why they like a known criminal, who will perpetuate their income.
Let me be explicitly clear: Wil has EARNED what he has, because he’s chosen a great profession that he’s good at. I’m not denouncing at all that everyone should earn what they can. I earn everything I make.
But let’s get rid of the idea that there’s some sort of equity by pretending that people don’t have vastly different perspectives by their income. They obviously do, and it mires their judgement.
I try to be objective, using reason. Reasonable people can disagree, and I wholeheartedly disagree with Wil, from gun control to his hatred of Trump.
Objectively, Clinton (in any form, Hillary, Bill, Chelsea) are all criminals. I prefer to vote for the asshole rather than the criminal.
Always respectfully,
Jaman
I’ve been voting for over 45 years, so quite a few presidential elections. I’ve been frustrated at some, angry at others, happy at some. This is the first one that really frightens me.
There are way too many disparaging and reckless things being said by Trump without him taking any responsibility. Why do people have to clarify what he says so often?
Also, and this is my opinion, but this is Wil’s blog and he has no obligation to post anything about Clinton just because he posted about Trump.
Love you Wil, well written post….
Of course he has no obligation. I was simply hoping he also has a clear view and position to share on the other side of the aisle.
One fact you got wrong – the guy who shot Rep. Giffords was not a Republican.
Wil has an absolute right to share his feelings (and policy positions) with regard to American politics. So does every other American. The folly enters when Americans look to a celebrity to do their thinking for them, as if the celebrity’s feelings and policy positions are somehow more meritorious or worth hearing because of celebrity.
Donald Trump is a creature of that phenomenon. Why should any American take seriously the views of a much-despised businessman who by now may have made as much money through his celebrity endeavors as through his actual business deals (enough of which have led to bankruptcy filings)? Were it not for “The Apprentice” I seriously doubt Trump would have enough positive name recognition as a celebrity to offset the negative name recognition as a dishonest businessman.
But here’s the irony. Like Ed Asner and various others before him, Wil seems to have made the decision that it’s OK to be known for his politics, and that he is as eager to share with the public his politics as his acting skills. He’s doing here in miniature what Trump has done on a world stage.
Wil’s acting chops are obvious. Stand By Me, Toy Soldiers. Eureka. Oh, and some show about an angsty genius kid finding his way in a difficult world around him. But we shouldn’t care about his politics any more than we care about the politics of Michael Dorn or Gene Roddenberry or Rob Reiner. If we do, we are in our own way doing much the same as many Trump supporters are doing when they fawn over their candidate.
Moreover, Wil is a heartfelt American voter, and we need to respect that. But let’s be honest — nothing he wrote in the above post is any more specially insightful than what we read in so many other sources. And Wil’s assertion that he has found “consensus” tells us mostly that he doesn’t read all that widely, as do those of us who read Daily Kos and Democratic Underground alongside National Review, American Thinker and Breitbart. Wil doesn’t flatter himself with posts like this one, and I suspect he mostly paints himself into a stereotyped corner that can’t help his career.
When Wil recommends a game on TableTop, we ought to support him in every way we can. But until he’s in a position to recommend a Trump Edition of Catalan or Cards Against Humanity, I hope he learns to save his personal soapbox for those areas where his opinion adds value, and isn’t just another celebrity “Me too, I am a doubleplusgood rightthinking duckspeaker.”
Welcome to my blog, where I write about whatever is on my mind. Nobody is forcing you to read it. Thanks for stopping by.
@BMHAIK, you should practice what you preach. It would be an absolute quality of life improvement for all parties involved.
In the words of the illustrious Wil Wheaton…..”Don’t be a Dick”……. especially on his blog. Go write about it on yours.
Very well said 🙂
Wil should just stick to doing Amiga sales and STTNG reunions, until he learns history. Then we’ll start listening to his confused politics.
Steve Jackson has always stated: Never drop a duck in a dungeon!
You’re commenting on HIS blog. When you decide to make your own… feel free to whine about his soapbox… you do realize this is HIS soapbox.
I disagree wholeheartedly with Wil’s position on gun control, politics, and his support of a known criminal and hatred of Trump, but once again… this is HIS soapbox… he gets to say what he wants and telling him to get off it seems pointless.
I have pointed out where he’s mistaken, but… it’s still his soapbox 🙂
I think Trump made a deal with Hillary to make her the first female president! He has to look like an absolute Baffoon to make it happen! That is how bad Hillary is for lying, stealing and being involved in murder oh, yes and allowing an ambassador to be murdered. One may ask which one is worse, a proven liar or an as yet unproven baffoon. I really wanted Bernie to get the nomination!!! And I am a Republican.
Hey Susan. I actually hear that a lot but haven’t found a good source yet. When did Hillary stole anything? I assume lying is the Bengazy thing. What about the murder thing?
As for the unproven buffoon vs liar… who’s who? Because Trump fits both perfectly so I’m unsure where the other candidate is being placed.
Let’s take your “reasoning” to its logical conclusion then.
