South Park takes on the national anthem protests and it’s still prudent to understand ‘kafkatrapping’

The protests against the national anthem continue, this time South Park takes a swing at the issue, sending up just about everyone in an episode called “Member Berries“.

It was definitely funny, and worth a watch. Heat Street has write-up of it I think is well-worth the read.

I won’t spoil it for you, but as funny as it was (and as much as this country needs it to be right now), it’s still important to understand what “kafkatrapping” is if you disagree with the protests.

I still think Kaepernick’s protest makes more sense to those who genuinely believe the United States is, in 2016, morally indistinguishable from slavery, the American South during the Jim Crow era, or apartheid South Africa, or believe that cops are all racists hunting down black folks like a LARP version of the Predator movies.

For what it’s worth, I also think Fox Sports broadcaster Jason Whitlock had a much more constructive take than the reflexive smears of bigotry which are a staple of Black Lives Matter activists.

I think it’s entirely sensible which of course means he’s called the kind of racial slurs by the regressive-left, which they publicly flog others for using:

I don’t agree with the premise or narrative of the Black Lives Matter movement, which is why I’m largely quiet about this issue (as difficult as that is for me) and in part why I wrote the following for Refined Right as a warning, or caution to those who might risk their very livelihoods weighing in:

If you don’t agree with why Kaepernick sat, or any of the accompanying political baggage, it’s prudent to understand that whatever your politics are, the kind of people who reflexively side with Kaepernick are going to call you a racist/sexist/bigot/homophobe no matter what you say, what you really mean, or whether it’s good or evil which rests in your heart.

They’ll do it with the flimsiest of evidence, if any at all. But as with the Johnson anecdote, even honest denials are treated as further evidence of one’s bigotry.

Such traps aren’t always avoidable, but it’s still helpful to understand how some of them work in order to cope with the fallout.”

I don’t have a problem hammering the edge off a blade already dulled by overuse. The reflexive smear of “racist”, and all the other “-ists”, “-isms” and “-phobias”, has become pervasive-to-the-point-of-ubiquity as a profoundly corrosive means of conducting public discourse.

Being a racist is obviously a terrible thing to be, which is why it’s terrible that word (among many) is used over trivial things, like the bizarre claim that certain people eating certain foods is “racist”, or the proto-totalitarian claim that writing fiction is also “racist”.

There’s no point in even talking about this when the level today could be summed up as, “could you just hurry up and get to the point where you’re gonna smear me as a bigot anyway?”

Until that changes, out of prudence alone it’s important for people who disagree to know it’s okay not to take the bait, and that you can’t bait someone who’s mouth is shut.