Once again, to emphasize a unanimous, uniform WE clause where it does not exist, Mr. Koehler strains to paint contrast between those against the increasingly flagrant demonstrations of police violence and this idea that WE all ARE armed or support ARMED conflicts, domestic and foreign.
This is the first quote I found objectionable, no doubt among many:
"And being armed is primarily a liability, a surefire means, so to speak, of increasing one’s insecurity. Socially, we cling to this insecurity, roiling matters immeasurably."
Whose security? Men who suffer from penis envy?
WE do not all bow down before the phallic weapons that constitute the altar that Mars rules erected in HIS own image and likeness.
Opponents of my pointing out the very real Yin-Yang distinctions that when honored allow for genuine balance within a healthy partnership-based (as opposed to father god/patriarchal/male dominant/force first/aggression pivoted) society bring up the current fact that a handful of women have distinguished themselves by winning status within the world that Patriarchy built.
In precisely the same way that Blacks and Latinos procure status within this same paradigm, the existing dominant culture subsumes them into itself. But that hardly means it reflects a diversity of interests and/or perspectives.
When those who have found the moral conscience and voice to oppose the dominant paradigm, still embrace a language structure that passively reinforces it, I must point out this flaw. Ultimately what it says is that one size, i.e. one prone-to-violence "human nature" represents us all. This view takes what is the NORM for dominators within a rank-based hierarchy and applies it erroneously to all. In so doing, it keeps the witness of True Alternatives invisible.
Bad strategy if the goal is a transformed, peaceful, authentically diverse and Democratic society!