lefty loserism
VR Kaine gave a great comment about lack of success in leftist movements being down to poor leadership and a culture of ‘loserism’ (which I assume is a synonym for ‘victimhood’, discussed in the previous post).
Have a chew and see what you think:
Much of the advice the left seems to follow comes from pure loserism (whether it’s re: feminism, atheism, race relations, Occupy, etc.) which is why they often keep losing.
They make their mission statements far too broad (such as the ‘vital change’ one you mentioned), they desperately try to include anyone and everyone in their ranks and they get so hung up on a whole bunch of labels they do much more to divide then actually conquer. First-wave, second-wave, third-wave, radical, whatever. Label = loser.
It’s the same with the right-wing calling themselves “Reagan Conservatives”, “Libertarians”, “Constitutionalists”, “Tea Partiers”, etc.. You’ll immediately get scoffed at on some level and lose credibility because everyone knows true leaders don’t give themselves labels.
And as for the labels people on the left often give themselves, they’re often outright ridiculous. At best they’re simply compensation mechanisms to make up for serious leadership inadequacies, and at worst the labels are utterly useless as far as results or concerned. Lots of flash, zero fire, and pick practically any cause the label-loser-left has tried to get behind. Occupy? Bernie Sanders? Race relations? Easy to write off minimal achievements as the result of some big bad white patriarchy out there, but the fact is the lack of true leadership inside any of these movements meant they hardly ever had a chance to achieve anything to begin with. Al Sharpton is no Martin Luther King, Sanders is no Karl Marx, and Watson is hardly a Gloria Steinem or Sheryl Sanberg.
Usually by this point I’ll get some line like, “(my movement) isn’t about some person or some figurehead – it’s about each of us as individuals coming together (blah blah blah)” which right there tells me it’s doomed.
Whenever you see a lack of results you’ll always see a lack of leadership. The lefties haven’t had much leadership for a very long time and yes, I believe the vacuum caused by it often ruins any causes they pretend to support.
The right has the same problem right now, too.
I think it’s a really interesting perspective to consider, and I’m genuinely drawn to a lot of what he says here.
I assume VR Kaine is a white, middle class, heterosexual man, but I could be wrong. He longs for the days when the White Man was in sole charge of affairs and leaders concentrated on the concerns of people like him. That’s what conservatism is – maintaining the status quo for the group of people who hold most power, for whom life is easiest.
It’s a simple task to find a power-hungry man eager to live out his narcissistic dream of leading people just like him. No need to label or even think about any other groups of people (unless you’re totally desperate for their vote).
On the left, considerations are a lot more complicated. We want equality and social justice. There are a lot of issues that need to be taken into account, and, in order to do so, they need to be given a label that identifies them. New words for previously unidentified inequalities aren’t ‘utterly useless’ unless you think it’s best for them to remain unaddressed.
The perceived lack of leadership is another understandable side effect. What true believer in equality could actually want to lead? Do we need ‘leaders’ in the traditional sense, or do we need elected representatives and a revolving mouthpiece for communication purposes?
VR Kaine’s comment has made me ponder the limitations in our current structures in society – politics as a game which you win by leading, by being dismissive of others and forging on in a mindlessly personal path. The structure we need is effective administration directed by a representative group of elected members of the public, who understand the issues facing of all corners of society, encompassing every label we have and more to come.
Revolution, anyone? The Lefty Loser Labeller party could be a winner.
“That’s what conservatism is – maintaining the status quo for the group of people who hold most power, for whom life is easiest.”
Well, I think not. Many of us conservatives believe that conservative policies make life better for those on the bottom, too. Leftism has delivered us Flint, Michigan and poisoned water, people trapped in poverty and dependent on the system living in ghettos, broken families, sky rocketing divorce rates, and a much lower quality of life. There are many who really wish the Left would just stop “helping,” because it is the kind of help that is crippling.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I happen to be one of those conservatives that thinks as you do IB that conservative policies, when allowed to actually be enacted in full, work better for those on all ends of the spectrum. And I am not a male narcissist wishing for the good old days of patriarchic dominance, last time I checked anyway. 😉
It should be obvious that the larger and more powerful government becomes, the smaller and more powerless its individual citizens find themselves. Crony capitalism, income inequality and heavy govt dependency thrives in this environment.
Unfortunately people on both the left and right are yearning for authoritarianism and thus are presidential choices are so poor.
LikeLike
“Unfortunately people on both the left and right are yearning for authoritarianism..”
I know, right? That is scary and so true.
“The more powerful government becomes, the smaller and more powerless its individual citizens find themselves..”
Yes, that’s it! Well said. It’s disturbing that so many people seem to have forgotten that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s gotten so I can’t even watch the news any more. Maybe that’s a good thing…
LikeLiked by 2 people
@ Tricia. Why can’t you watch the news?
How do you suppose a “smal government” can restrict the corporate business from exploiting the people? What would be the alternative mechanism to protect the rights of people from capitalism?
Are not the big engines of govenrment, that make so many US citizens wary of the government not infact set up by conservative politicians? There are these government agencies, like the CIA, NSA and then there is the world’s biggest military budget? The US spends more money on weapons than the rest of the world combined even though it is just a nation of some 300 million people and less on education and health per citizen, than most other western nations and what it spends is considered to be ineffective. The US has worse literacy and infancy death rates than Cuba. Is that something your conservatives are looking to repair?
@ Insanitybytes22, I have come to think that conservatism is about not fixing something, that is not percieved to be broken. Am I wrong? Sometimes it seems like it is the fear of the change manifest in politics.
Is that why conservatism throughout history has been on the side of the established systems, be they racist, sexist, segragationist, or otherwise repressive, oppressive, or unequal?
@ Both of you do realize, that when Breznev was in charge of the Soviet Union, he was one of the most conservative leaders on the planet, Putin is a conservative leader, Hitler was a conservative leader and when the US Republican party set it self against slavery, it was anti-conservative on that particular issue?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Watching the news gives me migraines lately and since I don’t handle pain well, it’s best I take a break, especially during the nonsense silly time of presidential primary season. Big government loves big business; reduce the size and scope of it and there’s less food at the trough for corporate interests to feed off of. Your comments on conservatism and the history of dictators show you don’t know enough about either to have much of a productive debate so I will leave things at that.
LikeLike
Ha! Hilarious Tricia. Raut is a historian, and one of the smartest people I’ve come across on WordPress. He doesn’t know enough to discuss things with you though. That’s a classic! 🙂
LikeLike
Hey I’ll take being called classic over other things…;) I’m not saying Raut isn’t smart, he obviously is and I’m sure could talk circles around me over historic events. In fact I”m sure I’d enjoy a good discussion with him over coffee, or something stronger perhaps.
Anyone suggesting though that conservatism and authoritarianism go hand in hand is either not being sincere, blinded by ideology, or has just has not dug very deep in to its philosophy.
As for the likes of Hitler, Stalin, etc..well, book after book has been written debating whether this insane desire to control people and kill dissenters comes from the left or right and nothing has really been settled. It does the importance of understanding these psychopaths a disservice I think to just call them conservative.
I’ll admit though I have not weeded through all the comments here and have been struggling with the flu so perhaps I misread things and if so I apologize. Free time has been extremely limited lately.
LikeLike
@Tricia, apology accepted and the offer to have a discussion over “something stronger” might someday be taken up, even though we live on the opposite sides of the planet. Anything is possible however unlikely. Exept me drinking coffee. 😉
It is easy not to be able to evaluate another person by a couple of comments on a blog post, but we are all guilty of doing that, more or less. To be fair, my expertise is in the science of archaeology, and most of my historical interrests lie in older history, than the modern era, but through my education I have learned to apply the scientific method to any of my evaluation of reality and research of the facts.
I, for my part, am sorry, that you thought I suggested, that the insane desire of Hitler or Stalin to rule came from the left or right. I am a bit sorry, that I feel the need to explain myself, when I thought I was being rather plain. Their personal views are not even a question, what is in question is how they found such a base for support. I was not trying to evaluate the character of either, but the position of power they represented to their numerous supporters. The feeling of safety they offered to the masses who loved them. The status quo they offered, that appealed to the conservativism of their supporters. Conservatism, not as some polticial movement from left or right, rather as an excuse for a virtue, in the actual meaning of the word. That is why I chose Breznev rather than the controversial character of Stalin, to point out that conservatism is not connected to any particular political movement.
And yes, I think authoritarianism is often the result of conservatism. Even in radical political movements, like Islamism, Dominionism, Communism, and even Capitalism. Fundamentalist movements often come from a backround of trying to preserve, or bring back some notion of a lost golden age. The lost age of happiness is appealing to people, because of our past as children when we were reliant on authority of our parents and felt more or less safe.
The idea of the golden age is most often nonsense and made up to please the people who came up with it and to protect their priviledges, even though it is at the same time ironically sincere. The conservatives often end up cherry picking some of the vilest things in human history, like segragation and tribal moralism to preserve, or support, because these things represent to the conservatives a status quo of the society and further more a priviledged position, that symbolises security to them – such as the authority of a dictator, a leader, their notion of an authorative father figure, and thus authoritarianism. Think of the excuses for torture in Guantanamo.
There is no real moral base for such priviledges, hence they appeal to conservatism, that something is good on the merit of it having always been so. Or that it is good because it has brought us this far. A state of cultural evolution in wich some sort of perfect state has been reached, and it should not be changed.
Conservativism also often appeals to the authority of a supreme authority of a father figure, a dictator, political, or religious establishment, or a god. The authoritarianism is inherent and a perfect example of misunderstanding the reality in the sense, that the authority is coming from a might makes right position, not from a virtue to be able to explain reality better. But as you may see, this is how this system works, mixing the two and confusing people on the way.
I am very sorry for your migranes. I know what you mean, even though I do not get migranes from the news, however bad they are (and there have been plenty of bad news of late), I get my migranes from bright sunlight and they are hellish.
However, if you still think I am not worthy of your reply, I do not mind and for now we can part with this. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Rautakyy….I appreciate your reasoned response and yes, it did clear up some things, so thank you. And certainly if one of us is going to travel half way around the world for a live discussion than I agree, much stronger libations are called for. Although I’m not sure I could have civil discourse with someone who doesn’t like coffee but we can sure give it a go. 😉
I still disagree with much of what you say, but again I apologize for misrepresenting your statements earlier. I think we are coming at things from different perspectives though and perhaps this is due to our geographical differences.
American Conservatism walks the line of classic Liberalism, which, as I’m sure you know, values the superiority of the individual over the state and advocates a system of representative government to protect the “natural rights” each human being is born with. Arguments tarry back and forth on whether such rights come from God or are just inherent, but the main point is that people have rights apart from government and that the government’s main purpose is to protect those rights.
Now, whether or not a political party like Democrats/Republicans, Left/Right, (or God forbid, Trumpism) follows this philosophy is always changing and so your proclamation about Brezhnev and other dictators not being from the left or the right is, in my opinion, a correct one, although there are many that would disagree with this. It’s easy to slap a present day label on historic events and call it a day when you and I both know it’s much more complicated than that.
I would argue though that today’s “liberals” are the authoritarians as they can’t seem to stop sticking their noses in to the most personal aspect of our lives.
What kind of lightbulbs to buy, how much sugar to consume, pronoun usage, personal healthcare coverage, blend of gasoline, square footage of my add on bedroom, my pet’s reproductive choices, whether or not I’m allowed to buy wine over the internet (mess with my wine and things get serious) and, I kid you not, enforcing permits for kids in my neighborhood to run lemonade stands. And you best not complain lest you offend someone and be sent off to microagression training.
It’s a comical list I know, but I can’t possibly outline the breadth of government overreach in the comments section of a blog post, but can only say that the soft tyranny of hidden taxation, excessive regulation and speech codes is well on the march in today’s western world and it does not at all bode well for the future, especially those on the lower rungs of the economic ladder.
Oh, and this nonsense about conservatives wanting to go back to a frozen “golden era” is quite overplayed. I’m not pointing fingers at you, it’s just this was something argued quite some time ago in the U.S. and it just doesn’t hold merit. Actual conservatives believe in taking a pause before flipping accustomed norms that have been practiced for centuries on their heads. Unintended consequences are a certainty and its impact increases in direct ratio to the quickness of change. It’s not saying that change isn’t good but that society should tread slowly on these matters.
Are there people that wish to go back to a hazy and nostalgic past where they perceived things a better? Of course but this afflicts all stripes and again here in the U.S. it’s the left trying to apply horse and dune buggy regulations to an Uber world and it’s drastically holding us back.
Speaking of migraines, I better quit now. Thank you for your concern on that.
Let’s continue this discussion on another post, perhaps you or I shall put something up soon enough. I enjoy your intellect and think it would be fun.
Cheers,
Tricia
LikeLike
Tricia, I’m enjoying your tone a lot more on this thread, so please don’t take the following as an isolated (cherry-picked) lambasting, but I just can’t let this line go unchallenged. You said:
Sorry to interrupt John, was just reading this and wondered what you think: http://theinternationalreporter.org/2016/03/19/prime-minister-lula-the-brazilian-game-changer/
LikeLike
Oh, it’s fucking insane, excuse my language, but no other word could possibly be used here. He was a minister, wasn’t a minister an hour later, was a minister again 10hrs after that, and not a minister again last night at about 10pm. It’s disgusting. He’s a filthy, corrupt, lying bastard. They all are. Lula (under criminal charges), Dilma (being impeached), the Speaker of the House (being impeached), the leader of the Senate (under 7 separate criminal charges), the leader of the opposition (being investigated for money laundering), and clearly one-third of all representatives who’re under investigation for Petrobras corruption.
LikeLike
Sorry, but that article is so uninformed its embarrassing. I just left him a scathing comment. And he calls himself a “journalist”?
LikeLike
I think it’s a paranoid end-of-world blog, followed it a while ago but so many posts a day I rarely read them. That’s why I was wondering how accurate it would be.
LikeLike
I love the way the guy fails to actually mention why, exactly, Lula is being investigated.
LikeLike
(Agreed Tricia’s comment is interesting, definitely going to pick up on some of the accusations)
LikeLiked by 1 person
John you isolating cherry picking cad, you! 😉 Kidding, I get your point. Two quick responses.
1. You can be politically conservative and not want to outlaw abortion and/or gay marriage, just ask any Libertarian about this.
2. Those that are against abortion and gay marriage, at least the people I know and have studied, want nothing to do with trying to a control what a woman, or man for that matter does with their body. You know as well as I do it has to do with deeply held beliefs on valuing life that begins at conception and the Biblical standards of marriage.
The false canard is that it’s about control. I don’t know what else to tell you but that it’s not.
LikeLike
Sorry, if this comes in a bit late, but I was otherwise engaged on so many fronts, that I somehow missed Tricias comment.
Tricia: “The false canard is that it’s about control. I don’t know what else to tell you but that it’s not.” Oh, but it is exactly about that. It is all about controll, when people are not trying to define marriage according to their deeply held religious beliefs, only for themselves, but on the rest of us as well.
Same applies to their however deeply held religious feelings about abortion. Religion is a big issue in this, because when someone tries to controll the society for scientific reasons – as in the case of light bulbs, sugar consumption and such – we are talking of as objective reasons we can possibly reach. Religious reasons a mere matter of taste. They are not objective in any sense of the word. That is, the single reason why it is a rather objective perspective, that for most of us, it is better to live in a secular culture, than in Theocratic culture. It applies to both religious people as it applies to us who do not believe in any specific, but necessarily unfalsifiable religious suggestions.
LikeLike
Big government loves big business
Are you insane? Do you not even know the recent history of your own country? Perhaps you should look up the robber barons.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@John. Well crony capitalism certainly drives me insane, does that count? At its heart CC is big business partnering with big govt for special favors. It’s not a new concept as you correctly note, with robber barons and the like from my country’s past doing much damage. Today’s corruption though, is perhaps worse because it’s under cover of legality.
Whether it’s a company like Fisker Automotive getting a billion dollars from our govt to produce electric vehicles and then promptly go bankrupt, or a developer like Trump using eminent domain via the govt to force poor people out of their homes, or industry groups lobbying congress to pass laws requiring expensive certifications required for the most asinine things (interior design services, nail shops, hair braiding….) to keep out competition, the incestuous relationship between business groups and govt is getting worse with each and every new tentacle growth of the federal government. Regulatory capture (where those in charge of overseeing said businesses get caught up in the corruption) is a big accompanying problem to this.
Only the rich and politically well connected thrive in such crony capitalist environments. Again, reduce the govt goodies and watch the corporate interest piglets flee.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’m afraid you don’t even have crony capitalism in the US, Tricia. Corporatism killed Capitalism decades ago, and with Reagan you entered a pure oligarchy.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Does she not have a point? I know in Argentina big government loves giving big business to cronies – I’m sure it’s similar in Brazil. We had a scandal in Edinburgh in the last few years where the city council was using mandatory building repair orders to line the pockets of cronies. It happens everywhere. They get weeded out at some point but more grow in their place. I don’t think it’s any argument to get rid of big government (there are lots of people and lots of things to do – I like roads and trains and healthcare), just an argument to have better independent checks and balances.
LikeLike
Oh, she has a point. I’m not disagreeing with her in principle. But the really BIG BUSINESS arose when there was a tiny government. Governments, on a whole, are there to regulate an industry.
LikeLike
You know what John, I totally agree with you that corporatism has killed capitalism here int he U.S.! That must be a first….;)
Whatever you want to call it….corporatism, crony capitalism, the unholy marriage of business and state interests, it is eating up the free market and putting up too may barriers for average folks to get ahead. Not good for America or any country really.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Goodness gracious me, Tricia. This is likely one of the most deplorable politically ignorant comments I have read in a long while.
It might be best if you abstain from voting and do a basic course in history. And you wonder why your country is in the apparent mess it’s in?
But then, I imagine the average politician prefers that the electorate isn’t too bright.
LikeLike
Rautakyy,
Corporations are subject to the law.
That is how they are limited.
Government is above the law, therefore has no limits.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Silenceofmind. Governments are subject to the people in democratic countries. Is your government not subject to the choise of the people in your country? Governments in constitutional countries are also subject to the constitution. Does this not apply to your government? There are tribunals to see, that governments abide to the constitution and international agreements that the government has ratified.
Governments set up policy and laws, but in a democracy this happens only at the consent of the majority. An educated majority protects the rights of the minority, recognizing, that the part of the majority that is majority on every issue, is actually a minority within any given society.
Corporations are outside the democratic processes and they are very powerfull in regard to the community of ordinary people, not to mention the individual citizen. That is why the government needs to set up and if need arises enforce laws and policy to protect the communities and citizens from the corporations, that have no other goal, other than to produce more capital to the capitalist.
A corrupt government, whose representatives are not the representatives of the voters, but instead the representatives of corporations does their job badly. Is this the case in your country?
LikeLike
What do you think authoritarianism is, IB?
And how does your biblical outlook on life, where you champion cheerful obedience to God, as well as the godly hierarchy with a male / husbandly authority over women / wife, differ from it?
LikeLike
The difference there is the nature of sacrificial love. We surrender to God’s authority because He is worthy, Holy, perfect. We can submit to a husband in the context of love, because he’d give his life protecting you. We can submit one to another in a church family setting, because of love. Governments are huge bureaucratic systems made up of assorted characters who do not know us personally, who are not worthy of wielding that kind of power, who do not love us. There’s a huge difference.
LikeLike
So the difference, as you see it, is in the motivation: voluntary surrender to authority based on love vs. not so voluntary / not love, just externally enforced obedience toward an impersonal authority.
Authoritarianism (as a personality characteristic and social dimension), however, is not distinguished on the basis of the perceived force that motivates obedience.
It is just the need and desire to obey an authority of some (any) sort. However people choose to rationalize it — because, like it or not, that’s what we do with all of our behaviors / life choices — is irrelevant.
It does make us feel better when we can convince ourselves that love, rather than fear, is what motivates our obedience, but those rationalizations are irrelevant, I’m afraid.
You may feel compelled to expound the beauty of love-driven submission, etc. — I understand that. It doesn’t change the fact that, well, it does not matter, even though you believe it does.
There is probably no authoritarian who freely admits that s/he obeys her or his chosen authority out of fear; the reasons authoritarian people always give for their obedient behaviors are far more palatable to them, ranging from love to, say, belief in the authority’s expertise (e.g., Milgram experiments).
