These men look like fools. They know Trump is guilty as hell, that’s why they are trying to attack the process.

It’s literally the only play they have, to get people mad at the system and not the grifters who are selling our democracy to the highest bidder. https://twitter.com/thehill/status/1187353295695667200

They keep telling us that the rules don’t apply to them, and we keep believing them.

This kind of behavior won’t change until consequence is a real thing they have to reckon with.

Ok, I have more in my head about this that I need to work out. Here goes....

I've been doing a lot of thinking lately about discipline, punishment, and consequence because I have a 3-yo child.

And as you might imagine, @polotek and I put a ton of work into raising a decent human being. A good bit of what I've learned about it applies to adults, as well.

One of my favorite parenting books is "Positive Discipline", because it's a very respectful take on modern parenting.

It takes respect for the child AND respect for the parent into account when dealing with conflict and power struggles.

I'm going to attempt to reframe some of the key concepts and apply it to the Republican problem.

The author (Jane Nelson) recognizes that there's been a major shift in how family power dynamics are structured over the last 50 or so years.

Where the archetype was one person (usually a father) as the "head of the household" who was the breadwinner and had power over the others to say what would happen in the home, once women began to work and also bring home bacon, the power dynamics have had to shift.

Women having money also has given women independence, and there's still a reckoning happening in most homes today about what it means to have both parents contributing in equal measure (or perhaps the woman makes more).

Sorry this is a heteronormative example, plz stay with me.

The point of my exposition is to draw a parallel to America (the home) and white men (like you see in the video at the top of this thread), who have historically possessed all the power and money in Western culture.

Progress and civil rights have shifted it away from them.

I believe that the fear of power and control slipping away from them causes them to lash out. We've seen it many times before throughout American history.

Even if they will accept *some* amount of change, witnessing the rise of folks different from them spurs crazy reactions.

The result is a power struggle.

Power struggles can look lots of different ways, and as adults we deal with them frequently, but usually with much lower stakes than democracy.

I think that most of the time, one side is willing to just concede, because whatever the fight is about is just not that important to them.

But what happens when the stakes are *really* high? How do you create an environment of mutual respect and positive behavior?

This is where the tenets of Positive Discipline are useful. Because fighting with a toddler can frequently feel like high stakes. At least it feels that way to THEM.

And I would hope that most people know that it's damaging and unhealthy to continuously give into their whims.

So back to this tweet: https://twitter.com/operaqueenie/status/1187400310257356803?s=20

If you are someone who has been around children, I'm sure the second line is something you can relate to.

Children (and humans, generally) will always test boundaries. We should expect that. But how we respond to it is what's most important.

There needs to be a response, but I sense that many people are grappling with how to respond to the wrongdoing, the exploitation, the manipulation, etc in a way that doesn't compromise their *own* morals by "stooping to their level".

(For the sake of simplicity in this thread, I'm going to set aside acts that are thoroughly vile and evil)

In America, the default for unacceptable behavior is punishment. We live in an extremely punitive society.

But what should lead in most cases is actually consequence. Creating a system for this is harder, but is more respectful of everyone involved.

Punishment is about retribution and vengeance. It's about reclaiming control. It speaks to our most primal instincts (we are animals, after all).

It is effective at temporarily stopping a problem, but usually doesn't work long term because it lacks respect. It breeds rebellion.

Consequence is the result that someone's behavior produces. It can be kind and firm/serious at the same time, which provides space for learning and rehabilitation.

There are two kinds of consequences: natural and logical.

"Natural consequences" are outcomes that are not planned per se, they just happen naturally.

Ex: You don't wear a jacket, and you get cold.

Saving someone who needs this lesson hampers their ability to understand and change their behaviors.

Allowing someone to experience the pain associated with their choice without intervention, however, allows them to learn.

"Logical consequences" are a bit trickier. They are behavior outcomes that are specifically planned.

Ex: Your kid misses curfew so you take away their going-out privileges for the next weekend.

But there's a thin line between logical consequence and punishment. So here's a few things to think about:

(1) What do you want them to learn?

The answer to this question should be something constructive. Help them do better.

(2) Can they help define what consequence is appropriate?

If they help craft the logical consequence, it may still hurt when they face it, but they can't argue about fairness.

Most importantly, you HAVE to follow through on enacting it when it's time.

(3) Don't take or make promises.

Actions have to lead. Trust is key, and it comes from demonstrating that you are who you are, and you'll do what you say.

This thread ended up way longer than I wanted to, so I'll stop here. But I think there's some key pieces that we can take into account around how we neutralize harmful behaviors.