Be kind enough to tell us your profession. Your assertion seems to be that citizens of this country, indeed of any country, ought only ever to remark upon topics which relate directly to their area of professional expertise. Putting aside the very central and relevant problem that this assertion completely negates the idea of democracy, let us assume for the sake of argument that you honor your own narrow, and frankly fascist, epistemology.
We, therefore, can assume that unless your profession specifically deals with finances, you never remark upon economic decisions, policy, or events. We can also safely assume that unless you have or are currently serving in the military you do not remark on subjects related to war, soldiers, or defense. We can also conclude that unless you are a police officer, you never offer opinions or dare to remark on matters relating to law enforcement. Unless you are an attorney, I’m sure you never comment on legal affairs. Perhaps you are a doctor or nurse. You may then safely offer opinions on matters related to medicine, based on your views about discourse.
Are you a professional athlete? If not, please do not speak on matters relating to sports. Further, unless you are currently or have substantially in the past been compensated as a professional in the film industry, do not offer remarks related to movies.
Similarly, unless you are specifically a scientist whose daily paid labor is to study climate change, please offer no opinion on this topic. Unless you are an anthropologist, no remarks related to humans, please. Do not opine on the topic of dogs unless you are presently or have been in the past, a dog. Or a wolf. I think we can be a bit more lenient here, so if any sort of Canidae family member, you are cleared to offer comments related to dogs.
If not a chef, do not speak of food. If not a painter, do not speak of art, at least art which involves paint. If a sculptor, remark on statues or fountains which involve statues. But not on the water in fountains! Unless you are a hydrologist. Or, man… at the very least a plumber.
I could on, but I don’t want to. I am going to go eat noodles. Your shaming stratagems, such as they are, need work.
I wholeheartedly agree that Trump’s comment was irresponsible, Thanks for stating that, even if you feel it wasn’t an original thought. It’s good for people to verbalize their reactions, because not doing so is an essential link in the chain toward allowing that normalization to happen. The way you take back the conversation and arrest the momentum of the normalization is to speak up – and you’ve done so. Thanks.
Shift gears a little. You are ONE of the reasons I “Play more Games”. Enjoying my family’s company more than the TV screen is another. Wanting to engage my mind instead of anesthetize it is another. But a very strong part was a desire to watch less TV because of the increasingly disturbing tropes. Every rape, every murder, every person set on fire or pushed from a window is an idea in search of an emotionally disturbed person. When storytelling is reduced to a parade of tropes designed to appeal to the part of a viewer who slows down and looks at traffic accidents, then something is very wrong.
I have to get this off my chest. I love John Scalzi’s books, but I no longer read them. I stopped when he published Locked In. I have a friend who lived locked in for four years while his family was ripped apart, the rational half arguing to let him pass as was his wish, and the religious half arguing to keep him alive in a personal hell beyond the worst nightmare even your fertile mind could conceive. Troping that illness and using it as a plot device for a dime-store novel was repugnant. Sorry, but it was. My opinion, you don’t have to agree.
But yes, Trump making a casual (if subjunctive) suggestion of violence against a sitting president for carrying out the responsibilities of the office was reprehensible. Yet another reason I’d never vote for him.
Since when is Hillary Clinton a sitting president, and since when did he suggest any violence? You really, really, need to understand what was said and what was not. Trump simply admitted the actual fact that the 2nd amendment was made to avoid tyranny of government. If you or your friends want to take that as an implication of violence, you’re welcome to your fantasies.
Agreed!
One thing I keep coming back to on this, that I’m not sure anyone has mentioned yet…
If Trump ACTUALLY meant that the 2nd amendment people could “use their vote to keep Clinton out of office & thus her judges out of the Supreme Court”, why did he follow up his statement with “…I don’t know…”?
Why suddenly tack on this uncertainty? There’s no reason for it, unless he was actually suggesting that they use their guns to solve the problem, and he backpedaled to distance himself from the words that just came out of his mouth.
That “I don’t know” is the damning evidence against him on this one.
Because the follow-ups by his surrogates and his campaign are all lies. He knew exactly what he was saying, and exactly what he meant.
Total agreement here.
Wil, there’s video floating around of Hillary Clinton being interviewed in May of 2008 and she is asked why doesn’t she just drop out and concede to Senator Obama. She says no, and proceeds to invoke the assassination of Bobby Kennedy in June 1968, clearly implying that someone could assassinate Barak Obama before the California Primaries. https://youtu.be/E0QAewVrR28
Keith Olbermann had a ‘special comment’ on his news show on MSNBC condemning HRC for doing that . https://youtu.be/DLNFsl130_Y
HRC’s comment was way, way worse than Trump’s comment yesterday. Just sayin’.
It is also wholly irrelevant at this moment.
No, it is not, Wil. It is absolutely relevant. Except when it’s your side doing it. Then it’s not. Watch the K. Obermann video. He was righteously angry, as he should have been. Not like the faux outrage the MLM is trying desperately to foment.
It has nothing to do with sides. That’s a pretty weak strawman.
Something she said — which was horrible and way out of bounds at the time — in 2008 is not relevant in any way to this election now, and the false equivalence people are trying to make is ludicrous.