Authoritarians, like everyone else — actually, most likely more than others — are rationalizing rather than rational people.
However, there is an authoritarian in nearly every one of us (as Milgram’s work showed:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Milgram_experiment ).
LikeLiked by 1 person
It is just the need and desire to obey an authority of some (any) sort.
That’s not correct, since authoritarianism (as personality dimension and social force) is obviously more than just the need and desire to obey; but that need / desire to obey is the psychological basis of authoritarianism.
LikeLike
“It does make us feel better when we can convince ourselves that love, rather than fear, is what motivates our obedience, but those rationalizations are irrelevant, I’m afraid”
Seriously? I mean what kind of a pathetic response is that? There is a huge, giant, mind boggling difference between submitting out of a sense of fear and submitting out of a recognition of the authority of love.
Go tell a child abuse victim that it’s irrelevant whether or not the submit out of fear or love. Go tell a battered woman that it doesn’t matter whether or not she submits out of fear or love.
I notice you also said, “but those rationalizations are irrelevant, I’m afraid.”
I notice you said, “I’m afraid.” That’s interesting because I am not afraid of the truth one bit and that is the difference right there, in a nut shell. Those who believe authority is based only on fear, can only see fear based authority.
LikeLike
“Go tell a child abuse victim that it’s irrelevant whether or not the submit out of fear or love. Go tell a battered woman that it doesn’t matter whether or not she submits out of fear or love.”
I think you might be surprised by a couple of things.
First, many abuse victims genuinely do love their abusers.
Second, if they decide they no longer love their abuser and escape their situation they have a really difficult time just submitting. Out of love or otherwise. Especially if submission is a command to be followed.
LikeLike
Why would those things surprise me? I spent years as a domestic violence/sexual assault advocate. I think I get it.
The fact that people have been abused however, does not mean we as a culture, must now define authority as fear-based and abuse as love, but that is exactly what people seem to be trying to do.
LikeLike
Have you been a domestic violence/sexual assault victim?
Do you follow the speed limit because you love the law or because you’re afraid you’ll get a ticket?
So, if hell weren’t a part of the equation would you still love your God? If so, why is hell necessary? Because love also demands punishment?
LikeLike
Yes, I’ve been a victim of abuse and violence.
I follow the speed limit because I love the law. Trust me, fear seldom motivates me to comply with much of anything.
Yes, I’d still love God in the absence of hell. Heck, I’d still love God if hell was my destination.
Love doesn’t necessarily demand punishment, but it does demand freedom and discipline.
LikeLike
I’m sorry. I just don’t even know what to say to that. Just as you find it difficult to believe that any authoritarian-fascist regime is built on love and is not fear-based, I find it very unlikely to believe you’d still love your God if you knew you were destined for hell. It is easy to say things when you believe you’re destined for heaven.
LikeLike
Jonestown was built on the “love” of Jim Jones.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“I find it very unlikely to believe you’d still love your God if you knew you were destined for hell.”
Actually it’s true. I love God because of who He is, not based on a fear of hell. We love people in life, knowing full well it will hurt at some point, either by rejection, death, or abandonment and yet we do it anyway, we chose to love willingly even knowing what awaits us in the end. So, no, it is not so far fetched to love God regardless of our perceived ending.
LikeLike
Only you can know that. Just as only any Muslim can know if they love Allah or not. Who are you to decide how they feel or don’t feel?
LikeLike
Muslims themselves don’t even proclaim to love Allah. You are seeing things through Western eyes and actually dishonoring the truth. I’d ask you the same, who are you to decide they must love Allah? Allah is not a god of love and to say such things is actually a great offense.
LikeLike
I guess you’ve been to the Middle-East too? Do you know a lot of Muslims?
http://www.iqrasense.com/allah/a-muslims-obligation-of-love-for-allah.html
Yes, they do. They also claim that Allah loves them. I’m not looking at Islam through Western eyes. I’m looking at Islam the way that Muslims describe it. I suppose you need to go tell these Muslims that they are being offensive. Not me. I don’t believe in Allah any more than I believe in Yahweh. But I’m not going to tell you that you don’t love Yahweh. And I’m not going to tell Muslims that it’s a great offense for them to love Allah either. You are looking at Islam through Christian eyes and whatever you’ve been taught about their religion through Christian eyes.
http://islamqa.info/en/10117
Abu Huraira (may Allah be pleased with him) narrated that the Prophet (peace and blessings of Allah be upon him) said: ‘if Allah loves a person, He calls Jibrael saying, ’Allah loves so and so; O Jibrael love him.’ And make an announcement amongst the inhabitants of the heaven: “Allah loves so and so therefore you should love him also, and so all the inhabitants of the heaven would love him, and then he is granted the pleasures of the people on the earth.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I would agree with you that love demands a level of self-discipline. I do not believe it demands discipline by another. I love my husband. I don’t believe that love demands my discipline. And his love for me doesn’t demand discipline by him toward me. Why? Because we are adults who can behave as such. Do I always agree with him or what he does? No. But I also don’t feel the need to discipline him for it, either, and vice-versa.
LikeLike
“Trust me, fear seldom motivates me to comply with much of anything.”
Me either. But that’s probably why I drive like a bat out of hell. I don’t love that law. lol
LikeLike
You bring up an excellent point on authoritarians, IB (and it chimes in with what Rautakyy said): the authoritarians are the ones who obey out of love, and not those who obey because their lives and safety are threatened.
So yes, as you point out, the battered wife / abused child who obey their abuser do it out of fear for their safety, which suggests that authoritarianism is not their motivation.
Those who obey of out (what they see as) free will and love are the true authoritarians.
And yes, whether theirs is true love or “love” (i.e., rationalized fear as in the Stockholm Syndrome, for example) is irrelevant, because every love-espousing authoritarian will insist that her or his obedience comes from true love.
Those lovingly devoted followers of Hitler whom Rautakyy mentions were as devoted to their leader, and their love for him as genuine, as that of any loving Christian devoted to her or his God.
What is known about authoritarians, however, points to fear as an overarching (and largely subconscious and unarticulated) force behind their obedience. It is not the kind of fear that makes them afraid for their immediate physical safety if they disobey their authority (like in the case of abused wife / child), but more diffuse and largely hidden (i.e., not accessible to immediate awareness and introspection) anxiety as a personality characteristic that predisposes them to perceive the world / life / change as threatening and/or hostile. The anxiety — subconscious, at best — that results from this perception leads to a need and desire to submit to something / someone stronger, a protector / leader.
I’m glad to hear you are not afraid of the truth. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
It could be argued that the NKVD soldiers and agents only obeyed Stalin because they feared him and each other. However, Nazies and SS stormtroopers mostly just loved Hitler. They submitted to him and believed his authority because they simply loved him for protecting their conservative values. The ultra-conservative Islamist terrorists love Allah and submit to the authority of their god, for no different reasons than that he is supposed to be “worthy, Holy and perfect”.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Right.
Those who obeyed Stalin (or Hitler, or any other tyrant) out of immediate fear for their lives (i.e., if I don’t do what he says, he’ll kill me) did not necessarily have to be authoritarian. They followed orders to save their lives (and that’s considered a valid legal defense, by the way).
The ones who followed Hitler (and Stalin, and any other leader / authority figure) out of love would be the authoritarian ones.
We are talking here about authoritarians, people who obey cheerfully because they have rationalized their need for obedience into love and other good-sounding reasons.
LikeLike
“The ultra-conservative Islamist terrorists love Allah….”
No, they do not, You are trying to remake Allah in the image of Jesus Christ and acting as if Muslims are just motivated by love. Love doesn’t even enter into the equation, it is a completely different mindset! They fear Allah, they are hated and despised by their own god and must prove themselves worthy of him. Love doesn’t even enter the picture. It is exclusively about rituals, laws, and rigid hierarchies.
Also, I’m going to say it’s extremely unlikely Nazi’s or any other militeristic fascist system is motivated by love.
LikeLike
I think you are operating on a different definition of love. In terms of Biblical love it isn’t a feeling, it is obedience. I disagree with you that Muslims fear Allah. They love Allah and so they are obedient to the commands they’ve been taught about the object of their affection.
LikeLike
” I disagree with you that Muslims fear Allah. They love Allah..”
No, they do not. Again you are trying to create Allah in the image of Jesus Christ. Allah is not the object of their affection, in fact to even suggest such a thing is probably a major crime.
Biblical love is not simply about obedience, it is also about a feeling. Read the Song of Songs.
LikeLike
I am not trying to create Allah in the image of Christ. Are you suggesting that one cannot love anyone or anything other than Christ? Why would it be a major crime to suggest what Muslims, themselves, declare?
I did not say that one could not feel love. I’m am quite certain that those who love their god have feelings toward that god. But the test of that love is obedience. Even if you aren’t feeling the warm fuzzies you’re still called to be obedient, no?
I have on many occasions read Song of Songs. I’m quite familiar with Solomon’s love story.
LikeLike
@Insanitybytes22. Who ever told you that Muslims do not love Allah, or are not even expected to love allah, was wrong or possibly lied to you. Either way, whoever it was, you should be very critical on any information you get from them in the future and find out about things by yourself. Should you not?
Wether, or not Nazi, or other militaristic fascist systems are motivated by love is not a matter of faith. If you look into them, you will find, that such systems only became possible in large scale by being promoted through the idea of love. But their notion of love was tribally moralistic, a bit like Christianity and it’s numerous sects. The Nazies and other Fascists simly loved their home, religion and fatherland. That was one of their leading catchphrases. But furthermore they proclaimed love for their leaders. They did loved their leaders. The authority of their leaders. That is what authoritarianism gives people. Blind faith and obidience. Blind faith and obidience are authoritarianism. Many faithfull who loved Hitler, had faith in him to deliver them, even when the Soviet tanks were on the streets of Berlin. You can look up their stories yourself, if you doubt me.
For most of Christendoms history certain forms of Christianity were advocated promoted and kept up with the most horrid and vile methods of violence. It is the direct result of that violence, why Christianity is now the most wide spread group of religions in the world. Did you not know this? Do you think the crusader loved his god? Do you think the colonialist missionary loved his god? Do you think the soldiers in any of the religious wars and those of colonization loved their god? What do you think, did the medieval inquisitors and the protestant witch hunters love their god? Were these not the manifestations of militaristic fascist systems? Did their victims love their god? Did the god of any of these people show any love towards any of them, exept perhaps in helping a few to find their lost keys?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Worthy! Are you farking kidding? Have you ever read the bible you utterly ignorant stupid woman.
Yahweh is a meglomaniacal egotistical monster.
LikeLike
Please don’t be rude to other commenters Ark.
LikeLike
Sorry. Got a bit carried away there.
Sometimes Giant Arsehat comments like IBs send me into a flurry of typing.
*Sigh* For future reference was it the use of farking or meglomaniacal egotistical monster. ?
Thanks , Violet. 😉
LikeLike
It was “utterly ignorant stupid woman”. She’s not. She’s a smart woman on a wayward path.
LikeLike
Oh, I would never have picked that phrase if I’d had a thousand guesses.
She’s a smart woman on a wayward path.
Is this not a bit like saying, ”I am a life long virgin, I just happen to have lots of sex.”
LikeLike
Utterly ignorant, stupid woman?
Uh, it seems as if the meglomaniacal egotistical monster may be you, Ark. Stop trying to create God in your own image. And stop running around the internet calling women stupid, delusional, etc, because I assure you we are not and for all your alleged enlightenment and superior intelligence, I see you resort to the same old basic sexism, rooted in pride and arrogance and a desire to lord yourself over others.
LikeLike
Sexism? Would you have preferred I did not identify you as a woman then?
You seem to have no qualms telling everyone.
I don’t consider that, you being a woman is in any way related to your ( patently obvious) ignorance, which I consider is a personal thing you have acquired along the way, and all the women I generally come into contact with are certainly not ”stupid, delusional etc .” which may have something to do with the fact that none are evangelical fundamentalist types.
Something you seem to have worked extremely hard at. One could offer Kudos for sticking to the task of Credulous Idiocy – maybe you subscribe to an online course?
As for your apparent objection to my calling your make-believe deity a meglomaniacal egotistical monster, are you unfamiliar with the Old Testament, or does your church metaphorically lobotomize those naughty parts so you can have a Twinkly Shiny Jesus Sunbeam live long day?
Lord myself over others? lol….
”Come, Donald T … come quick.”
You’re a raving indoctrinated nutcase.
And a dishonest one to boot.
LikeLike
Listen up here you moron, let me explain sexism 101 to you. Calling women indoctrinated nutcases, stupid etc, etc, is a symptom of male arrogance and patriarchal oppression. It implies that you as an arrogant mansplainer have the authority to judge me indoctrinated, delusional, and perceiving reality wrong based on my gender.
Another word for that is gas lighting, emotional, psychological, and spiritual abuse. You are an abusive bully whose only sense of worth and value comes from putting others down as a way of trying to lift your own miserable self up. Your own character defects rival those of the most authoritarian rabid right wing sexist pig out evangelizing to the masses. You got it now Ark? You have become the enemy you weakly try to point fingers at.
If you’re going to subscribe to the ideology of secularism, at least have the decency to understand what you’re doing. There is no excuse for simply being a pathetic and abusive fool.
LikeLike
I didn’t and do not call all women ”indoctrinated nutcases”, I called you an indoctrinated nutcase.
It just so happens that you declare yourself to be a woman.
I would have leveled the same charge against a man – such as that giant Arse-Hat Colorstorm.
I am wondering if your foul temper and has something to do with your period, as you do sound rather cranky today?
I find doing a spot of ironing helps if I feel uptight.
Oh, and have you read the Old Testament lately? That’s where you’ll find that meglomaniacal
egotistical son-of-a-bitch Yahweh.
LikeLike
Like I said, there is nothing more pathetic than abusive bully, with an extra side of mansplaining, heaped with sexism. You need more fiber on your breakfast cereal because you are obviously mentally constipated.
LikeLike
Yes, the type of bully that tells children they will be burning in Hell for not believing in Jesus.
You wouldn’t teach this of course … would you?
As for my breakfast… Why, tha k you for showing such concern. Actually, since giving up eating other animals I prefer meusli with orange juice or toast and Marmite and a nice cup of black coffee.
Truly delicious and no animal had to die for my breakfast.
Do you still eat animals, IB?
LikeLike
You are a moronic and pathetic bully who believes his dietary choices compensate and wash him clean of his blatant sexism. They do not, so don’t try offering up the “I don’t eat animals so I’m a good person” crap because I don’t care and I don’t buy it.
LikeLike
I am not always good, this is true. But I do not eat animals.
So, as you are still having a tantrum I’m going to go with ”Yes” on the period?
Shame , it is a cross you … well all women … have to bear. ( not a sexist remark, I promise, but a biological reality)
Damned Yahweh. A real meany, that one, right?
Sheesh, frakking Creation? What can y’do, eh?
Would you like any pointers in the Old Testament as to evidence of just how mean and nasty Yahweh is, IB?
Remember, I am here to help, honest.
x
LikeLike
See what happens when you start flinging insults? It really lowers the tone. And imagine how awful you must be being for lovely Insanity to get so upset. Tsk tsk. I hope you’ve learned your lesson.
LikeLike
Yes, I am so sorry.
It’s just that some indoctrinated nutcases bring out the worst in me. I truly think it might be a sort of ”Skinnerism” if you’ll excuse me borrowing from everyone’s favorite rodent behaviorist.
Please extend my apologies to IB and any other indoctrinated nutcase of either sex or gender that ventures onto this thread.
I can still call Colorstorm a Giant Arse Hat though, right?
LikeLike
He’s just playing Insanity. Think of him as the polar opposite of SOM. A firm hand is required but best not to get wound up. He feeds off steam….
LikeLiked by 1 person
It implies that you as an arrogant mansplainer have the authority to judge me indoctrinated, delusional, and perceiving reality wrong based on my gender.
Insanity, you have completely ignored what Ark said. Deliberately? He is calling you indoctrinated and delusional, which you are, but making no reference at all to your gender. Gender is meaningless, and I think he made that point quite clear.
LikeLike
Oh, and here comes Ark’s mansplaining white knight ready to rescue him from a dung heap of his own making.
What you two crackpots don’t get is that neither one of you have the authority to call me indoctrinated and delusional and yes, that is flat out a gender related issue. Well, actually real men seldom sink to such stupidity, but being neither one of you qualify as real men, I should not be surprised. Men who are insecure about who they are as men however, will often spend all their time on the internet looking for women they can judge as indoctrinated, delusional and stupid.
Here’s the deal, you two just aren’t worthy to define reality for me. The fact that you think you are speaks to your inherent sexism.
LikeLiked by 1 person
neither one of you have the authority to call me indoctrinated and delusional and yes, that is flat out a gender related issue.
No, it’s not… and everything you write is EVIDENCE that you’re indoctrinated and delusional. Would you like to have a conversation about the historical veracity of the Pentateuch? 😉
LikeLike
No, I’d like to have a discussion about your blatant sexism, your mansplaining, and how you are not qualified to declare any woman to be indoctrinated and delusional. “Any woman,” got it?? Ever.
But I’m not going to take the time to have this discussion with you because you are unworthy of my time. However, I do suggest you pull your head out of your nether regions and ponder the truth of what I have said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Insanity, i’m afraid its only you who’s talking gender. I, most definitely, am not, and neither is Ark.
LikeLike
In that case, IB, I can’t wait to read your first post of the Trump Era.
There’s a ”free market” conservative the US of Eh? really wants to run the country, right?
Well you do, obviously. God-fearing righteous man that he is.
To say I will be hosing myself with laughter reading your wonderful Yahweh-filled thoughts about Dear Donald T really warms the cockles of my heart.
”Lefty Loserism”?
Wait and see when your boy Don, is driving down to 600 Pennsylvania Ave. to the
ShiteWhite House.Oh, Happy Days!
Nuclear war anyone?
LikeLiked by 2 people
or 1600 even.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey, but it’ll be the classiest nuclear war ever seen. Really amazing.
And just because Kim Jong-un laughed at Il Drumpfo’s small hands, we’ll make it yuuuge, folks.
It’ll be tremendous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
He’ll probably have the nuclear warheads plated in gold and polished regularly.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Mmmm… Now we’re talking!
And who’s gonna pay for them?
(altogether now…)
MEXICO!
Heil Drumpf!
LikeLiked by 1 person
And likely very short.
I suspect he will advise the US defense Dept to pay special attention to shoot down any incoming nukes that might be heading for his hotels.
But we all know serious Christians have a death wish – life on this plane of existence is just shit to be honest, right? ”Heaven here we come!”
And if not heaven, they will just come, as it’s the rapture and all that.
Women like IB can yell ”Oh, Jesus, YES!” and for once he might answer?
You never know?
So the ”Trumpets” will be hugging themselves and cheering from the bleachers when that first ICBM is launched from one of their subs.
I wonder if Donald even knows the words to Star Spangled Banner?
Maybe us down here in SA will miss the worst of it?
LikeLike
The evangelicals in the states have lost their minds. They adore Putin, singing his praises, and are voting overwhelming for Trump.
LikeLiked by 1 person
It’s like voting for a demented Syphilitic poodle with rabies and put(t)in(g) it in the ring with a an HIV infected wolverine on speed.
You just know that someone is going to get fucked but there isn’t a bookie on the planet that will give odds on which one.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I scroll down my facebook newsfeed and on the regular I see memes from evangelicals with Putin’s picture and some kind of quote accredited to him. Gag!
If they love Putin so much why don’t they move to Russia? I mean, that’s what they’re saying to us when we bring up single payer healthcare. If we love socialism(as if that’s all there is to socialism) so much why don’t we move to Denmark? It’s become impossible to disagree about politics without demonizing those with alternative views and calling them unAmercian.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Yeah, that desire that so many evangelicals have for the rapture is, um, problematic, in so many (so, so many) ways.
In fairness to IB, though, I don’t think she’s supporting Drumpf.
He is not a “true Christian,”in that he does not really give a rat’s… nose about Christian or any values. He gives them lip service and uses them to score political points, but there is nothing in his personal history, ideas, and behavior suggesting that he understands or respects and follows Christian (or any) values. (Power, greed, and adulation are not values.)