That video in no way shows Clinton getting remotely near a suggestion that someone should or even could assassinate Obama. To suggest so is disingenuous, and to compare it to Trump’s absolutely unambiguous remarks is deceptive and dirty.
You intentionally use vague words like “could” and “invoke.” Both classic attempts at a lazy smear. Manufacturing connections where none appear. Further, it is childish to fall back on the playground excuse “well, she did it too.” She did not. Your comparison is baseless.
I forgot to mention consensus is not a basis for fact:
“difference: a consensus has emerged that Trump knew exactly what he was doing”
Want to know what a consensus isn’t? fact!
Here’s your consensus, and may all the scientists in every world known to man vomit simultaneously:
Surely the most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,” Legates concluded.
Read more at: http://www.nationalreview.com/article/425232/climate-change-no-its-not-97-percent-consensus-ian-tuttle
When Wil or ANY scientist on the planet, will give me a true definition of consensus, or even FOLLOW it, I’ll start listening again, otherwise, bugger off…. .3% is NOT consensus. and statistical evaluation of papers published is NOT SCIENCE!
Respectfully,
I have decided that Trump lacks forethought or refuses to use it. I think he has the idea that to keep a controversy going & stay in the news with his most recent outrageous comment is a smart strategy. I think Trump might call it playing the game his way. A President should be literate & able to speak & able to have self restraint. This latest gaffe or outrageous comment is not surprising. As another commenter here said, it is the pattern of this kind of behaviour that worries me more than the specifics of this Trump comment.
Thanks for writing this post.
Meh. Trump baited the left and dared them to make fools of themselves – and they happily obliged.
Will – are you going to tell our leaders that they can only speak and act in accordance to the dictates of the criminally insane? I am predicting a landslide for Trump. Leftists insist on cutting their own throats – and all Trump does is pass them the knife.
What about the comments Hillary Clinton made back in 2008 about then candidate Obama and assassination?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-rees/hillary-clinton-why-would_b_103332.html
Then we have Bob Beckel’s (Democratic Strategist) commits on August 10th 2016 “so if I am not for the death penalty, their is only one way to do it… Illegally shoot the son of a bitch.” when speaking about Julian Assange, because “a dead man can’t leak stuff”.
These are OK with you?
I was a fan and used to follow you on various social media outlets until your stance against the NRA and Second Amendment.
Blogs like this created the “Trump Movement”.
With your history with TableTop, I’m surprised you would write something like this, or do you honestly see no parallels? Fine, you don’t agree with his politics, but just as no one should presume your intentions, you shouldn’t presume someone else’s. The political correctness currently running rampant in this country has gotten out of hand.
Here are the facts, and they apply to everybody of an adult’s age. No matter your race, someone of another race has wronged you at some point and in your head you have referred to them in a racially derogatory term. No matter your sex, someone of the opposite sex has wronged you at some point and in your head you have referred to them in a sexually derogatory term. No matter your sexual orientation, someone of another sexual orientation has wronged you at some point and in your head you have referred to them in a derogatory term.
We are ALL racist, sexist, homophobes. Or are we? Maybe, just maybe, when we think these things it is just human nature. Maybe it doesn’t mean I don’t like people who aren’t the same color as me, or the same sex as me, or the same sexual orientation as me, maybe it just means I don’t like the person who wronged me.
Nah, that can’t be it, unless I hold the same beliefs as you, then that is exactly what it means. If our beliefs are different though, then nope, you’re a racist, sexist, homophobe. That is what political correctness has caused.
In 2008 Hillary made a statement that the Republicans decided meant she was calling for Obama’s assassination.
In 2016 Trump made a statement that the Democrats decided meant he was calling for Hillary’s assassination.
The reality, neither one of them were calling for any assassination, but that doesn’t feed the machine does it?
Carter banned the immigration of Iranians during the hostage crisis, Trump wants to do the same due to terrorism. Ask a Democrat and what Carter did was fair and just, Trump’s a racist. Ask a Republican and what Carter did was racist, Trump is being fair and just.
The Democrats changed the filibuster rules in the Senate when they were in control because it was too hard and folks were too old to actually hold a filibuster, changing the Senate so a simple majority is meaningless, now it takes a super majority to pass anything. When the Democrats held the Senate it was an excellent idea because they could more easily block Republican bills that were semi universally popular (meaning they would pass with some Democratic support). When the Republicans took control of the Senate and started doing the same thing back to the Democrats they were referred to as obstructionist.
If a Republican is elected President, abortions will become illegal, the environment will go to hell, the rich will get richer, and social security will be taken away from the elderly.
If a Democrat is elected President, abortions will occur up until the day of birth, the second amendment will be repealed, the government will take over businesses, and ISIS will take over the world.
Pick your side and believe everything they are feeding you without thinking for yourself.
Just like Wil
Dave,
Well said,
I would add that if you’re bothering to post to Wil’s blog, you realize he won’t respond. The only people reading this are his fans that don’t understand his views and have cognitive dissonance like I do.
but good points all around, I’d give you thumbs up if I did facebook.
Jaman