There are many fundamentalists who support him, though, but there are also others (don’t know how many) who oppose him. There are also Democrats (former and not) who vote, or will, for him.
He represents, mostly falsely, a radical break with the political establishment; and that appeals to people who are understandably fed up with the status quo (= steadily worsening situation of everyone not filthy rich).
But the problem is that, like every narcissistic psychopath, he does not really understand anything apart from his own wish for power and self-aggrandizement, and this, among other things, makes him dangerous.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I was responding primarily to the ”conservative-ness” of her general stance as an Evangelical Crispyian.
If Don T gets in …. well, surely it will be better than whatever the other guy is … Bernie?
I generally don’t ”do” politics.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Got it, Ark.
Yep — it’s much better to vote for a narcissistic psychopath who’s all about amassing his personal power and adulation (winning!), than for somebody whose life’s work has been trying to make other people’s lives better, and whose agenda includes such evils as universal health care and free college education. Brr! Truly satanic. Not to mention Jewish. 😉
Unfortunately, I “do” politics. Sigh. Not because I like it, necessarily, but because even if we don’t do politics, politics will do us (especially if we don’t do it).
Voting in this election is / will be a true test of values (or lack of them).
LikeLike
Well, I wish you all the best of luck then.
Don Ts theme tune , I believe?
LikeLike
Yea, we need that luck. Good music, too, for the long winter(s) ahead.
LikeLike
Seriously, is he liable to win, or is it a storm in a teacup?
LikeLike
Oh, dear… So you don’t really know what’s going on here… Don’t blame you; but bless your heart, my friend.
Yes, Drumpf may very well win the GOP nomination — and then who knows what will happen.
Today is another round of primary voting in several more states, including mine (I’m getting ready to go as soon as my husband gets up), which will determine how big a lead he will have over his opponents — and it is most likely it will continue to be a lead, and possibly yuuuge one.
It’s not just Democrats and other normal [ ;)] people that are scared of this man now; the GOP establishment is actively trying to undermine him — not because they suddenly stopped liking their not-so-hidden fascistic leanings and the benefits they bring them, but because they are afraid he’d lose to Clinton (or Sanders) in the general election. Party first, you know; the nation distant second. Humanity? Forget about it.
But guess what? It’s not working. The authoritarians are energized like never before, and, come hell or high water (maybe both), they shall support The Leader by any means possible. Keep in mind that these folks are not only very angry, but also very armed.
It’s anyone’s guess what long-lasting havoc Il Drumpfo’s disturbing power trip will create in this country, if not beyond.
LikeLike
I don’t pay much attention to the politics in my own country and I believe it is in a shambles.
Truly, I almost never read a newspaper or internet news any more.
I feel great, too LOL! Does wonders for stress and encourages a positive happy ( if slightly skew) outlook.
Anyway, seriously, how bad can the US get with Trump in the Hot Seat?
War? Doubt it. I really don’t believe he is as crazy as Bush.
But then …. y’never know, right?
LikeLike
You guys have universal health care, I’m guessing then?
Yup, that ‘splains your state of relaxation. 😉
I wish we could afford this pleasure of not paying attention to politics.
Bush (who was psychopathic) was a near-saint in comparison with Trump. Read my post (linked in the comment to John) — and that’s just a general overview of what we’re dealing with in his person.
I study psychopathology for a living, and I have never seen anything like this. There is a lot of awfulness in politics, but Trump is in a very special category. The comparisons with Hitler and other members of that “special club” are not farfetched.
I wish I were exaggerating.
LikeLike
Well, it will be a interesting ride, that’s no maybe.
LikeLike
but there is nothing in his personal history, ideas, and behavior suggesting that he understands or respects and follows Christian (or any) values. (Power, greed, and adulation are not values.)
Take a look at this room of full-blown crazy:
LikeLike
Oh, yeah, praise the Lord… of Mammon and All Things Drumpf!
Aw, just look at that pouty face: such solemn devotion — to his own ratings.
I’m certain that this man cannot tell a Christian (or maybe even human) from a tree stump, nor cares to know the difference, unless it matters for his purposes (and there are only two that he has, and they are related: power and adulation).
Drumpf is a craven opportunist, courting the religious vote out of necessity. It’s (p)art of the deal, as always.
Not that’s a difficult task, as these folks are all too eager to support him or any charlatan who thumps the Bible (Two Corinthians, anyone? 😉 ) and is not a Democrat (= spawn of Satan, or something like it).
This is what Il Drumpfo is about:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Il Drumpfo – haha! I assume we’re talking about John Oliver’s awesome piece on Trump?! Love it! Drumpf! Drumpf! Drumpf! http://donaldjdrumpf.com/
LikeLike
Yep.
Amazingly, after that piece aired, Drumpf’s popularity among prospective voters went up.
It always does, no matter what he does or what others do to him. He really is the Teflon Candidate (TM) — untouchable, unflappable, unsinkable.
LikeLike
I know – crazy, isn’t it?
I’ve said publicly that I like the fact that Drumpf is scaring the crap out of both the left AND the old, stuffy, Republican establishment, and I like that Drumpf is talking about a wall, but the fact is he scares me, too, in a way – I used to have much more faith in the American electorate, but it has been dwindling steadily since Bush-Kerry. The degree of ignorance among the general voting population is absolutely appalling to me, both on the left and the right.
LikeLike
Pingback: On the bottem rung of society’s ladder | See, there's this thing called biology...
Without trying to go any further to the persona of VR Kaine, he managed to remind me of the character of Sir Mordred in one of the all time worst fantasy movies, the First Knight. The otherwise embarrasingly terrible film had this one scene where Sir Mordred says, men do not want equality, what they want is leadership, to old king Arthur (performed by Sean Connery). I sometimes wonder if people do wish for leadership rather than equality. Those both are often seen as equally good, but necessarily taken too far the leadership becomes authoritarianism.
Perhaps the left side of the political spectrum in at least the western world has mostly learned it’s lessons of how dark places await for us, behind the shadow of authoritarianism. When the Soviet Union was formed and womens voting rights were established there as the third country in the entire world there was founding idea of egalitarianism, taken further even than in the founding documents of the US and the great revolution of France, but it was already wrought by most of the Russian people seeing comrade Lenin, as a continuation to the Tzars. When Stalin took over, the Russians sure got a taste of leadership, not so different from what they had suffered under the ultra-conservative rule of the Tzars. Young Stalin was all for egalitarianism, but the old one, was a conservative who wanted to secure the status quo of his power at any cost. Same applies to chairman Mao and plenty of others. Authoritarianism leads to conservatism and conservatism perpetuates authoritarianism.
What are the conservative values? Leadership = authoritarianism? Within family and society alike? What good comes out of authoritarianism? Stability for the priviledged to cling on to? The sort of tribal family group, in wich the strength and/or social position of the one individual is enough to subdue the other members. Might makes right, like so many religous people seem to think applies to their gods. It seems there is no responsiblity for actions when you have enough power and that creates selfish behaviour.
No authoritarian leader has ever led any society alone. They usually have a bunch of cronies and a priviledged class of people, who provide them with the support they need to stay in power and to get things done. Even gods need priests and often an authoritarian system of priesthood. The priviledged are kept in check by their fear of losing their own priviledges. The leader is rarely not much different from the schoolyard bully, whose sensation of fullfillment comes from leading the band of cronies against some happless victim, because in joining the bully the cronies think they can save themselves from becoming the victim. In the world of the adults, however, there seems also exist this attempt to rationalize such, by the cronies telling themselves, that the victim deserves what is coming to her/him, and that in the end the leader will lead people back to an imaginary golden age, that ultimately benefits the victim too.
LikeLiked by 4 people
How would you like to see human societies evolve with regard to this seeming longing for leadership?
LikeLike
Well, in my view conservatism is always a lost cause. Simply because the world changes. What is now seen as a conservative value, is something a previous, or previous to that generation of conservatives could not simply have stomached. The political conservatives in the US for example could not have accepted a Catholic, Black or woman candidate just few decades ago.
As science grows better we get better information on reality, with that information we are able to discern what is really harmfull and what is not. Where morals comes from, so to speak. Education furthers the cause of all people becoming better informed on what is moral according to what is real, instead of arbitrary proclamations and that changes the value base in accelerating speed, as it rapidly does at the moment, and as it has done for the duration of civilization. If we get lucky and do not destroy the planet before enough of us become aware of morality being a harm benefit analysis, rather than an arbitrary and absolute command system from ancient ignorant people, we may have a chance to survive and thrive. However, there is no all guiding divine hand, so we may just as well go bust, if we do not as the humanity, grow up and take responsibility over each other and the planet we inhabit.
I see authoritarianism as a symptom of difficulties of the individual to cope with the reality. The father who beats up their kids in the firm belief, that by forcing them to comply he is actually protecting their kids, instead of causing them harm. He does this because he is incapable of achieving the same goals by any better and less harmfull methods. But it also is a self perpetuating phenomenon, that causes all sorts of authoritarian behaviour. Like for example the kids becoming dependant on the need to have an authorative protector throughout their lives, be it a dictator, a god, or even a democratically elected reprsentative in the form of the strong man. It is the might makes right mindset, the more of us outgrow, the better chances we have of not only living a fullfilling lives, but in providing such to each other.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Comparing me to a character in The First Knight? Ouch! Could have been worse, though – could have compared me to Richard Gere. 🙂
There’s whether people want to be led and whether they need to be led. Because we think, and have the choice to think, I believe it’s both. My view is that we’re all followers, and all leaders at the same time, and health, intelligence, and survival all come down to making both parts relatively equal in our lives. An authoritarian leader (or a bully) seems to bow to no one, therefore by my definition (and those who are not only successful in today’s society, but happy and fulfilled) they are not true “leaders”.
Curious – is there someone who is in an actual leadership role in their work lives on this side of things?
In the meantime, thank you for the interesting perspective, Rautakky. Thought-provoking!
LikeLike
@VR Kaine, you actually remember that silly old film? 🙂 I tried not to compare you to any of the characters, rather to point out, that what Violetwisp quoted from you reminded me of what that one character said. The comment your words reminded me of was the most impressive thing in the film. Apart from it the only things I can remember of it are the Star Treky costumes, the embarrasing amusement park castle with a ridiculous test track in it and that they accelerated the film when Richard Gere was fighting.
I think we easily put too much emphasis on leadership. Stripped down from responsibility, leadership really is just thinking for the others and others accepting your judgement calls.
However as you say we all have the capacity to think, so why would we hand it over to a nother person? Because we may have some sort of insight, that this particular individual has better information, or capacity to think than we ourselves do at that exact moment we choose to follow the leader? There are situations in wich a group of people really need to accept the authority of a single person, like a captain of a ship, or some crisis situation, but infact those are rather rare in real life. Yet, we have a bunch of culturally inherited ideas of positions of power, such as the “head of the family”, where people who have not really earned any authority by being better informed, or the ability to think better, are expected to lead us.
People also constantly mistake for the ability to lead as being a justification to choose stuff for others. Again, there are some situations, where it is important that a person who is good at getting the attention of other people and persuade them to do a particular thing takes charge, but that does not necessarily mean, that this person is any better at choosing what actually should be done.
We are culturally indoctrinated to follow leadership when we think we can recognize it. It may even be a biological trait of ours to do so from time to time, but it is the cultural indoctrination, that makes us the victims of authoritarianism.
From my point of view in most everyday situations when people desire a leader, what they are actually manifesting is a sort of infantillism. As if they were not provided with enough of abilities to cope and make descisions of their own. Much the same applies to religious hopes of a divine hand guiding the world around us for the better.
But when a leader is needed, it should not be some powerhungry and as such emotionally damaged individual, rather an expert of the situation, who shows responsibility for her/his actions.
It is good that this thing came up by your view, that was thought provoking enough for Violetwisp to write an entire post about it and us all discussing it here. Because leadership is not something we humans actually discuss much and it indeed is a thing we take too easily at face value. Even though most of us adults know, that overt leadership may lead to bad results.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“@VR Kaine, you actually remember that silly old film? 🙂 I tried not to compare you to any of the characters, rather to point out, that what Violetwisp quoted from you reminded me of what that one character said. “
No harm done, my friend. 🙂
“I think we easily put too much emphasis on leadership. Stripped down from responsibility, leadership really is just thinking for the others and others accepting your judgement calls.”
Ahhh. This leaves out an important part, though, doesn’t it? The follower’s willingness or choice to follow and the trust that should be earned by a leader? I think many people today (especially in politics) do little to either a) give us that opportunity to choose, or b) earn our trust so that we willingly follow.
“Because leadership is not something we humans actually discuss much and it indeed is a thing we take too easily at face value.”
I agree. I approach things mostly from the business side on the subject, but a big part of my work is showing even the most downtrodden that they have options, and that they do in fact have a degree of control when it comes to their happiness and their future. Many of us wait or hope for some calvary to come over the hill, but I don’t believe it’s coming.
Furthermore, I’ll say that I fully believe it is our duty as “successes” in our society to help those who are less successful, or are in need.
I can’t tell you how much respect I have for people of all types who have overcome things like discrimination, adversity, poverty, etc. when they’re not of the “ruling class”. They have lessons to be taught, however those lessons are barely ever taught because they get drowned out by the group that I believe hates leadership – or at the very least misunderstands it – which is on the left. I believe, and I’ve seen, people at the top of these groups lie, cheat, and steal for their own gain just as those on the far right have in the upper echelons. Look at “Run for the Cure”. Look at ACORN.
Personally, I believe because I’ve seen that the more leadership and action we take on our own, as individuals, the more peoples’ own lives improve. I literally see it daily.
“Even though most of us adults know, that overt leadership may lead to bad results.”
Yes – somewhere in all these posts I gave my own definition of leadership. What I think you refer to here isn’t really leadership – more like oppression or entitlement instead? Perhaps I’m dealing with semantics here, I don’t know.
LikeLike
Much of the advice the left seems to follow comes from pure loserism (whether it’s re: feminism, atheism, race relations, Occupy, etc.) which is why they often keep losing.
One word: Humanism. It inspired the Enlightenment, and if he wants to argue that the Enlightenment was “loserism” then that is a debate I’ll be happy to have.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I think I might have to prompt him to pop over. I get the feeling he’d enjoy the discussion.
LikeLike
As if it could be summed up in a single word, Mr. Zande, and besides, your comment supports much of my point. The left pretends it is all about equality, and yet even in the realm of Humanism there are a number of small factions all thinking they’re right about what “Humanism” is and that their version of it is the best. Plus, I doubt that debating dead ideas from a time long past (as much as it was a great time in human history) has done anything results-wise for any of the causes you support.
Is black on black violence in Chicago being solved by ideas from Kant or Descartes? Are the ideas of Smith solving the problems of Crony Capitalism, or ending poverty? Is there even a single living example of Smith’s “free markets” anywhere now?
Sure, it was a cool and interesting time, but so what? A dead era. Now tell me about the businesses that you’ve run, or people you’ve taught, or lives you’ve saved, or competitive positions you’ve achieved. I’m not talking about debating here, I’m talking about actions.
And my comment, btw, was regarding the advice the left seems to follow and how it seems to reject the laws of nature and ideas like “Leadership” for the sake of their mental masturbation and social experimentation, leading to their battles and causes being either seriously degraded or ruined altogether.
More important, however, is that I stated many on the left seemed to be far more concerned with being “smart” or “right” in those situations than actually being effective and advancing their cause in a meaningful or significant way. That you are trying to pick a fight over the intellectual intricacies of a period that pretty much only exists now in books seems to indicate that you might be one of those kinds of people? Unless you happen to be a teacher, of course, and if so, bravo. 🙂
LikeLike
I was watching the news last night – which really only serves to make me angry – and they were interviewing a man after one of Trump’s rallies. When the reporter asked him if he was disturbed by Trump’s treatment/language regarding dissenters the man responded that, no, he was not disturbed at all. In fact that was what was attractive about Trump. “We need our President to be authoritative, strong, and a leader. That is what Donald Trump is.”
I’m not sure how that man might feel if or when Donald Trump’s leadership doesn’t line up with what he thinks we should do as a nation, when Donald Trump exerts his authority over all those who disagree with him. I’m just not convinced authoritarianism will be all he’s cracked it up to be on that occasion. Then again maybe The Donald is so persuasive that he will just give orders and his people will do whatever he says. Either way it’s scary to me.
I would tend to agree with some of what your new friend has said. We tend to splinter ourselves with all these movements. I’m not sure why we can’t raise each other up. When we divide ourselves we fall. Not only that but it gives the perception that it’s every man or woman for themselves. In which case, does that make us any better than those conservationists who want to keep the status quo? Are we just trying to have it better than another group or are we striving for true equality for all?
LikeLike
I agreed with some of what he said as well, I thought it was a great comment. I think he could be the new Insanity for bits of sense and bits of WHAT? I hope I can get them to communicate together. I don’t really believe what I wrote, just thinking out loud. I’d love to get rid of the cult of leader that we seem to need, and have something that’s just a simple representative running of basic affairs. But human societies perhaps aren’t that simple.
LikeLike
Apparently some adults still need leadership and not just guidance or organization. It keeps them from doing horrible things. Or makes them do horrible things. It cuts both ways. I just am wondering if those people who need that kind of leadership might submit to any kind of leadership in the absence of the “good” kind, whatever that might look like.
LikeLiked by 2 people
You’ll immediately get scoffed at on some level and lose credibility because everyone knows true leaders don’t give themselves labels.
Is this true? Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler (for example) — true leaders, assuming that by leadership we mean the ability to inspire mass followings — were pretty open about labeling themselves as “men of the people” / “savior(s) of nation(s)” in accordance with their prospective ideologies.
Drumpf, whose success as a leader is taking the country (and world) by surprise, is very adamant about labeling himself as a consummate deal maker, and this is exactly what makes him so attractive to so many. That, and his tremendous hair, obviously.
In fact, I do not believe we can find a successful (= true) leader who does not label himself (or herself, as the rare case may be) somehow. This labeling is crucial for self-identification and for differentiating oneself and one’s ideology from the establishment, whatever it may be; as such, it is what makes the new leader so attractive and yuuuge, in the eyes of his followers.
Al Sharpton is no Martin Luther King, Sanders is no Karl Marx, and Watson is hardly a Gloria Steinem or Sheryl Sanberg.
Why should they be?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Emma, disappointed ‘herself’ only made a bracket. I started making the point some time ago of prioritising female in all gender non-specific occurances. I don’t care if it’s unlikely. Change my language, change my daughter’s language and expectations.
LikeLike
I hear you, Violet. I actually added the brackets as an afterthought, in editing (which I sometimes do, believe it or not).
I was searching for examples of historical female “true leaders”to use for my argument, but other than Joan of Arc or Golda Meir, couldn’t think of any. However, my thinking was purposely limited to the quasi- (and not) pathological characters who inspired seemingly irrational zeal and unquestioning devotion in their followers, a la Drumpf (or Hitler, etc.)
Without that filter, we’d come up with more female leaders, but their leadership tends to be more democratic and thus maybe not so “inspirational” as VR would expect it, judging by his comment.
That raises an interesting issue, though: perhaps a softer, democratic leadership typically associated with the left (and/or women) does not inspire such strong (and not always healthy) emotions and self-identification?
So maybe the differences in values are largely responsible for the seeming lack of obvious “leadering-n-following” on the left?
Or… maybe not. Those are just a couple of thoughts that come to my mind as I read your post. I cannot reason through them now as I must go vote. Never before it was as important as it is this year, I tellz ya.
LikeLike
My first awareness of a leader in my country was Margaret Thatcher. People hate her, but I’m happy that I grew up thinking it was perfectly natural and normal to have women leaders. I’m sure she had some of those typically ‘true’ leader traits. Surely Merkel as well, as Cristina Kirchner did for many here in Argentina. And she was certainly lost in despotic power delusions by the time she left a few months ago.
I’ve got my fingers crossed for you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Emma,
You are right, and I need to clarify my definition of Leadership here. At the risk of sounding like I’m trying to split hairs, I don’t think you ever heard any of those “leaders” (douchebags) say, “I am a (capital letter whatever).” Marx became Marxism. Lenin became Leninism. Hitler was The Fuhrer, but these were labels that others gave them, I believe. They did let themselves become symbols of a movement, sure, but i don’t think they ever self-declared their labels.
My other point was this: any labels (titles) real leaders gave themselves were expansive and inclusive to try and influence others, not limiting, and they didn’t give themselves made-up labels tied to causes just to effectively bully other people into giving them things or treating them differently. One thing to use a label simply to identify oneself or point out an issue; another to use it to impose on people. Example: “I’m a Reagan Democrat” identifies someone quickly and can “cut to the chase” on a discussion. However “Listen to me/I deserve to set policy because I’m a Reagan Democrat”, or “I’m a Kentucky-Baptist-Reagan-Republican and if you’re not exactly like me you’re stupid” is a different story.
I take more of the business sense of the word “leadership” which is someone who can personally (and exceptionally) align values, inspires others, remove roadblocks, and add resources to a situation to help either themselves or others achieve a greater goal.
LikeLike
You’re saying then that a political label does not confer authority. I’d agree.
Effective leadership and political movements are built on the strength and popularity of ideas. But neither are necessarily positive. For example, Hitler and Nazism were effective in that they inspired scores of people and helped transform the world. So did Lenin / Stalin and Communism.
You can see that strong and popular (and transformative, in the sense of dramatically changing the socio-political landscape) does not mean positive and humane.
Closer to home, we have Drumpf who has turned out to be a strong and effective leader on the basis of… nothing. Or, to be accurate, on the basis of his personal pathology and populist anger that has fed his pathology and elevated it to the status of political leadership. (Same general dynamic as with Hitler, and Stalin, and other “great leaders” like them.)
This particular collusion — of personal pathology (power-hungry psychopathic narcissism) and primitive populist anger driven by material deprivation and assorted fears, particularly of “the other” — seems to be the winning recipe for those so-called “great” historical leaders and the powerful movements they lead.
Drumpf’s message is the same as that of all authoritarian leaders — political and religious — of all time:
You are hurting through no fault of your own. Come to me and I will make it better.
The “I will make it better” part is — as always — fuzzy on specifics, but never mind that; his followers, as the followers of all such strong leaders in the human history, are not keen on specifics — it is the promise that counts, delivered in an authoritative tone. Once he’s placed in power, he’ll do whatever pleases him, and no one will be the wiser — not for a long time at least.
The question that’s shaping in my mind is: Can we have great leadership and strong socio-political movements that are not psychopathic in nature?
Perhaps the failure (or “failure”?) of the lefties in the West is not so much in the labeling or lack of it — though that may play a role — but in the fact that neither they, nor their ideals are psychopathic enough to inspire the kind of primitive emotions (anger- and fear-driven zeal) that fuel grandly (or violently, rather) transformative socio-political movements.
Right-wingers have it easier in this respect, as they and their ideas appeal more to fear and egocentrism (me, my, and mine) — primitive emotions and attitudes that are always at the ready and do not require any emotional or intellectual effort to process (as opposed to the lefties’ lofty ideals based on equality and altruism and other higher level — and more challenging for most — attitudes and values).
LikeLike
“…nor their ideals are psychopathic enough to inspire the kind of primitive emotions (anger- and fear-driven zeal) that fuel grandly (or violently, rather) transformative socio-political movements.”
I disagree. I think the (far) left is just as fear-driven and anger-driven as the far right is. Whenever someone cling to a belief so tightly, it’s a bad thing and people get psycho.
Your so-called peace-loving left burns things down and tears up their own villages and parks. They vandalize. They stifle free speech. They harm people. Look at Ferguson. Look at Occupy. Look at the Syrian refugees.
And yes, I agree with the “me, my, and mine” on the right however I think its disingenuous to say that’s not happening on the left as well. Not on possessions, but on still on money. Free college, free housing, free this, free that. And it’s “my views and none other”, “my speech and none other”, too, so just as selfish in my opinion. Also, the left never wants to pay for anything themselves, only to bully other people into paying for the vast expense that often comes with their ideologies.
Both extremely selfish, both are extremely egotistical and both are extremely self-centered. The thing I find on the right is, though, is that most in everyday circles aren’t afraid to admit it. Anyone who says they’re not truly or ultimately doing things for themselves (even just to feel better) is lying.
As for Drumpf, it’s unfortunate that the crazy, racist right has found a guy to cling to, but on the other hand if the left truly cared about illegal immigrants and a path to citizenship then they’d be asking for a wall. If they cared about people’s safety, they’d be asking for a wall. If they didn’t want women raped en masse, they’d be asking for a wall. The left lies, however, and says they simply want to “help these people” when all they really want is more votes for their side to win.
All these people on the left wanting things for illegals and ignoring the victims of the crimes that many illegals have committed who shouldn’t be here in the first place. And again, i think they are mostly liars and hypocrites. If I’m so wrong, then show me one person on the left who has given their house or land “back” to the Indians because it’s theirs like they want to say it is. I’m sure you haven’t, and I know I haven’t. Why not? Because those things are “mine”?
LikeLike
“Your so-called peace-loving left burns things down and tears up their own villages and parks. They vandalize. They stifle free speech. They harm people. Look at Ferguson. Look at Occupy. Look at the Syrian refugees.”
I know you will probably not agree with me about this and I’m not condoning violence, arson, vandalism, or the stifling of free speech. Even though I don’t agree with Donald Trump I think he has the right to say what he says. Let the chips fall where they may. To be perfectly honest, I think the protests are adding to his popularity rather than detracting from it. Having said all that, I think back to the American Revolution, the Civil War, the Women’s Suffrage Movement, and the Civil Rights Movement. The powers that be do not relinquish their powers nor do they intend to extend their privileges to minority groups just because they asked nicely.
In each of those instances there was violence. Regrettable. I’d like to think we’ve evolved past that and that we could actually negotiate a better deal without it. But people in power still thirst for their power. People who have little to none still use violence to be heard. Why is it that violence is the only language [some] men and women understand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
“The powers that be do not relinquish their powers nor do they intend to extend their privileges to minority groups just because they asked nicely.”
Fully agree, however I question the effectiveness of tactics. Take Occupy, for instance. From my perspective, parking one’s ass in a park was ridiculous. Camp out in front of the White House, or a Governor’s Mansion and watch how quickly things happen. Instead, they let rapists infiltrate their ranks and they ruined the land they were on.
” People who have little to none still use violence to be heard.”
I would add a word here: people who “think” they have little to no power. Everybody has power in some way, shape, or form. There are advantages out there for everybody, some just often fail or don’t want to realize it.
Look at Trump vs. the Right and the Left for example – look at how much power the group in the middle is granting him by their polling, and their votes. Minorities have a dozen different ways to start a business with an extra leg up. There are programs for free education, and free or discounted training, but many never take advantage.
“Why is it that violence is the only language [some] men and women understand?
Because it’s cheap, easy, highly visible, immediately gratifying, and it offers someone a way to meet their emotional need for Significance in a very instant and profound way – primitive as it may be. Sometimes it can have a finality to it, too, which can also make it attractive, giving people a false sense of safety or security.
LikeLike
I think I’m what would best be described as a moderate. I don’t think that busting the windows out of the main street pharmacy does much to ‘teach the government a lesson’. So I think that rioting and pilfering some elements of the so-called left do are helpful to the cause of the left at all. It only serves to give all those on the left a black eye. We’re all stereotyped as a bunch of whiney-ass libtards(a phrase I loathe) who just want free stuff.
“Take Occupy, for instance. From my perspective, parking one’s ass in a park was ridiculous. Camp out in front of the White House, or a Governor’s Mansion and watch how quickly things happen. Instead, they let rapists infiltrate their ranks and they ruined the land they were on.”
I never did really understand what the Occupy Movement was all about. I remember some whining about the 1% and the government not working for the 99% but I never did get a clear understanding from anyone who was interviewed at any of their protests what they actually wanted. And I think it’s important to also note that those who stage such protests don’t necessarily represent the majority of the left. Some of us were too busy working to go park our asses in a park. Then somehow that became a caricature of the left – that we’re all lazy and want everything for free.
I would add a word here: people who “think” they have little to no power. Everybody has power in some way, shape, or form. There are advantages out there for everybody, some just often fail or don’t want to realize it.
I agree that everyone has [some] amount of power. Unless it’s enough to leverage it can feel like pissing in the wind. There are plenty of people who do take advantage of opportunities who are still held back to a certain degree by their gender, their skin color, their sexual orientation, or their religious affiliation or lack thereof. I also agree that we should all try to reach our full potential and take advantage of every opportunity whether or not we’re discriminated against on any basis. That doesn’t mean we shouldn’t still be striving for equality and be satisfied with the status quo.
“Look at Trump vs. the Right and the Left for example – look at how much power the group in the middle is granting him by their polling, and their votes. Minorities have a dozen different ways to start a business with an extra leg up. There are programs for free education, and free or discounted training, but many never take advantage.”
Oh, please, sweet Jesus don’t make me look at Trump. The group in the middle? Please define middle. Indeed there are programs for free education and training. But doesn’t it take all of us? Even those we perceive to be on the bottom rung of the ladder? Aren’t they just as valuable, and I would argue in a lot of cases, even more valuable than those who are at the top? Perhaps someone might not have the mental acuity for more than a janitor’s position. Does that make them worthless? I think not.
“Because it’s cheap, easy, highly visible, immediately gratifying, and it offers someone a way to meet their emotional need for Significance in a very instant and profound way – primitive as it may be.”
I think we’re looking at this through different lens’. You see it from the top down. I meant why is it that most of the time those at the top don’t either pay attention or don’t give a damn until the CVS is on fire?
” Sometimes it can have a finality to it, too, which can also make it attractive, giving people a false sense of safety or security.”
Most of the time it just feels like sweet, sweet revenge.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“We’re all stereotyped as a bunch of whiney-ass libtards(a phrase I loathe) who just want free stuff.”
Agreed, and I do judge unfairly sometimes as it goes both ways. Because I’m “white, heterosexual, and male” I’m now automatically bigoted and racist if I think “Straight Outta Compton” glorified misogynists for one, and wasn’t better than DiCaprio’s performance or “The Room” and should have got an award?
Or is it that because I believe in capitalist principles, I therefore automatically supported the “fat cats” in the big banks that never got in a lick of trouble for the economic collapse. Do people know that conservatives were trying to get Fannie and Freddie audited, and raised concerns back in 2007 of an apparent bubble, but were beaten back? Then they try and change the House and Congress, and still nothing changes. Still all cronyism. And (Ugh), Trump is the only challenge to that? So disturbing.
You asked about my definition of the “middle”. I think I speak for most small business owners, and those not in high positions of finance or the Fortune 500 – we’re into the environment, into a certain level of universal health care, and many things that we see the left arguing for, but we can’t stand the way they argue for it, or why. We find it to be disingenuous and hypocritical.
And your proverbial janitor – no one in my circles believes that people who need help legitimately shouldn’t get it, or even get it from government. What we dislike is the waste – 60% of our tax dollars, and 60% of our paychecks going to wasteful programs which never make it to that janitor, or the schools, or the students, and then the government says we’re not paying our “fair share” as an excuse to get votes, and to get us focused OFF their waste and cronyism. Republicans AND Democrats, btw.
Why don’t we pay attention until the CVS is on fire? Depends – which people?
They want to raise taxes by x%, and cite all these causes, but they never do anything once they have the money. Nothing gets done in terms of reducing waste, and they still allow jobs to go overseas, etc.. And look at ACORN. A million dollars embezzled, and a free pass. Telling people how to rip off the government, and they get a free pass.
Either way, in my opinion you get a bunch on those bottom rungs who have the same sense of entitlement that those on the top rungs have – that government should be giving them a free ride, or else. Personally, I look at some of those attitudes on the bottom AND at the top and I say, “F-ya both, let’s see you implode.”
Is government the savior? A helper, perhaps, and a protector (should be), but not a savior.
The CVS trashers? For black people, government isn’t their problem, and if they were honest about it, neither are white people. Think they’d do better in China? Or South America? India? How’s things in Britain? Fact is they lost their sense of community and culture, and they still haven’t found it. The proof is the black-on-black crime. They haven’t found their “religion” yet, so to speak. Not PC, I know, but I believe it’s realistic. Just like the Republican Party, just like the auto companies, or the airline industry, or the thugs – I believe like in nature, that sometimes things have to fail rather than get propped up artificially. In the end, I believe those artificial prop-ups do more harm.
“Most of the time it just feels like sweet, sweet, revenge” 🙂 Haha! I like you, Ruth! Stay cool!
Thanks for the chat.
LikeLike
“Or is it that because I believe in capitalist principles, I therefore automatically supported the “fat cats” in the big banks that never got in a lick of trouble for the economic collapse. Do people know that conservatives were trying to get Fannie and Freddie audited, and raised concerns back in 2007 of an apparent bubble, but were beaten back?”
Did I call you racist or bigoted? I don’t remember those words coming out of my keyboard. Are you just assuming because I more closely align with the principles of what you’re calling the left that I assume that you’re racist and bigoted? I read some of your blog and a lot of what you’ve posted here. I wouldn’t say I think you’re racist or bigoted unless you are contributing to a system that holds people back based on race, sexual orientation, or religion. It doesn’t sound like you do.
As for thinking you’re racist because you believe in capitalist principals, I’d say that’s a straw man. Did you know that most of us lefty losers actually believe in capitalist principals, too? That we want to lift people out of poverty and the closet, too? That we think people who are able to work should work, too? That we even disagree within our own party, not just with the Republicans, as to the best way to accomplish that? And that just because some of us happen to agree with the concepts of tuition-free education and single-payer healthcare that we’re not stupid enough to believe that either of those things are free? That we’re also not all in favor of ‘big government’ or a ‘nanny state’?
You do realize that Republicans as a party are not really all that interested in smaller government it’s just that they want their big government to be allocated differently? I’m sure you do. You’ve already alluded to that by admitting that even when the Republican party has had control of both the senate and the house nothing – NOTHING – has changed. In fact, if anything, it’s gotten even worse because until campaign finance reform happens and until the lobbyist laws change NOTHING is going to change on either side. It’s corruption and crony capitalism pure and simple.
Part of the problem with Obama Care has been that you can’t possibly make major reforms in healthcare coverage while still trying to prop up the insurance industry. Talk about waste, fraud, and crony capitalism! Ugh!
I think I speak for most small business owners, and those not in high positions of finance or the Fortune 500 – we’re into the environment, into a certain level of universal health care, and many things that we see the left arguing for, but we can’t stand the way they argue for it, or why. We find it to be disingenuous and hypocritical.
Are you saying that there aren’t any disingenuous hypocrites in the Republican Party and that you’d rather vote against something that is actually helpful and good than to put up with a few hypocrites? I’m as disgusted by hypocrisy as anyone else but that just doesn’t make sense to me. Let’s just take that certain level of universal health care as an example. The way is sounds to those of us who want a certain level of universal health care hear those on the right saying we just can’t afford it, that it AIN’T GONNA HAPPEN. As a hardworking, non-1%er, is it so wrong to want the tax dollars I do spend to actually work for me?
Universal Healthcare wouldn’t be to fund healthcare for those who don’t work. We already do that with our tax dollars. Medicaid and indigent care is already funded by my tax dollars because I pay income tax and, yes, I own property that I work hard to pay for.
And if the reason the right so opposes these things on the basis that the way they’re being argued for is disingenuous and hypocritical isn’t that just as disingenuous and hypocritical?
“Is government the savior? A helper, perhaps, and a protector (should be), but not a savior.”
We agree. It’s just that a)the government(no matter how big or small) has forgotten that they are supposed be working for the people, not the other way around and b) we disagree on what constitutes helping. There certainly is a difference between helping and enabling and I definitely agree that there should be major reforms in our public assistance/benefits programs.
” For black people, government isn’t their problem, and if they were honest about it, neither are white people. Think they’d do better in China? Or South America? India? How’s things in Britain? Fact is they lost their sense of community and culture, and they still haven’t found it. The proof is the black-on-black crime.
Are white people or government their only problems? Hardly. They have the same problems we have, no doubt. But can you honestly say that you don’t think there’s systemic racism and bigotry? I don’t know how they’d do in China or South America or India or Britain. Fact is, these black people live in the U.S. Am I saying that I agree that everything they perceive as a product of racism actually is? No, I don’t. What I am saying is that it does exist. And it shouldn’t.
I’ve enjoyed the chat, too. I’m always cool. Cooler than the other side of the pillow. 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do realize that Republicans as a party are not really all that interested in smaller government it’s just that they want their big government to be allocated differently?
Bingo! They want a government that controls schools and science and women’s health.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ruth,
I wasn’t saying you were accusing me, was speaking in general. Sorry I didn’t clarify that more.
And yes, I know that being on the left doesn’t mean that person is automatically anti-capitalism. Perhaps anti-“pure” capitalism, or anti-laisse fair capitalism, much of with I agree with.
My main attack was the assumptions that are made and prejudices. In response to VW’s I played into them in reverse, making the point (eventually) that this is why (in my opinion) nothing’s getting done. It’s all divisive, making it easier for people to ignore the words that the other has said. I’m sure I’ve missed some of VW’s points when I’ve been defending, and I know mine have been missed as well. For instance, I don’t think I’ve said that racism (systemic or otherwise) doesn’t exist. I do argue that in the economic/job world it is far less than what people want to make it out to be, and I challenge much of the research that tries to get passed off as “fact” in this regard (ex: ignoring why there are so many single mothers in poorer black communities (because men bail) and simply saying that if you’re black, you have a high likelihood of being poor and/or in jail. (Not intending that to rhyme, btw). I do think the “whitey” problem exists in that equation, just nowhere near to the degree that it is making an entire population either helpless or worthless.
I’ve presented what I see the true underlying cause to be, and I work with examples daily who overcome it and go on to do quite well and build great lives, even in the deep south where yes – I also see evidence of white “supremacy” every day.
I believe we need these community to succeed as much on their own as possible – without help – and I argue that they don’t need the degree of help that liberals try and tell them they need. Those aren’t my words necessarily, either – they are the words of those who have risen above their so-called “disadvantages” (starting with their(mindset) – and I work with them to serve as examples and help others rise above it, too.
Notice here how no one has asked how we do this, or what the racism has been that I run into. Perhaps they don’t want me typing a mile of more text, which I’d understand, but really, it’s all been – “Nah, none of that can be true. You’re just a racism denier/apologist and you can’t know or say anything because you’re a white hetero male” kind of crap. So be it, but it proves my point all the same.
“Cooler than the other side of the pillow” haha! Love it.
LikeLike
“My main attack was the assumptions that are made and prejudices.”
Right, because you don’t like the assumptions that were made about you. I get that. Nobody likes that. Frankly, I think assumptions have been made on both sides. As I said, I read around your blog a little and it seemed like you make your fair share of assumptions and have your fare share of prejudices. I think we’ve all painted with pretty broad brushes here.
” It’s all divisive, making it easier for people to ignore the words that the other has said. I’m sure I’ve missed some of VW’s points when I’ve been defending, and I know mine have been missed as well.”
Agreed. If I may be so bold as to say so I think that the fact that the OP was spawned by your terminology of “lefty-loserism” and the condescension that dripped from the way you’ve spoken to us is at least part of the reason for that. I’ve been willing to hear you out and I think you’ve made some very valid points but just like you have decided you might agree with some of what the left argues for just not the way they argue for it, the same could be said for the right’s condescending attitude that if you’re to the left of center(and many times if you’re right dead on it) it means you’re just a lazy good-for-nothing who wants free shit.
I also realize there’s more to pulling people out of poverty than a tuition-free education. Even with a tuition-free education a lot of people won’t take advantage of it. There are various reasons for that. Part of it having to do with mindset, yes.
“I challenge much of the research that tries to get passed off as “fact” in this regard (ex: ignoring why there are so many single mothers in poorer black communities (because men bail) and simply saying that if you’re black, you have a high likelihood of being poor and/or in jail.”
There is a flip side to this. And I’m going to sound even less PC than you right now. True, there are some black men who bail(white ones, too btw). But I also know that generational welfare exists. Young black women are taught in their culture that having babies is a means to a paycheck. If they get married or the father sticks around their benefits go away.
I’m not saying that this is alright, mind you. But I also don’t agree with my Republican friends who say the answer is to snatch the rug out from under them, either. I think incremental change, along with an education on healthier choices, teaching them that there is something better out there to be had, that the kind of welfare they’re getting is tantamount to slavery(probably not in those exact words) is the key. Most of these young women don’t know there’s a life to be had outside of that. Most of them don’t believe that a better education is even achievable for them. They’ve been taught they don’t belong there. Yes, by their own culture. I get it. I might just disagree a little bit on what the answer is to solving it. Helping them with my tax dollars until they can get out of that hole doesn’t bother me in the least. Providing them that education with my tax dollars seems like a better use of it than leaving them to their own devices and footing the bill for their lifestyle, if you can call it that, for their entire lifetime.
“I believe we need these community to succeed as much on their own as possible – without help – and I argue that they don’t need the degree of help that liberals try and tell them they need.”
None of the liberals I know operate on the philosophy of telling any minority that the need help. The ones I know operate on the philosophy of providing help to those who say they need it.
“I’ve presented what I see the true underlying cause to be, and I work with examples daily who overcome it and go on to do quite well and build great lives, even in the deep south where yes – I also see evidence of white “supremacy” every day.”
I think we might actually be closer together on these issues than either side might believe simply because of the divisive rhetoric on both sides.
I live in the deep south. In the town I’m actually from there is a very deep racial divide. The black people who do have businesses have to rely on the black people to do business with them. Even the black doctors experience racism. Yes, they still do well, but the racism is palpable. I began seeing the – in my opinion very BEST – gynecologist in town. The woman I work for asked me who I was seeing. When I told her, and I was unashamed to do so, she acted completely horrified that I would go to a black gynecologist. Along with the other women I worked with, they each said they couldn’t let a black man see “down there.” I’ve got no effing idea what they thought he was going to do.
That doesn’t mean he wasn’t successful. That doesn’t mean a lot of people can’t be successful. But that is a rather large obstacle to overcome. Sometimes, “buck up baby” just sounds trite.
“Notice here how no one has asked how we do this, or what the racism has been that I run into. Perhaps they don’t want me typing a mile of more text, which I’d understand, but really, it’s all been – “Nah, none of that can be true. You’re just a racism denier/apologist and you can’t know or say anything because you’re a white hetero male” kind of crap. So be it, but it proves my point all the same.”
I haven’t read through all the comments because, well, I work and there are walls of text here. The dead sea scrolls can’t rival it. But much of what I have read just sounds like a whole bunch of posturing to try to prove why one side is right and the other side is wrong. Which is one reason I’m so pissed off with government. The right decided the left was evil, the left decided the right was evil and they all decided compromise was a dirty word.
All of this is coming from a white woman who has, herself, had to overcome a whole lot of shit. Partly due to the fact that I’m a woman who lives in a patriarchal society where girls who grow up poor get married, not go to college. So, partly to due with my own decisions because I didn’t tell them to f*{% off and do my own thing. My point is, systemic oppression exists and sometimes it takes a good long while to figure out how to overcome it. I appreciate that you’re working with role models within minority communities because they’re not very trusting, for probably very good reason.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Ruth, I’ll keep my reply short but not because I didn’t read through all of your comment closely – just trying to go back to being brief on my end. 🙂
I appreciate what you wrote, especially about your experiences in the deep south. I’ve lived there myself (I have two residences and split my time between Canada and the US). Thank you for appreciating the work, too. It’s very rewarding, and I would say that part of my sensitivity to it being implied that I’m somehow a bigot or a racist is what I face both with these people and for these people regularly. It certainly IS palpable, as you say, but I agree with you in saying that the solution isn’t just to stand on the other side and vilify. We need to appreciate, understand, and spend time on both sides.
Lastly, I think you are right as well with your comments about me being opinionated and biased when you peek around either my comments or my own blog. There’s quite a few followers, but I’m not there (or here) to try and win anyone over. To me that would be arrogant. Instead, I appreciate the differing opinions, and people who can stand up and defend their own (I do, really! :))
Since you are in the South, I wanted to ask: how’s the Trump/Anti-Trump thing going down there? I see protests in Utah, NY, and AZ but nothing from the south yet. One could say because it’s typically more right-wing, but I also know the minority communities are huge and loud there. You’ll remember the pro-immigration rally in Dallas, for instance? Are people just afraid to speak out, or?
LikeLike
Well, it’s hard to say. I live in Georgia, which is overwhelmingly Republican. The day before the primary here Trump held a rally in the county where I live. As you might imagine there were protests, though not very large, and the protesters were promptly removed from the venue before the rally started. I have Republican friends who went to the rally just for the experience who had no intention of voting for him.
The most vocal of any supporters are his so it probably makes it seem as if there are more than there actually are. Others aren’t afraid to say they’re voting for another republican but there’s no one I know of that is vocally anti Trump.
I, personally, am a little afraid of what it would mean for me to openly say that I’m anti Trump or that I voted on the Democratic ticket for that matter. I can’t stand to hear the man talk.
Frankly, there is a lot of sentiment amount the whites around here that they are, in fact, the oppressed group. He did win my state by double digits.
I’m actually very surprised at the number of people here who are so keen on that wall since farming is a main industry and they rely so heavily on immigrant labor. They employ a “contractor” who in turn employs workers. That way they aren’t on the hook for employing illegal immigrants and they get what amounts to slave labor.
I think here, unfortunately, people believe that Doald Trump is going to bring back the glory days of “white power”.
LikeLike
Oh, and lest I forget that around here it’s Guns, God, and country. Yes, in that order. So his fear mongering over Second Amendment rights is especially attractive. To hell with the rest of them. Most of all the First.
LikeLike
Being your pardon, but the objective of the left is not social justice or equality.
The left believes that the masses are ignorant sheep and must be ruled by an all-knowing, all-powerful government.
The left replaces reason with the Marxist religion of state power.
To accomplish its goal of state power (ruthless tyranny), leftist leadership uses language like “social justice” and “equality,” to fool the ignorant sheep.
Further, the conservative believes in “the Laws of Nature and Nature’s God.”
That means the conservative believes in the rule of reason, not the faith-based Marxist religion of state power.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Great thought SOM. I guess we should all still live in caves.
LikeLike
Sounds like a comparison of far-left to centre-right, which isn’t really a fair comparison.
If you compare far-left to far-right, then you get your pure socialism and pure fascism – both of which are bad news. If you compare centre-left with centre-right, then you are getting into the territory of reason.
From the way I see it, it seems that the closer to the centre you get, the less faith-based things become.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think the problem on the left is about communication and an inability to properly frame debates.
The right has been highly successful in making people vote against their own interests; that takes a certain degree of cleverness.
Have you noticed how few political debates include the word pollution these days? That’s because most people’s answer to “should we pollute our environment” would be no. So they’ve made it into a debate which is more technical and confusing to the average person: global warming. It’s exactly the same discussion on how much we should or shouldn’t pollute- but they’ve managed to make it tribal warfare. *Fancy* scientists vs. the common man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
…sorry had to come back because I couldn’t let this one go:
1. When Mrs. Merkel and David Cameron use the word “competitive” (nice sounding word) what do you think they mean? The UK & Europe have to be more competitive! That is the refrain they use to cut labour protections and promote things like zero hour contracts or German mini-jobs. Competitive means if labour laws are exploitative in Asia and Britain and the EU want to compete with Asia, labour laws have to be exploitative here too (or at least deregulated enough as to allow for exploitation.)
2. The use of the word Migrant is equally well calculated. Foreign, other, moving. Attach a loaded word to migrant and you get a whole storyline.
Muslim migrant = dangerous extremist
Economic migrant = wants to “steal” jobs
What no one seems to have picked up on is migrant is a euphemism for poor. Tell us, Violet, when you lived abroad, were you ever called a migrant? How about Zande? Ark? Me either. We’re not migrants. We’re expats.
How would it sound if we told the truth? We don’t want those poor people putting pressure on our schools? Medical treatment for poor people? From other countries? Discrimination becomes a whole lot less appealing when it’s exposed for what it is.
and I could go on and on.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I prefer Traveler.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Really? I’m not sure I get it much. Expat is used only by English people isn’t it? I’ve never heard it outside that context. The truth is that I’ve always been in a ‘travelling’ situation when I’ve lived abroad, never settled down for more than a few years. Surely John is an immigrant, an incomer in Brazil. As to the wider point though, I do hate that I can live virtually anywhere in the world and not be sneered at, in fact often be welcomed, while most of the rest of the world is stuck where they are, and treated like scum if they move. The imbalance disturbs me immensely, and that’s one of the reasons that discussions from the ivory tower about migrants infuriate me. I think it’s Tricia who says further up post that she can’t watch the news anymore, I feel the same about watching anything to do with refugees. It’s simply horrendous, I have no idea what I can do, and watching the injustice and horror unfold seems counter productive.
LikeLike
Expat in English, Expat(riado) in Spanish and Expatrié in French 🙂 It’s used in two contexts, the popular one, someone living outside their country of birth- or the employment version :
“El término se usa comúnmente en el caso en que las empresas envían a sus profesionales o trabajadores a sus delegaciones en el extranjero,1 distinguiéndose así los profesionales cualificados, que son los expatriados, de los inmigrantes o mano de obra extranjero, en busca de empleo para mejorar sus condiciones económicas.”
So you were a textbook expat when you lived in Latin America.
My underlying point was that none of us were ever called migrants. Not temporary migrant. Not taking a job migrant…
LikeLike
I’ve never been called an expat, I’ve only heard English people in groups of other English people calling themselves that. Hadn’t occurred to me how ridiculous it is. I think most expats are sun migrants … and no-one begrudges them that.
LikeLike
When you were in Argentina, did your children attend the International School? It’s a common term in both Spanish and French. In fact, even the government calls us “expatriés”- well, not me anymore, but me for most of my life 🙂
LikeLike
International school?? What do you think I was doing there? Working/lower middle class life in a large town of no significance, where most of the people I taught English to had never seen a native English speaker before. No international school. If we’d stayed (my eldest was two when we left) she would have gone to the local state school. Like I say, I’ve never been part of any community of foreigners living abroad, so ‘ex-pat’ is something I’ve only heard English people speaking about on TV. I’ve never even heard the word in Spanish. Thanks for pointing it out through, it’s a remarkable double standard.
LikeLike
I thought you worked for some multinational corporation that transferred people around the world… like RBS?
LikeLike
I’m much cooler than that Pink. We live in different worlds. 😉
LikeLike
Your ideal representatives “who understand the issues facing of all corners of society” simply do not, and cannot exist. Everyone running for political office claims to be the ideal leader who knows what is best for everyone. They are all wrong because it is impossible to know.
And to second some of your other commentators, you very much overlook left-wing authoritarianism, where it is historically more common.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Another horrible picture, you know how to pick them! 😉 Representatives, who are representative of every corner of society. Instead of career politicians from similar backgrounds. Missed the whole point, dp.
LikeLike
I was a Danger Mouse fan when I was little. Same initials and all.
I never miss the point, though have have been known to chose superior points to the ones being offered.
LikeLike
I was too! Still a horribly smug picture. 😀 I think we’re the same age, which is funny, as I always imagined you’re about 60.
LikeLike
People have been telling me that since I was 13.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ahhh, the old soul. Your time will come. 😉
LikeLike
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’M 37. For just 7 more days, but still.
LikeLike
I’m older than both of you, and don’t you forget it next time you get carried away, young men! 😎
LikeLike
Hi Violetwisp,
Since I’m mentioned by name, do I go line-by-line through your post? 🙂
“I assume VR Kaine is a white, middle class, heterosexual man, but I could be wrong.”
Close – white, hetero, but not middle class. I’m a 1%er. Let the assumptions – wrong as they may be – continue! 🙂
“He longs for the days when the White Man was in sole charge of affairs and leaders concentrated on the concerns of people like him.”
As convenient as your quick assumptions and jumps to conclusions may be for you, dear blogger, the truth doesn’t at all happen to fit your narrative.
The fact is, you have no clue what I or hardly anyone in my “class” or circles long for, and neither do a lot of your “friends”, and here’s why: far-lefties stick to their own echo chambers partly as a matter of intellectual snobbery, but mostly as a matter of being gutless and scared.
Scared of what? Scared of being wrong, scared of empathizing, and scared of experiencing for oneself the conditions which can trigger the things inside someone to actually go out there and change things. That often requires someone to risk much, fail often, and keep picking themselves up again – causing themselves to develop the leadership skills and insights necessary in order to win. That’s my circle of people – and where’s yours? Often sucking your thumb in the corner all huddled up and crying foul at the first sign of adversity or resistance, only to later try and subvert the leaders once a few other losers gather with you and demand what’s supposedly “yours”.
And as for the intellectual snobbery, what’s the last book any lefty has read on business, or on leadership, or on success? Or how about anything from the “Superwoman” of Capitalism, Ayn Rand? Can someone from your side get through even a few pages before puking? If they could, they’d realize that among other things, she was a strong feminist in her day.
So in the interest of letting you see just a bit further past that nose you’re looking down, here’s some insight into my oh-so-white and oh-so-capitalist daily circles: I help companies save jobs. I help women start businesses and earn greater incomes. I’ve spent 15 years working with MBE’s (Minority-Based Enterprises) and Small Business Administrations helping men and women control their future rather than have it dictated to them by either those on the right, or people like you on the left who both PRETEND to care for them.
I’ve lived in poverty. I was homeless for almost three years. I sleep in poverty. Not when I am at home, but when I’m in the communities in North, Central, and South America so I can live where they live, eat what they eat, and sleep where they sleep as a matter of both empathy and perspective – so that I can understand and if they want it, help them.
A few months ago a bunch of us “hetero rich white guys” got together. Perhaps there were a few gay guys in there, too, who knows – nobody actually cared what orientation anyone was. Did we sit around, smoke cigars, and smack waitresses on the ass as they walked by, laughing at how we keep them 30% less paid? Nope. Someone poor from the community exercised some personal leadership and had the “guts” to approach us. As a result, we not only raised money for some children needing special surgery (any loser can fundraise), but we actually arranged the travel arrangements, the surgeons, the international flights, the hospital stays for their families, etc. far more efficiently than the local charity had, thus helping far more children. AND, all with our own money without any care or concern about the write off.
See, people in my circles make money so we can take care of the people and things that we care about. We make the money ourselves so that we can direct where it goes, and we don’t listen long to losers on the left saying they somehow should be in charge of things because they present to care more, or know what to do with it.
We also hate what you mistake for Capitalism, which is actually Crony Capitalism. Unlike you, however, we don’t just hate it we truly fight against it. We invent products and business models that allow people to compete with the big guys. We invest in garage startups, and build business incubators. We don’t give two shits whether they’re white, black, female, male, tall or short. We care that the people are true leaders, are willing to take risks and make sacrifices, and are willing to stay the course and see things through without having to hide behind some group of losers, or their mommy and daddy. The people who don’t qualify, though? Guess what excuse they try and give? It had to be something other than the fact that they suck, according to them.
And racism – does it exist? Yes. I see it all the time, and I’m amongst the people who experience it in the worst part of many countries, but in North America it’s nowhere near to the extent that you victimhood people want to make it out to be, or want to justify your lives blogging about from an armchair, or read about in some paper somewhere written by some fellow joke of a “justice warrior” who has a vested interest in racial politics and is just playing you for a fool. Either way, have you ever asked yourself what a true leader does when faced with the type of racism that we see today? They try, they fail, they learn, they adapt, and they eventually win. That’s my crowd, whether black, white, female, male, short, tall, fat, or skinny. Where’s your crowd? Back at either the “try” phase or taking their ball off the field in the “fail” phase – that’s where – and slapping as many labels on themselves as they can somewhere and reading up on some cause somewhere so as to try and not feel like such a loser. And don’t just take that from the white hetero 1%er dude challenging each and every one of your points, either – that’s what any successful person of color, or disability, or whatever will tell you when you ask – and see – what the difference is between them and someone else. They say, “F#!k your labels, they don’t define me”, and in a much nicer way, I’ll say “haha!” to that weak attempt of yours to try and label me with what your side now fashionably considers to be the label of the enemy – the white, hetero, middle-class male. You all are such hypocrites! 🙂
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, first of, I’m so pleased you stopped by to comment on the post and to join the discussion. Secondly, do you really think I can stay awake through all those HUGE comments and dedicate my limited blogging time to responding to them?? I hope so, but I can’t promise anything. I keep my posts to around 500 words, because anything longer is a commitment I can’t make, and I can’t expect other people to make.
So, short and snappy. Well done, you sound like a thoroughly decent chap. Seriously. I am impressed with people who are willing and able to dedicate their lives to practically improving any part of society.
I can’t see why you’re so irritated with the assumptions I made about you – I guesssed middle class, if I’d added *or above* it wouldn’t change what I was saying in any way and it would be 100% accurate. I can see you still objecting to the conclusions I take from that, which is fine. That’s what people like you do. 😉
I totally concede that I’m a lefty liberal who contributes nothing of worth to assist other people in society. I spent a lot of my 20s furious about the injustices in life and imagining I might some day make a difference. By the time I was in my 30s I figured I’m just not the type of person who makes things happen – I’m not focused enough. Some people are action takers, some people are commentators. It takes all sorts and I think human society has a healthy combination.
You clearly don’t like lefty speak, so I’ll make my next point as buzzword free as possible. You are speaking from the point of view of ‘success’, as many in society view it. You have money, you have influence, you have impact and status. It’s easy to rise above the labels when you’re a ‘winner’ in that sense. Anyone can succeed, I did and help others no matter what their circumstances! It’s a very healthy attitude to have, but it doesn’t account for the billions of people who simply can’t. For example, I’m in Argentina just now – people of a certain appearance are locked down in the lowest sector of society. The schools are appalling, there’s no way to to climb anywhere in society if you look a certain way. I see the same thing in Scotland too, depending on where people are born and what their influences are, they will just have no chance to have choice in life.
Maybe the labels the left use are too simple, I guess they’re trying to describe things that are way too complex – but at least they’re attempting to identify them instead of ‘wishing away’ barriers by insisting they aren’t there.
LikeLike
“It’s a simple task to find a power-hungry man eager to live out his narcissistic dream of leading people just like him. No need to label or even think about any other groups of people (unless you’re totally desperate for their vote).”
Wow. Narcissism now, is it? Says the person trying to tell me how much they “think” about other groups and therefore what, “cares” about them, too? Actually does something for these people? Not a chance.
The narcissism ways heavily on your side, I believe. For one, look at what your side considers to be “good” vs. “evil” for one, and the ignorance of your own hypocrisy for another. Your side can never self-criticize, it can never “eat its own” for the sake of evolution or growth, and perhaps worst of all, your side is the one most demanding to be catered to, and given something for nothing – basically being “served”. You make false enemies all over the place to justify this greed and narcissism, too, like “microaggressions” that you now apparently need “Safe Rooms” with cookies and cartoons on campus for, all to protect your side’s overly-fragile and delicate sensitivities that no matter what, must remain pristine and unharmed.
And shouting down free speech, like we’ve seen just recently in American politics? If that’s not selfish and narcissistic (i.e. “your words can’t have a platform because I – the authority – don’t agree with you”), I don’t know what is but your side will never admit the extent to which you possess either of those two characteristics – ever.
LikeLike
I think the safe space discussions are much more complex than people like you make them. I don’t know if it has gone too far in certain instances, but the bite-back doesn’t have to be so vicious. A simple “actually, this is not an appropriate arena for a safe space, although you are certainly entitled to them in other circumstances”. It gets so angry on both sides. I had a quite long argument with Tildeb about this (not sure if you know him, you’d get along like a house on fire AND he’s male AND he’s a teacher) and every single example he provided to me made sense to me. People in vulnerable situations should be able to ask for safe spaces within, for example, their university. Public blogs and public toilets? Not so much.
LikeLike
I think Tildeb and I have argued before. 🙂 Maybe I argue with everybody? haha! Would seem so.
“Safe space discussions” – you’re probably right. People like me come in sometimes seeking to beat up, but we also don’t mind getting beat up, either. I have so much respect for someone who’s right that has proven me wrong. Get to learn sumthin’!
I would disagree with that “safe room” crap on campus, though. A little separate room with puppies and cookies in it to offset any “micro-aggressions”? Give me a break. We’re building a nation of thin-skinned, hyper-sensitive, immature wussies who can’t hack life, in my opinion, in a world that is far more faster-moving and competitive than ever before.
Here’s what you do when there’s a person speaking on campus that you don’t agree with – you don’t go hear them speak. Schedule an alternative event at the same time. Or, leave campus for the day and go pout if you’re that butthurt, or go find another school (or country) if it’s really that severe. These wussies are just using all this as an excuse to justify their (inevitable) failure as either students, or human beings later in life.
Was it Buckley who said that a sign of intelligence is being able to consider a thought without adopting it as your own (or something like that?) Whatever it was, I agree.
LikeLike
This idea that we’re building nations of softies because of safe space requests is so flawed. Before, people who didn’t fit had to pretend or abandon. Universities for example were much less diverse – one social class, one sexuality. We now accept that people don’t all have to be the same, don’t have to change themselves to fit in. We’re aware of difference, and it’s not a bad thing. I think it’s important acknowledging the diversity of experience and background that we are considerate to the sensitivities of others. It’s basic politeness, it doesn’t affect anything other than make people feel their wishes are respected, they are respected. Can you point me to any example where a request for a safe space in itself is harmful?
LikeLike
“I think it’s important acknowledging the diversity of experience and background that we are considerate to the sensitivities of others. “
Sure. You’re conflating two things, though. Considering the sensitivities of others doesn’t mean we need saferooms with puppies and cookies. It ignores (shocker) the part about people being responsible for themselves, and having a choice in how they allow things to affect them or whether or not they do. That’s a part of emotional maturity, and emotional intelligence that we’re also supposed to be developing in the safe environment of a campus. Campuses themselves are safe rooms. Big ones. That’s why medical students get to learn there safely before they slice people open, or why business students get to learn there safely before they play with real money.
Back to the “safe room” thing, take an example off-campus to further illustrate my point. Let’s say there’s a program on TV that’s about the glory of Islam. Do I need a safe room now? Should I protest the TV station? No – I’m an adult, I recognize that there are different views out there, and if I don’t like it I don’t have to watch it. I can change the channel, or turn off the TV.
The flaw in your thinking is that nobody is FORCED on these campuses to listen to, or watch anything they don’t want to. They were given a choice, but like the hypocritical “Justice Warrior” Egalitarian Left loves to do, it has to be disrupted and/or shut down.
If people were forced to attend these things, then I’d agree with you in a lot of ways, but since they’re not forced, I don’t.
“It’s basic politeness, it doesn’t affect anything other than make people feel their wishes are respected, they are respected.”
It affects free speech, which is a protected right within the Constitution, for one. It creates Thought Police for another, and it incurs a ton of costs for a third, whether on campus or in a business when all of a sudden you have to bend over backwards (or forwards) because of some little crybaby’s sensitivities who didn’t have enough personal wherewithall to either walk away, or change the channel.
The cost of this, ultimately I believe, is going to be a class of even more loser whiners than we have now who are going become more litigious than ever, and far less competitive than ever before. I know they can never run a business (except into the ground), so I know they won’t cost the economy too much on that end, but I think they will grind things to a halt and try and sue the crap out of everyone and everything.
We’re already seeing kids complain that they need an extra year to complete school because “reading about white people in a textbook” is causing them emotional strain.
And even leftie professors and shrinks are speaking out…
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/09/the-coddling-of-the-american-mind/399356/
And even champions of the left in media like Bill Maher are calling it out.
So it depends on what you mean by “harmful”. In terms of economic cost, I think probably a little now and a lot later. In terms of human cost, and societal cost, I believe it’s costing us a ton right now and will cost us even more later.
This utopia they all dream of with Bernie-Sanders-Math where nobody needs a job and they can take their “Bachelor of Arts and Crafts” Degree and someone who’s actually worked for a living should give them a free house and food just for earning it is never going to be there, and they’re already realizing and hating that fact. Do you think all these liberal students honestly hate Trump because he’s racist? I say bullshit. I say they hate him because they know he’ll call them out on their coddled-ness and the free ride they want to have, whereas Hillary and Bernie are moving so far right they think they’re utopia is in sight.
Now consider the (ultra-left-wing-fed) riots around Trump right now. Necessary? Not at all. A cost to that? Absolutely. Financial and social, so yes, I do think these “safe spaces” are harmful.
LikeLike
This backlash against political correctness is typical of human fear in the face of change. Instead of understanding the benefits of being more sensitive to each other, to treating people as individuals, backlash groups are off on the rampage that it’s going to ruin society!! Imagine! When I was young we called people poofs and spastics and it didn’t kill anyone. Actually, it maybe did, and it certainly more than hurt and marginalised a lot of people who belong to vulnerable groups, it stigmatised them and made people treat them badly. It’s the same for every single complaint against political correctness. (Well, maybe not every single one, of course things can go too far. But so what? that’s a normal part of life and we adjust accordingly.) My point is that this oh-my-god-society-is-falling-apart attitude happens in every generation with every shift in attitude. Look at the facts – we live in a time of information revolution where the doors of everything are theoretically open to everybody. It’s not just the same people on the same well-trodden paths, generation after generation. It’s not just a few musty books in the library plus a few updated versions now and then. It’s non stop information on everything. Of course we need to reassess how a much more diverse group of people will be processing the endless amounts of opinions and information out there. Life is bigger and we need to adjust to the changes. Society is not going to fall apart. Freedom expression has not been affected. Don’t be absurd, look at the internet! People are tougher than they ever were because they’re dealing with more, not less. Protecting people who request it isn’t a sign of weakness, it’s a sign of strength. Requesting that people consider your views isn’t a sign of weakness either, it’s a sign of confidence and strength from groups who are often denied a voice. I think it’s progress.
LikeLike
I agree to a point re: the backlash to PC being part of the “sky is falling” kind of thing to some, but let’s not conflate two issues. The far right and left will use pro-PC or anti-PC to support their narrative, but that doesn’t mean we shouldn’t be looking at political correctness in itself.
You say people are stronger now than ever. I say it’s the opposite, and the degree of our PC culture stands as proof. “Micro-aggressions” and safe rooms? Seriously?
And while we’ve been exposed to far more because of the Internet, we’ve only become more de-sensitized to certain things in my opinion – not actualy tougher – and to me that creates a new problem: more people now snipe and hide. Hide behind aliases, hide behind our white guilt (or our white privilege), hide behind government.
I agree with you though that more groups are getting their voices out there. For as chaotic, polarized, and raw it is, I would agree with you and still say that it is progress which is why I support free speech in all of its forms. It’ll be a mess for awhile (in the US), but we’ll get through it and yes, I also agree with you that society is not going to fall apart. Things always end up pretty much OK.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Haidt and Lukianoff are not lefties, and neither is Grossman.
LikeLike
Then they must be awesome people! Haha! Just kidding – lefties are great people, too. I just get irritated when they preach from stats and nothing else, or try and twist words. “You said racism doesn’t exist!” – that sort of thing.
On the subject of “left” and “right”, I was just thinking about this today: is there anyone who says they are “centrist” in the public eye anymore? I hear no commentators claiming that, and obviously we don’t see anyone running on that sort of platform in American politics, and yet I remember seeing somewhere that America was/is “Center-Right”? The most I’ve heard are commentators saying they’re “Independent”, but I only really hear that on Fox News where clearly they’re being disingenuous on that at best.
Watching the news right now – Trump Protestors shutting down road to Trump Rally. Such a bunch of Anti-American, loser wussy thugs they are. “Hey! Look how tough we are! We’re going to tear down a tent!”
Would love to clip them with my car. Haha
LikeLike
Maybe if we were really interested in a substantial conversation about politics and morality — matters of right and wrong — we should dispense with labels. Because it appears that we use them as club-over-the-head instruments / means of discharging our negative emotions (mostly contempt and anger), rather than tools of meaningful person-to-person communication.
Of course I’m assuming that one may be interested in meaningful person-to-person communication, and not just discharging one’s anger and contempt.
That’s just for future reference, mind you, since I know that ship has sailed here [ 😉 ], and elsewhere, especially on themz thar internets.
I wonder if it is at all possible for people from different ends of the political spectrum to communicate in a meaningful — open and empathetic, and not just coolly polite (even though that itself is an accomplishment) — fashion.
My guess is no, although I find it fascinating to explore the reasons why it is — and must be
(?)— so.There are excellent reasons why discussion of politics, sex, and religion is discouraged in polite company. But those reasons are also why the internetz are alive (cue music: with the sound of hatred…la la la)
LikeLike
Yeah, labels are nasty, and I think you might just be being polite, Emma, when you’re referring to “we” using labels as “club on the head”. I definitely use them that way when someone’s trying to shove them in my face (hyperbole, I know). I’m as guilty as anyone – perhaps moreso – for using them but it’s fun to turn them around on someone.
You might have a hard time believing this but most of my colleagues are to the right of the spectrum and most of my friends are to the left. You should hear the names we call each other – but we all laugh at it because we know how useless and overdone labels are. It would probably shock people what gets said between friends of color and us white people, but as we’ve said it lowers our sensitivity to the cheap rhetoric and once we get past the laughing/comedy phase of it, we go better at the issues. Basically a “quit feeling special” or a “quit feeling sorry for yourself” kind of thing and then we start discussing solutions.
Example: my friend and his girlfriend in NY are Muslims. After San Bernadino, they were getting harassed as they walked down the street, and there were places they were afraid to go in their neighborhood. It puts a knot in my stomach and angers me to still think about it. For a while he was telling me about it, and I was empathizing, but then later the jokes start flying. “So, is your white ass going to start putting us in internment camps like you did the Japanese?” “Do we have to? How are your flying lessons going?” “I don’t know – you guys are the experts – my family back home sees your people doing figure 8’s in fighter planes over my house. Speaking of which, bomb any daycares lately?” “Nah, we don’t bother anymore. All we need are your neighbors to hold their kids up in the window like they do when the bullets start flying.”
Then it’s, “No, seriously…things are effed up” on both sides and the real discussion starts.
I’m not saying that’s for anybody, or even people here, but to your questions about if discussions are possible, I think they are when we can use either logic, or empathy, or in my case(a poor excuse for) humor to get to that point where it’s “Hey, that’s your group (side of the spectrum, country, whatever) but it’s not you, so how do WE do things to solve it.”
After San Bernadino, my friend and I started a business together and I also went to a mosque. Awkward (I felt like people felt I was the FBI), but interesting.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you are a decent chap, VR, if a bit on the intense side, as if motivated by a fight-or-flight response and fluctuating between both (sometimes in the same comment 😉 ).
I am glad that Violet gave you this opportunity to share your thoughts, even though it felt like an attack.
As to the club-over-head argumentation, I’m no stranger to it myself. Sadly, really. Itchy fingers ‘n all.
These conversations are difficult, though. Maybe they don’t have to be so, but maybe they do — I’m not sure.
They touch upon our most cherished beliefs, those that form the core of our identity, so when we see them attacked, we feel attacked ourselves, at our innermost core sometimes.
My personal tolerance for such debates is low, I have to say. I quickly (though not quickly enough sometimes) lose a sense of why it is important to try to convince strangers on the internetz of anything, especially if they are adamant to disagree / argue.
But I often do learn from other people’s comments, so I’m glad that folks with stamina are willing to debate (to a point).
LikeLike
Long discussions and comments. Thanks for the back and forth – off to bed for me.
To everyone, sorry for hogging all the comment space!
WV – I’m exhausted! Haha! You win. 🙂
Have a great night and great week – looking forward to reading more of the discussions.
LikeLike
Two other points as to why the narcissism exists mostly on your side:
1) Liberal losers LOVE Selfies, and
2Your side is the one fixated on ridiculous labels. Basically your “Pay Attention (only) to ME!” stickers that your side loves to put everywhere.
LikeLike
Well I’ve never personally done any of that. But again I understand the need to feel validated and appreciated, and of worth, that leads to movements like Gay Pride. Treated like scum by society for so long, and turning it on its head to say, NO – I’m happy with who I am. It’s healthy. White men strut around being confident all the time. 😉
LikeLike
Haha yeah we do! That’s because the world is our “*****king oyster!” apparently. Haha! (From a post on an idiot comment about a white dating site.)
But that’s when we’re in clothes (suits!) anyways. Walk by a mirror naked, though? Gross! Not so “strutty”! Haha!
On the Gay Pride topic, I’m stuck on this baseline thing this go-round of comments and replies. How long did that nature vs. nurture thing go on for? And some religious people still don’t think gay people are “human”. Criminal.
Special status, however? I wouldn’t agree with. Peeps are peeps. 🙂
LikeLike
“New words for previously unidentified inequalities aren’t ‘utterly useless’ unless you think it’s best for them to remain unaddressed.”
It’s one thing to identify inequalities and it’s another to slap some ridiculous label on it and turn it into some loser’s crusade. For instance, labeling someone a diabetic certainly helps people take care of a person. Taking that label and starting a crusade like, “Diabetic Blonde Male JLaw Fans for Tax Breaks” is far less effective than “Americans for Tax Breaks”, yet look where your side goes?
And you’re also leaving out another key element – ACTION (along with Leadership, yet again). What ultimately makes those campaigns “utterly” useless as I said, was that you guys always get your asses handed to your in the end because of either stupid action (BlackLivesMatter), or lack of it (Occupy). Compare that to the Tea Party. One becomes a strong political force getting people elected in 6-9 months, the other fizzles out or is about to.
A goofy name, in my opinion, along with outdated hats and outfits yet one became a political force with elected officials, and the other one didn’t. Real leadership and real action gives a label real credibility that even if people don’t agree with, they have to admire and will usually bow to.
Your side often lacks any credibility, and since many on your side get paid to be Losers (i.e. professional race hucksters/race baiters, professional protestors, “Hashtag Activists”), the loser thing sticks and they never get any real credibility even if – as an individual – that person might have deserved it.
Further hurting your side’s credibility is that you not only invent labels, you also inflate the true extent of problems which don’t exist anywhere near to the degree your side tries to pretend they do. People see through that.
LikeLike
Yes, I expect there are many awful features to all of it. It doesn’t make me lose faith in the core idea of identifying where there are inequalities and campaigning to end them.
LikeLike
For as much as I’m ripping on you, or people, or “groups” in here (such as “Fair Share” Liberals), I very much believe my side needs your side and that if it weren’t for your side, my side would be often skipping over both people and issues and things (i.e. environment) that do deserve the campaigns and efforts towards equality that you speak of passionately.
Yes, it was Republicans who freed the slaves and guys like Nixon did a lot of Civil Rights, but my side – in general – has gone so far right it’s now not only evil, it’s ridiculous and can’t be recognized when compared to people like Lincoln or Kennedy (from either side). Just look at the campaigns – only one Republican Candidate talking about the environment (Kasich) and he’s being marginalized, and will soon be gone. Rubio spoke often of helping minorities, but he’s been tossed out. On the left, it’s Hillary – someone who broke the rules, tried to destroy the evidence to get away with it, screwed that up and got caught red-handed, and yet still stays in the lead. It’s incredible.
I referred to an “equality line” in responding to another comment of yours. I think your side is far better at getting people up to that “equal” line overall. Universal Health Care, longer unemployment, social security reform, helping refugees from other countries, that sort of thing, but what I criticize is your side’s blinding to reality by their ideology. “Helping refugees” has meant women and children being raped crossing the border. It’s meant a new subservient class of cheap labor that the elite on both sides exploit. It’s meant deported murderers coming back again and again and comitting crimes. It’s meant welfare abuses and tons of government waste.
My side, I believe, is better at making sure those costs and abuses don’t run away.
We’ve had the same zealots and idealogues, though, to ruin things. On “my side” they created the housing bubble, the economic collapse, men dictating what women should do with their bodies, and people going bankrupt over illness. Again, there, blinded by ideology.
I think if we did the 80/20 rule on each of our sides, we’d have a much better country (and planet) but now everything’s just all polarized, and “absolutes”.
I was actually hopeful when I first saw “Occupy”, and when I first saw ObamaCare, but then I saw you guys screw it all up and I lost respect.
And on the right, gongshow after gongshow. Republicans had a lay-up this year with the biggest con-artist and crony in politics right now – Hillary Clinton, and they’re so messed up they’re going to lose, and lose big! It’s amazing. Zero leadership on either side – and it hasn’t been there for a long time – and it sucks.
So in short, I’m glad you keep the faith. My side needs it. 🙂
LikeLike
To be honest, you’re the one talking about sides. Perhaps we need to stop accepting the lines that are presented to us and approach every issue on a case by case basis. Politics is too much like supporting a football team, it takes a disaster for most people to switch sides. Your stake is often in the ground from birth and confirmation bias takes care of the rest. You are acknowledging there are reasonable points on both sides, yet still sticking doggedly to your corner. I’m still “you guys” in spite of the fact you only know 1000 words from me.
LikeLike
OK. And you saying “my kind”, or “people like you”, and what my kind doesn’t see but you do, that’s not taking sides? Your opening statement about me on this blog was polarizing and you were far, far less than 1000 words in reverse. Pot meet kettle, I think. 😉
Nonetheless, yes – I am sticking to my “corner” on the race vs. success issue because that’s where the facts are and my experience is, and I believe I have far more perspective than you do on this issue. It’s not a corner, though, it’s a heck of a lot of organizations, a heck of a lot of minorities, and a heck of a lot of States and miles and space that I cover. While I do expect and fully understand that there is certainly some confirmation bias in there (a social worker or inner-city teacher might have good grounds to challenge much of what I say, for instance), trying to come at me on the subject by pretty much coming out first line saying, “Hey, look at what this bigot racist said” was a loser move, so yeah, I’m going to fire back and I’m going to dig in. I wouldn’t start lecturing someone who raised a child with Down’s Syndrome, for instance, even if I was well-read on the subject and I’m not going to pretend to be an expert on birds or red hair, either. 🙂
LikeLike
You’ve been very sensitive about me identifying you as a white man etc and how I suggest this can influence your outlook. I’m not sure where I called you a bigot or a racist. Someone could equally point to my range of ‘privilege’ in society and how it might affect my point of view, and I wouldn’t feel insulted, like I was being called a racist or a bigot, I would understand what they meant. Why do you think it felt so personal for you?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re trying to twist words again, VW.
Now you’re you’re trying to say that I was hyper-sensitive and took serious offense to you calling me a “white man”? That’s it? Haha. Nice try.
You know what you did, and why you did it. You deliberately took a statement I made out of context, gave it a racist spin, and basically said “here’s the problem with hetero white males” – which is a totally racist and sexist comment to be making for one and a despicable thing to do for another. You go and do the very thing that you pretend you’re against!! What does that make you?
I challenge your perspective, sure, and I do so based on your career (or lack of one), but I’ve never said that because of your gender or color you now can’t have a valid opinion, or that it should be automatically discounted because of your gender or color. And yet that’s exactly the far-left liberal tactic you employed, and view you perpetuated by making such a rude and ignorant comment.
Had I said, “such a typical woman thing to say”, this blog would have lit up and the vitriol towards me would have been flying.
So before you try and twist things again and be asking me about my “feelings”, why not be honest with us about YOUR feelings, VW? Open up to us about your prejudices and your resentments, and why you felt so compelled to vilify and post such racist, sexist, and ignorant remarks as you did and as quickly as you did.
I like you in a lot of ways, WV, but on this matter I think you are totally disingenuous and full of shit.
Ironic thing is that after all of your insinuations and accusations, it turns out I’m the one who has done far more in life to advance women and minority rights than you ever have!
And even then, your only response to that? You try and trivialize it and dismiss it as “do gooder” behavior – anything to keep your “White Guilt” alive I suppose.
Either way your baiting was a disgustingly pathetic and weak move which I have zero respect for, along with the fact that you still keep trying to to edit my statements and twist my words to they can fit your worldview and keep your characterization alive. Tsk tsk tsk my liberal friend! 🙂
Imagine if there was actually something you could have done about racism and to help people all these years rather than being fixated on the male power structure and some conveniently insurmountable boogeyman like “White Privilege” as an excuse as to why you could no nothing?
Do you teach? Heal? Mentor? Donate? Volunteer?
LikeLike
Hmm, now I wish I had been trying to bait you. It’s something I often enjoy doing, and can see on re-reading the comment why you think that, but it was a genuinely open question. And I’m still not sure what I could have been baiting you to say. I asked the question because if the same happened to me I wouldn’t be as furious (or mock furious as the case may be?) If you don’t want to discuss it, so be it. I’ll imagine it was simply wounded pride. You have no need to paint me evil and try and make me feel guilty for not being a millionaire who can spend their life helping people on a grand scale. Maybe if I’d been a man I’d have been dealt a hand more similar to yours … 😉
LikeLike
“The perceived lack of leadership is another understandable side effect. What true believer in equality could actually want to lead?
That’s the fallacy that makes your entire worldview smoke and mirrors. There are no TRUE or total believers in equality, and I will call bullshit on anyone who says otherwise. For starters, show me anyone who has a job where there is nobody underneath them. Then show me the person who has never complained at a restaurant, or argued with a customer service representative over a bill. And if a person can’t make the connection between the three examples I just gave to how self-delusional and outright lying the “belief in equality” is, you’ll have made my point.
At any rate, I think part of the challenge might be that you equate “Leadership” with some sort of totalitarianism. It’s commonly misconceived (or abused) as ultimate or total control from the top, but that is mistaken. That’s not what real leadership either is, or has to be. You lead and give people a choice to follow, and also a path to challenge that leadership. In that sense, your job as Leader is more just to remove obstacles than actually give orders – especially now, in a workplace so advanced culturally. Old leadership was a “born not made” mentality, the “be like me or you’re out” mentality, and where values and beliefs were shoved down peoples’ throats. Unfortunately, that form of leadership is still practiced today in some areas (left and right), but TRUE leadership is quite different. True leadership is where leaders can be made as well as born, where the most successful leaders adapt to various types of followers, to where they ensure values are aligned to begin with and not forced, and where once aligned instead of guiding like a shepherd they simply now get out of the way.
And once again, the best leaders have been proven to be the ones which can empathize, understand, and adjust to not only their followers, but their adversaries as well. They also aren’t afraid to see things as they are, and admit failures on their own side. Your side does none of these things and also hides its greed under altruism and equality, making your side mostly a bunch of emotional flakes which is why I think your people often lose in the end.
So in that sense, I guess I would agree with your statement. “What true believer in equality could actually want to lead?” I’d say let’s hope that same person who tries to pretend that they “believe in equality” (such as Hillary Clinton) never does!
Do we need ‘leaders’ in the traditional sense, or do we need elected representatives and a revolving mouthpiece for communication purposes?
I would suggest we need more leaders in the traditional sense. It’s a misconception (and good PR job by the left) that the bulk of us Conservatives want “No Government”. That’s not true. What we want is less cronyism, less waste and duplication, less lobbying, and less hamfisted policies. In the absence of that, however, there better be more leadership at the personal/individual level to fill the void.
You want to help feminism? Have more leaders on BOTH sides. Same with the Patriarchy, same with White Privilege. All solved with more PERSONAL leadership, in my opinion, which then I believe “trickles up” to provide better governments. On the other hand, expect that leadership to come from the top and work its way down, while all the rest of us get to settle for being “followers”, and we have a recipe for disaster.
Look at Obama for the past 8 years, or Trump now. They’re the same thing: both are saying, “Allow me to save you”.
“VR Kaine’s comment has made me ponder the limitations in our current structures in society…”
Uh oh, I’m blushing and full of pride based upon this statement. Am I narcissistic? 🙂
” – politics as a game which you win by leading, by being dismissive of others and forging on in a mindlessly personal path.”
Um – none of that is “leading”.
“The structure we need is effective administration directed by a representative group of elected members of the public, who understand the issues facing of all corners of society, encompassing every label we have and more to come.”
Had me up until the “encompassing every label” part. There’s a scarcity of resources so you’re never – as a politician – going to make every group happy. It’s strength in numbers, but it’s also musical chairs so someone (or some group) will always be missing out when the music stops.
And who says who understands what? You and I have totally different views on capitalism and what “help” is, and yet either could be considered “right” or “wrong” by any number of people. So then we say, “let the majority rule”. Well the majority of people (present company excluded!) are idiots. Just look at Trump and Hillary’s popularity right now. Both power-hungry, narcissistic, crony-capitalist liars and so far over 70% of the country is captivated by them and hang on every word.
So where we might differ is on the “chicken-egg” argument as to where we think the change truly starts from. i say it’s from the bottom up, starting with personal leadership. You might say it’s from the top down – with new rules and more government. I believe that sort of power immediately gets abused, you might believe that the often-necessary knocks and skids most need to get in order to have more personal leadership is “unfair” to those already down in some way.
My point is, the answer for society is probably somewhere in the middle, but look where we both started from – you assume I’m a “white, hetero, middle-class male” and all you hate and despise that goes with it, and I immediately assume you’re a Loser Leftie. 🙂
At the risk of sounding flowery, It’s these all-too-easy characterizations and assumptions (made much easier by the web) that I think are where any sort of solutions to the world’s problems need to start. Without getting that out of the way first (or at least minimizing it), none of the rest of the solutions can even be started upon. We don’t “walk a mile in someone’s shoes” anymore – now we just read a blog, or watch some cable news show somewhere, and just assume we know everything.
And when we think we know everything…. 😉
LikeLike
Hi,
I’m just wondering if in hindsight you feel your reaction to Violet’s post was reasonable? I ask because of the number (and length) of responses.
LikeLike
No I don’t, PA.
She accused me by name of being a racist, sexist, and bigot, and then tried to grandstand off of it. She then presumed to know everything about me with her comment and by cherry-picking mine to fit her assumptions, so I absolutely think my response was reasonable.
And why so long? Because there is example after example of how “my kind” do far more than most of the loser leftie bloggers I come across, and line after line of conveniently ignorant attacks which most on the left (not necessarily VW) expect should be unchallenged.
The “flavor of the month” now by idiot lefties is to make being white or being male a bad thing – UNLESS you’re a white guy who sucks up to their causes and kisses all their asses at the same time.
Fact is, and what I was pointing out in the vast number and length of my responses, is that my white, male, hetero ass probably does more for immigration, poverty, health care, etc. than half of the losers online who think hitting an [ENTER] key makes them somehow a big person.
Her assumptions were mostly wrong – about what me or my circles think, about what we do on any given day, about what we long for. On top of that, her comments were very ignorant and so characteristic of the narcissistic, circle-jerk, blog-lots-but-really-do-nothing left.
But did you read all my comments through to the end? I stated after all of it that I believe our problems here (in the US, anyways) begin with how polarized we are, and how making such quick assumptions and feeling so “holier than thou” on both sides is basically ruining our culture, and this country.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ignorant? Well, I do object to that!! Entitled rich men and their little insults. You and Pink will get on a treat too. There’s so many potential friends for you here.
LikeLike
Yes, ‘ranty’ is a fairly accurate description. For someone who seems to be involved with some pretty cool humanitarian efforts this was an awful lot of words to get a point across, which was lost on moi.
And what’s with all the ”lefty” rhetoric?
”Loser lefty bloggers!” That was was pearler; considering who has posted the longest windbag comments. 😉
I wonder, was someone forced to sit on the ”naughty-step” once upon a time?
LikeLike
No response other than another insult? That’s disappointing.
To clarify, it was the sexist, racist label you assumed and immediately applied was totally ignorant of any evidence to the contrary. That’s one reason why I called your statement “ignorant”. Another was how you conveniently cherry-picked from what I wrote and ignored the rest so that it would confirm your biases. I dissed this year’s black Oscar nominations because I’m white and they were from black people? So untrue – even Chris Rock was calling out all the manufactured bullshit from the race hucksters – yet you conveniently and completely ignored it. So ya, the shoe fit.
And now we get to add “entitled” to it as well? Desperate accusations by a loser class. And tell me, dear WV, what is it EXACTLY that you are now going to assume that I feel entitled to?
And while you’re doing that, I’ll state that no group feels (and acts) more entitled than liberals or socialists do. As just a small example, look at your response to the “white” Oscars. You and your group have felt entitled to dictate to a group (i.e. an Academy that you’re not even remotely a part of) exactly what awards they should be giving out, to who, and when – all for YOUR reasons. Extend out from that into economics or free speech, and it’s pretty much the same thing – OTHER people should give what you want them to give to the people you think should have it without any regard to what was actually earned.
Yours is the side that creates this culture of entitlement whether it’s at the bottom of society or the very top. At the top, sure there are rich assholes and companies who are above the law, but who gave that government power? Obama said he wouldn’t deal with lobbyists, yet he’s had as much or more than anybody. He campaigned on being anti-Wall Street, and yet look at his cabinet – tons of Wall Street cronies.
Your side grants government all this power so it can feed you scraps and let the rich cronies get away with everything.
Me? I do feel entitled to what I’ve earned, plain and simple. And I get paid directly in proportion to the value I provide others -plain and simple as well. I have months where I make very little and I have months where I make a lot. I could lose it all tomorrow, who knows, and if I do, oh well. It’s on me and I’ll build it all up again. There’s a very clear and distinct difference between “my kind” and the people you have so much hatred for, but typical of your kind – you ignore far too much to see even a glimpse of the difference. Hence the accusation. You can’t see it (obviously), but it’s my side that fights “big business” and government cronyism and are taking down racial and gender barriers each and every day, but again – your kind can’t separate the two.
Liberal entitlement would be funny if it wasn’t so pathetic. “Fair Share” Liberals want to get paid in direct proportion to a) how nice they think they are, (ex: a “living wage” because they’re nice… dishwashers?) and they also want to get paid based upon b) how much their own expectations for their own lives have let them down.
The more of a loser they are, and the more resentful someone self-made is happier than they are, or that those who are self-made haven’t rescued them yet, the more they want to “stick it to the man” and use every child-like or thug tactic in order to do so.
Liberals seem to think that their value is based upon their own self-worth. If it were instead based on what value they offer others (and what those others would willingly pay for) – operative word being “willingly”, btw – then perhaps they wouldn’t be so miserable when they read the news every day.
LikeLike
Well I’m not sure where that bile came from. I patiently and thoughtfully respond to your many comments and I’m treated to yet another generic rant. I can only assume Ark is right and a nerve has been hit.
I’ll go back and wade through the Oscars discussion to see where/why I suggested you’re racist and do another post for you to rant on. You’ve completely missed the point. It’s about equal opportunities in the film making industry and how society respects the opinions of rich white men above all others. You think this in natural because people like you have succeeded. You refuse to see the system that shuts out other groups. I find it odd, but I understand that if I had power I’d believe it’s because I have qualities that make me deserve it, and I’d show preference to my ginger female ruling class. We are the best, after all. Can’t be bothered with all those losers shouting about discrimination when they clearly aren’t good at stuff! It’s sheer victimhood. 🙂
LikeLike
WV,
I think you’re being disingenuous. Look at your post starting with where you “assume” (because of what I’ve said) and more accurately IMPLY that I’m racist because I’m white, homophobic because I’m heterosexual, and anti-feminist because I’m male. Otherwise, why the need to point out all three right from the start?
And following that, attempting to point out the failure in perspective or attitude of “my kind”?
Seriously, you went for the typical Liberal smear-job right from the get go on this one, which is why on this one I think you’re talking out your ass.
And telling me I’ve missed the point? Who’s missing what here?
You said, “You refuse to see the system that shuts out other groups.”
Really? Which system is that, VW? The one I actually work in every day, in multiple States with multiple government and community organizations actually helping those groups you keep saying you’re supposedly a champion of while you tend to your hobbies? That one? The police groups I’m out in the communities with while you’re blogging?
But you’re so aware and enlightened with all that, you can dictate to me what I somehow see and don’t see based on some movie comments what I see and don’t see?
“You think this in natural because people like you have succeeded.”
No, VW. Again you’re wrong. Success isn’t ‘natural’ at all. It’s not a matter of ‘privilege’. I know what makes people succeed, and it can be both taught and learned if someone cares to learn it. It doesn’t discriminate. Nothing stops a black man or an Asian woman from inventing a product, or start a business to be successful, and in fact there’s more “helping hands” for them to be successful both through government and through their own communities. You’re not anywhere close to it and because of that, you have no clue. And yet with this lack of perspective or understanding, you’ll make a comment about success somehow STILL having to be only about what you’re born with, like hair color.
People do have different starting points, but there hasn’t been any less-advantaged starting point that wasn’t, hasn’t been, or can’t be overcome. It happens all the time, with people of all types.
People don’t even need a business degree to be successful. It’s been proven time and time again.
I get that all that doesn’t compute for you, but I still don’t think that gives you the right or “privilege” to start throwing the typical liberal snobbery my way as though you somehow know more, or care more about the people you say you want to see helped. Your ignorance of the facts of my life do not give you the right to try and whitewash either my beliefs or my experiences with minorities just because you want to feel more caring or more righteous in the moment.
LikeLike
Did you read my post about unconscious bias?
In the UK we have class discrimination more than racism: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1126505/White-working-class-victims-discrimination-race-says-report.html
In the USA, your disadvantaged underclass is often identified by race, along with other class characteristics e.g. clothes, accent
“SES and race and ethnicity are intimately intertwined. Research has shown that race and ethnicity in terms of stratification often determine a person’s socioeconomic status (House & Williams, 2000)”
http://www.apa.org/pi/ses/resources/publications/factsheet-erm.aspx
Yes, of course some people get round all this but the fact remains that most people are judged and face discrimination based on their appearance. I’m confused yet again you’re denying the existence of these barriers, while working to redress them.
LikeLike
Never denied it, VW, just saying it doesn’t seem to exist to the degree you believe it does in the environments I work in.
I’ve read a lot of the research, btw. Much of it has an agenda, particularly endowments and speaking fees, but regardless, take the statement
“Research has shown that race and ethnicity in terms of stratification often determine a person’s socioeconomic status”. Look at the wording – “determines”?? One could make the correlation vs. causation argument here.
If you’re black in an inner-city neighborhood, guess what you’re likely being told by your older brothers? Don’t even try for something better, you’re stuck here. Guess what you’re being told by the gang members trying to recruit you? Don’t even try, you’re stuck here. How about music from your community? You’re stuck here, unless you can rap like me then you’ll get rich like me. And the dealers on the corner? Don’t even try getting out of here, unless you can deal like me.
The parents? Dad’s gone, and mom’s working 3 jobs to pay rent. The schools? Shitholes. Exceptions, and some exceptional teachers, but rare, right? Enter the blame on “white society” here, and some of it justly placed, but then also enter the “Liberal” way of doing things – more money, more of a blind eye, and you’ll see that nothing has happened with more money.
“They” also talk about incarceration. Research will show the disproportion of whites vs. blacks incarcerated for the same crime, say pot smoking, but they, too, have an agenda.
This is what they won’t tell you – where do most white kids smoke their pot? At home and in their back yards. Where do most black kids or hispanic kids? Out in the open, because it’s all about being seen. It’s a cultural thing. Same w drinking. The petty crimes, they’re often gang-initiation related, or f-society-related. I don’t agree with the acts or the outcomes, but sometimes the numbers are the numbers because that’s the way they are. Why have most serial killers been white males? Same sort of thing. Sometimes that’s just how the numbers go.
LikeLike
Imagine you lived in a society traditionally run by gay black women. If most white heterosexual men struggled in the lower rungs of society, while the leaders told them there was nothing holding them back but their own sense of victimhood, would you consider the leaders might be out of touch lost in their own sense of entitlement?
LikeLike
We’re not in theory-world, VW, so here’s where your “example” doesn’t hold water.
First of all, if those gay black women were coming down to the bottom ladders, and showing us white men that we could climb up a few, and then leaving us to do it ourselves and we did it, then no, I wouldn’t. I’d first consider them teachers, and the more of us white men that went up a few, they’d become teachers next.
Second, if those women came down and said, “Hey white straight guy, let me show you how it’s done”, I’d have to first get over my prejudices and fears, wouldn’t I?
Third, although I know it’s convenient for you, it’s not type of person at the top. Fact is, there are successful people of all types who have overcome all types of circumstances to succeed – and I don’t mean just “rich”, either. I mean self-supporting, happy, healthy, etc..
And lastly, what’s this “nothing but their own sense of victimhood” garbage? There you go again, trying to twist, and again, when have I ever said there’s no racism or discrimination like you’re once again implying that I’m saying here?
Talk to actual leaders in these communities. Spend time with them. Not the Jorge Ramos’s, not the Al Sharpton’s, but successful people within minority communities who started with nothing (or less than nothing) and have gone on to do well. Have you ever? it doesn’t sound like it.
Nobody, least of all me, is saying think magic thoughts and click your heels three times and all will be better. And again, nobody here, least of all me, is saying that discrimination and racism are non-existent.
What I am saying is that it starts with a mindset, one that isn’t of perpetual victimhood or loserism. It’s a mindset that it’s up to them, that the cavalary isn’t coming, and that the bogeyman isn’t as big or as scary as they’ve either believed themselves or been told it is.
That’s the one common denominator across all races, genders, ages, geographic locations, education levels, social classes, and economic situations I’ve come across throughout my career, and going back to the Leader conversation we were having that’s what I think there isn’t enough dialogue on in our society today.
LikeLike
My example obviously doesn’t hold any water, it was only designed to give you a perspective change to meditate on. I get the impression that your just projected you understanding of life onto the ‘theory’ groups so it was pointless.
“It’s a mindset that it’s up to them, that the cavalary isn’t coming, and that the bogeyman isn’t as big or as scary as they’ve either believed themselves or been told it is.”
I can see this might be useful. But I’m prone to wondering whether people work harder, contribute more, feel a part of greater society more effectively when they feel safe. When they know there is a safety net in case everything goes wrong. I’d hate to live in the USA and have all the associated insecurities that people there have – there’s a kind of panicky looking-after-number-one attitude that I just don’t see as much in other developed nations.
LikeLike
I think we need study, and need theory. Academics and theorists need to look ahead of us “on the ground” and see the “forest for the forest”, so to speak. To that end, I totally understood your hypothetical and appreciated it.
However I think we all need to get more accurate on things, and stop looking at earth from only a 30k ft ideological view. If we care about the poor so much, why aren’t we giving someone poor a free room to rent in our house? Why aren’t we volunteering time to mentor somebody? Instead, it’s “This is what the government needs to do” and I challenge that much in the way that Reagan said those 9 words from government (“… here to help”) are so dangerous.
“I’m prone to wondering whether people work harder, contribute more, feel a part of greater society more effectively when they feel safe.”
Absolutely, VW – would totally agree. So now again we get into the details – what does a reasonable person need in order to feel safe? Back to your friend’s situation, women should feel safe enough to be able to leave work to have a child and not lose their job forever because of it. People need decent-enough employment insurance and welfare. I think most on the left and the right agree with such things.
Where I was coming from was that in my work, there are contracts specifically allocated to minorities, yet minorities won’t go after them. There is training and education – including sponsored MBA’s – but minorities won’t even bother to apply. Some want to argue that this is because they say, “What’s the point” because they’ll continue to be oppressed, but I’m in those communities and I see a different response. Some don’t want to take the “handout”. Some don’t want to go into a field that they consider “too white”. What kinds of excuses are those? All kinds which allow someone to absolve themselves of personal responsibility and keep the case going of why someone should hand something to them.
So while yes, I totally agree that the safety nets – when properly applied can help – special interest groups muck all this up to the point where the things they SAY they are trying to get rid of (such as learned helplessness and entitlement) are simply perpetuated further.
I believe you’re in England? Don’t you see this there with so many on the dole? Greece and France are further examples.
LikeLike
I knew he’d enjoy the discussion, but I didn’t realise he’d get so ranty! (Lie, I did) 🙂
LikeLike
“I’d say let’s hope that same person who tries to pretend that they “believe in equality” (such as Hillary Clinton) never does!”
What on earth do you mean by this? You don’t want a leader who believes people should be treated equally, have equal opportunities?? That’s seriously messed up. People all *choose* to do different things within their framework. Taking myself as an example, I probably could have done whatever I wanted up to certain level, but being a woman may well have struggled to be taken seriously beyond a certain level. Like my architect friend who was made redundant when she got pregnant (even though there are laws that should protect against that, but who wants a lengthy law case and ‘difficult’ reputation to deal with when they re-enter the workforce?) I choose to do low stress, low pay work, because I’m not interested in money or a career. I like life, living, music, art, birds, blogging, children, dogs – and I want work to support that enjoyment, not be the core of my life. So I have equality of opportunity up to that certain point of being a woman. I know without a shadow of a doubt that my level of freedom of choice and opportunity doesn’t extend to many people from those other ‘labelled’ groups that you don’t believe exist.
Equality doesn’t mean that everyone does the same thing, it means that everyone is judged without discrimination and disadvantage when they want to do the same thing.
LikeLike
VW,
“What on earth do you mean by this? You don’t want a leader who believes people should be treated equally, have equal opportunities?? “
VW, people being treated equally and people having equal opportunity are TWO OPPOSITE THINGS! What you’re asking for here isn’t a Leader – you seem to be asking for a coddler who’s more concerned with feelings than actual results or outcomes. That’s not leadership!
Making a statement like that, it’s like you want (or demand that) all the tallest trees to be chopped down to the same level so that someone’s sensitivities are spared or their feelings are saved, is that it?
Your architect friend who got pregnant: in Canada we have paid maternity leave and you can’t let someone go. The US doesn’t have those laws, and that sucks. I don’t agree with it. Same with “at will” employment agreements. I can be a conservative and a capitalist and be against both of those things not being there. The government has kept interest rates low and basically have forced both parents to work, thus increasing both the tax base and also the strength of the economy by adding significant income levels to each household, but then they allow someone to get canned far too easily on the other side. That’s not right, but then guess what happens – payments drop to “minimum payments” or people get “consolidation loans” and the big players and government still get rich, feeding all the government cronies and campaign donors, too, but that’s another rant.
As for your friend, I do not know her. Was she really any good as a lawyer? I ask because if she was, and she could generate good revenue, then there’s no reason why a competing firm wouldn’t want her – especially if the partners in her present firm had a reputation for being jerks. A label like “difficult” would mean little and in most cases I’ve seen, is a cop out more than anything.
Again, I believe they shouldn’t have that right in the first place to let someone go for being pregnant, but I can also tell you of a situation in an industrial firm (all blue collar-type asshole men at the top) where my friend got them to ship legal boxes 200 miles back and forth each week to her at her home (literally) so she could do her job the moment she was able to after pregnancy, and they gave her an assistant as well that she was able to hand-pick. Yes, they considered it a pain but so what – she was kicking ass for them and no matter what they didn’t want their competition having her, and they respected that she held them to task on it and threatened to go to their competitors. Should your friend get the same treatment? Depends.
Back to the equality thing, though, I think we need to be more precise in our definition here. Although we’ll probably disagree on where the line is, let’s say there’s a line called “fair”. If by “equality” and being judged without discrimination means everyone should be brought up to that line, in a general sense I agree.
For instance, should a trans-gender be allowed to start a business without any hassles? Fuck ya, and they can. Should they have an equal opportunity to get a job if they have the right skills? Fuck ya again, and they can. Is there anything stopping a TG from inventing a product, or buying a business? Nope. Getting an advanced degree? Nope. Driving a car if they pass the test? Nope.
Should they be protected from verbal and physical abuse? Hell ya. Same rights as everybody.
But should there be a quota stating that every company has to hire a TG to force a liberal view of “equality”, or crush a business and jobs based upon their altrustic or idealistic views on social engineering? Should they force a higher person, or company, down because of this? I say hell no. I should have the right with my own company to hire the best person for the job AND the company, period, based on the requirements of the job and how they’ll do for the overall company.
And a company should get their ass sued off if it’s shown that for reasons of bigotry or sexism that a person wasn’t hired, btw.
Either way, I don’t need a label to identify someone. A person is a person just like a TG (as you would call them) is a person – that’s it. They’re not a TG, not a “disenfranchised group”, not someone deserving of my coddling or my pity. They start as a person, just like anybody else, and then their actions determine the rest.
If they shove their situation in my face that I’m supposed to be treating them “extra special” and be giving them more privilege than anybody else would get? Not a chance.
Back to your beloved “groups”. I empathize that they likely had shit life experiences leading up to their decision which may or may not affect their work ability, but from a purely capitalist point of view if they can do the job as part of my corporate culture, then they get a shot and if they can’t, they don’t.
During the job, if they happen to come to me as a leader and say they’re getting discriminated against by other people in the company, I take action. (And btw if religious nuts had a problem with someone gay or transgender, they’d be gone, too.)
Either way, what it seems you’re asking for is “government-enforced” equality which I think is not only disingenuous for the most part (you guys like it until you start losing your jobs to people from third-world countries) but also a byproduct of loserism and white guilt that harms everybody in the end. Again, I suggest reading “Stop Helping Us”, as just one example which mirrors what I see and experience regularly in working with visible minorities – in spite of the challenges they might or actually face, most do not want – and do not need – the phony white guilt that’s out there or what liberals try to pretend is either caring or help.
LikeLike
You’re not getting what I’m saying. Not that I expect you will agree if you do. Here’s my post on unconscious bias with relevant links:
LikeLike
“…doesn’t extend to many people from those other ‘labelled’ groups that you don’t believe exist.
Oh, please. You’re borderline pathetic here with your “you’re such a big meanie”-type comments. And come back to reality – where did I say that I don’t believe people exist? If a person is breathing, I’d say they exist, wouldn’t you? Now if they want to label themselves, or join some group, or if you want to give them a label, then fine – be racist, sexist, or whatever. I care about their person, not their group.
All I did say was that for the most part, the (often goofy) labels these people want to give themselves lessens them and focuses on their weaknesses of character rather than the strength of it and what they can do. Plus, if they believe their label is supposed to entitle them to treatment above and beyond that of what anyone else gets, they can bite me.
I never once said, though, that those people somehow don’t exist but you know that. I’m just not fitting into your worldview so well, am I? So to compensate you keep having to make false accusations and characterizations to try and shoehorn me in there somehow.
I get it – there just can’t be people out there on the other side of your beliefs that might have actually done more to help people than you have, can there? 🙂 They must be racist, or selfish, or money-hungry, or a Trump-lover, or hetero, or any one of a dozen more labels that I’m sure you’re going to keep trying to affix to me in order to stay comfy in your bubble! 🙂
LikeLike
Confused again. I meant you claim the labels, the grouping with generally broad experience of discrimination font exist. Obviously you know the individuals themselves exist.
The fact that you’re a do-gooder is irrelevant to the conversation, other than for any pertinent facts you bring as a result of your experiences helping people.
I’m just trying to help you out of your bubble where you refuse to acknowledge the playing field isn’t level and some people who fall into certain groups should be given extra help, to ensure that even if outright discrimination isn’t at play, that unconscious bias isn’t keeping them out of key roles in society e.g. politics and media, which should be totally representative of the society they work for.
So in spite of the fact that you work helping people specifically in disadvantaged groups, you seem to be claiming they face no disadvantage. I’m kind of confused…
LikeLike
I do think the “do gooder” aspect IS relevant, but only because you made it relevant trying to imply from the get go that I was a racist and/or a bigot that automatically because of my gender and color, does no good.
And this so-called “bubble” again? Please. Working with minorities of all walks of life daily, battling racism and poverty directly, and this is somehow me in a bubble compared to you?
And where are you, exactly? “Nose up against the bubble” and yet somehow in all your omnipotent glory, you see and care and do more than I do? No wonder you’re confused. You don’t even know what world you’re in! 🙂
And if you’re holding onto that opinion so tightly, you’ll probably remain confused for awhile, too.
Let me try and help. You’re labeling groups with a very wide brush, apparently (mistake #1), making that label absolute (mistake #2), and focusing it primarily on race (mistake #3). According to you, black people are held back from politics? Bullshit. They’re a very strong voter base and a big reason why Republicans lose. Held back from running? Bullshit again. Enter unknowns and non-career politicians like Herman Cain and Ben Carson, with an unknown Senator named Barack Obama before them to prove you wrong. Should be representative of the community? A President and Vice President should be always a man and a woman? Then why wasn’t Hillary elected long ago? How could Thatcher get elected in the first place? Why, then, if 50% of movie goers are female, why aren’t there more leading female roles? Or how about women in combat? Should 50% of front-line soldiers be women? Your side negates that there should be – and actually might be – a choice there on an individual level, and that within those individual choosers might be people who could stand up and be great if you weren’t labeling them all as “disadvantaged” and spoon-feeding them right from the very start.
Your side (taken to the extreme) seems to want to paint this big wide brush. Racism exists, reparations now, free handouts for everyone but white people says all the Hollywood actors who don’t need jobs and haven’t experienced “middle class” in decades, if ever. That solution hasn’t worked, it never will, and yet your side keeps wanting to throw more money at it.
On my side (taken to the extreme), it’s everyone for themselves, says the guy in my big cozy mansion.
My side will try and say that everyone is lazy, your side won’t acknowledge that anyone is. Thing is, though, your side pays very little taxes and wants everyone ELSE to pay, so you get the luxury of not caring how much gets spent, or gets wasted.
I’m coming at this from the reality on the ground in the middle – a bunch are lazy, and a bunch aren’t. Yes, there is racism and discrimination still, but nowhere near to the degree you White-Guilters want to wish that it’s there, and you don’t ever want to admit that it goes both ways as well (anti and pro-white). As soon as reality starts setting in, that 8 years of Obama didn’t work for that lower rung, White Guilt alarms go off everywhere and now it’s all “White Privilege” to take the eye off the ball.
My side’s programs don’t work, but neither do yours, yet you don’t have to care because all you really seem to care about is whether those programs ease your white guilt or not. I care a little more because I see the effects (or non-effects) of them, and I’m one of the people who has to pay for them as well.
People like you outside this so-called “bubble” you think I’m in still think you’re “in it”, somehow feeling the pain and suffering along with these poor people. You wish! You also think that you somehow know better from a distance, which doesn’t make any sense.
Worse, to make up for the fact of how little you actually know about it or can relate to it, or how little you do to actually help anything, you have to try and cut the people down who actually do.
Well here it is for you – 99% of the disadvantage ANYONE faces, in America or Canada anyways, is in their head. Regardless of who put the idea there that they were disadvantaged to begin with (parents, peer groups, teachers, society), there are thousands upon thousands of what you want to insist on as “disadvantaged” people that would take your label and tell you to f–k off with it, just as there would be thousands upon thousands who would love to embrace that label you just gave them and take every freebie that they could from it.
THAT is the problem, and until your people can get out of your loser mindset that you enjoy in your safe, comfy little loser-bubble, I’d expect you’ll stay confused on how such “disadvantaged” people get themselves out of poverty and beyond systematic racism forever. You just can’t fathom it, nor do I think you want to, perhaps because it reminds you of all you’re not doing and the fact that you don’t want to get your hands dirty.
Instead, “empowerment” to your side seems to be some lame-ass, useless government program with all the corruption you’d ever find in big business that you all turn a blind eye to. You insist that government or someone else does something because you won’t, and yet you still want to pretend that you care. Lastly, you insist on believing that these people can’t help themselves. Who’s the real racist, then?
Handing a new enemy to them – “White Privilege” even though it might knock us “Strutters” down a peg or two will never build any one of them up, either. It will only give losers an excuse to keep losing, and feed wasteful and useless programs that you use to appease your guilt of not caring. I immediately call you out on it, and what’s your response? Not examples of what you’ve done, but rather an ad hom attack of “Look at the rich white guy talking”.
I get the temptation of gangs due to poverty. I lived in it. I get the issue of shit schools and what that does to a kid’s thoughts of his or her future. I’ve seen and experienced both racism AND reverse racism first-hand, therefore I don’t argue that either exists at all.
What I argue is how people get past it, and over it, and through it, and the lessons which can be taught which your side often throws out because it would mean embracing and understanding many of the things your side says it hates – such as Leadership, Self-Reliance, and Capitalism (and for some, even Christianity to an extent).
It needs your side as much as mine in order to solve it, but if you’re that ignorant about things and want to believe you sitting on your ass and hitting an ENTER key every now and then is you somehow being more “enlightened” you can keep dreaming.
LikeLike
@VRKane
Maybe if you were to ‘teach’ rather than ‘preach’, encourage and lift up rather than talk down to, you might win more people over to your way of thinking. Especially if what you are ”telling” us is correct.
Perhaps you might try to learn a more positive, anecdotal approach?
However, your blathering gospel-style tirades that just go on and on and on and on …..
make you come across as little more than a farking, giant know-all Arse Hat.
And believe me, blog or no blog, you will win no friends with this attitude.
Think about it.
LikeLiked by 1 person
“Think about it”? Is that a suggestion, Ark, or some snob-assed attempt to try and bark an order at me? If it’s a suggestion then I appreciate it. If it’s an attempt at an order, however, then go f##k yourself. There are much better ways to try and knock me down a peg, and what you just tried here isn’t one of them.
And let’s be clear here: I don’t care to win you over because I don’t care about you, period – at least not with that tone, anyways. Why would I care whether you’re on my side or not? Besides, I have more than enough people in my ranks and zero need to be concerned with what some condescending snob thinks about a conversation they weren’t even involved with in the first place, or invited to. I was named in a slimy character attack and how much or how little I want to respond to it is up to me, not you.
And spare us all your bullshit little speech on attitude and friendship, too. What was that, a “Life Lesson”? Try one on not being such a sanctimonious nobody.
“I’M ARKENATEN, AND TODAY’S LIFE LESSON OF THE DAY ON BLOGGING AND FRIENDSHIP! BEHOLD!!” Hahahaha!
Attitude advice from someone condescending and friend advice from someone who probably doesn’t have any. Thanks, tips.
Seriously, though – at least have the guts to chime in on what we were talking about like VW, Ruth, or the others did instead of pulling the wussy little big-boy wannabe crap you just did here. At least that would deserve a bit of respect.
Or better yet, ditch that high-horse parental tone of yours from the get-go, I’ll be happy to discuss anything you’d like to in a very civil manner – politely AND succinctly. Would that be a treat? You just have to ask nicely. 🙂
LikeLike
The term I normally use to one such as you in these instances is Dickhead.
Feel free to Wear It With Pride.
LikeLike
Aww, muffin is still name-calling. Haha! Got an owie now, Arkie-warkie?
And why are you even bothering to say what term you use? Did you not see the part about me not caring at all about your opinion, especially when you’re trying to wear your big-boy pants in the room and impress everybody?
Go suck your thumb elsewhere, hero. The adults are talking here.
LikeLike
Ooh… look, a short comment!
LikeLike
I forgot to ask, out of curiosity, which church do you attend?
LikeLike
Oh for goodness sake, I don’t know which one of your is worse. I’m beginning to suspect you’re an Ark alter ego and this is all a game. What a weird comment.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Who’s worse or who’s better? Let’s compare net worth statements or actual achievements to find out, shall we? At the very least, just to see how well-positioned Ark is to try and give orders, or bark out any sort of advice? Perhaps then we can see who’s really wasting oxygen here? 😉
Until then, however, I did see that a Back to the Future reference was made, so to me that’s the equivalent of an olive branch no matter where it came from. Therefore, to me, that past battle is over. 🙂 What’s the next topic?
More importantly, though, thank you for your nice words re: your perspective, WV. All in all I share them as well and sincerely offer them back in kind.
As for my church, though, anyone here will just have to guess. (it does go to the points in our discussion re: trying to “pigeonhole”, though, doesn’t it?)
LikeLike
I suspect you haven’t read his comments very closely Ark. There’s a lot of bombastic ranting , sure, but there’s a lot more content than I’m accustomed to finding from blogging men of this ilk. He’s helped me properly consider these issues from another, and useful, angle. And his tone changes from comment to comment, indicating he doesn’t take himself quite as seriously as it may seem.
But, anyway, what a cheek! You’re exactly the same type of bombastic ranter, but with less relevant points. 😀
LikeLike
True, I did not read each and every word, but rather after a couple of comments,skip-scanned. And the bombastic ranty tone tended to stick out more than any reasonable stuff.
But I kept seeing ”lefty losers” etc and it began to seriously piss me off. I am left-handed and do not consider I am a loser by any stretch of the imagination.
Hendrix was also left-handed as was Dr. Albert Schweitzer,H.G. Wells and even Bart Simpson and numerous highly creative and successful individuals. So were Jack the Ripper and the Boston Strangler, but that’s besides the point.
I did notice his tone changes quite a lot. I wondered if this was a result of his medication wearing off or straightforward confusion?
Has he admitted to being Christian yet?
Anyhow, I suppose it was to be expected. After all he includes ”Ranting” in his blog title.
FWIW. I do not that I rant at all. I normally cut through the dross and get straight to the point, which often includes such marvelous epithets as ‘Dickhead’.
You do know how to find them don’t you?
How’s Ecosse this morning?
LikeLike
Yes, you were one of the first I found. 😀
In Argie, nice and sunny.
LikeLike
Let’s just say we found each other? It was our ‘density’, to paraphrase Back to the Future.
Nice and sunny,eh? Excellent! We too are having a bit of sun down here in Joeys.
I’ll go and wander up the garden path, take a few pics and you’ll see a bit later.
Then I’ll put my feet up and maybe see if Everton can come back from a two goal deficit against Arsenal in the second-half.
T’ra.
🙂
LikeLike
I’m losing the thread of the discussion (on a bad little tablet so difficult to scroll effectively) and I’m not sure what points of mine you’re responding to. But anyway, your point about black people in politics is atrocious – please use facts, like this:
“Overall, non-whites (including blacks, Hispanics, Asian/Pacific Islanders and Native Americans) make up 17% of the new Congress, but that is below these groups’ 38% share of the nation’s population.”
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/01/12/114th-congress-is-most-diverse-ever/
Or have a look at this:
http://www.psmag.com/politics-and-law/representative-u-s-2015-senate-96082
It’s just ridiculous to suggest that white man aren’t continuing to dominate politics, and every other demographic is shut out. The fault lies with all society, not just the men handing power round themselves, but those continuing to vote for them, and see them as the ‘best’ candidates because it’s what we’re used to.
Where did I say people can’t help themselves and need the rich white man to do it? I never said such a thing. I said they face systematic discrimination that makes success in traditional white male dominated worlds much more difficult for anyone not of that mould. It doesn’t mean no-one else can do it ever. And one thing I like about what you’ve said in all this is the positive message – that everyone can do everything. I think sometimes when we look at statistics looking at the awful over-representation of certain privileged demographics, we can lose hope that things are ever going to change. People need that positive message to keep going.
This blog is a place of discussion. It’s good to have people like you come along and join in. But don’t imagine it’s ever an echo chamber. I sit on my ass and hit ENTER because I enjoy contemplating lots of different issues and I fully understand that my perspective is as limited as the next person. The joy of the internet is that we can all have our say and learn from each other. As I know you have been from me. 🙂
LikeLike
You’re making a false equivalency. I didn’t say blacks are equally represented in politics I said they have a very strong political voice as an electorate – one that helped Obama win by a landslide and one which cost Romney (arguably) even a shot at winning.
And I hear many on the left talk about how systemic racism is keeping men/women down from achieving success. It’s not yourself, apparently, since you “checked out” so then show me one person who has? Show me the black person or woman who can’t run for office, and I’ll suggest that it’s not the “evil white man” keeping them down, but other women and black people on the left who flat-out ridicule and disparage their counterparts on the right.
Explain them, too, why Asians kick ass in terms of income over white males, or why black-on-black crime is far greater than white on black?
Not saying it doesn’t exist, I’m just challenging whether it exists to the degree that white guilters say that it does.
Can you find a poll that asks a bunch of black kids how many of them have an interest in politics? Want to poll a bunch of straight white men and see how many of them want a career in fashion or design? Nothing “systemic” holds a straight white guy back from being a hairdresser, yet I’m certain they are “largely under-represented” in that community. How many librarians are men vs. women? How many are black? Is the librarian community racist towards black people, or is that simply how the numbers play out?
LikeLike
Yes, good questions. It’s impossible for us to determine how much of the split in any profession is down to genuine choice based on personal preference, pressured choice based on societal norms, and prejudice within any given area. What we do know is that government is there explicity to represent the population, and as such, it needs to be reprentative of at least the major labels in society. If we reach a time when people feel unconscious bias and discrimination have died a death, then great, remove the quotas and see what happens. Until then, quotas are the only way to go in government. Otherwise, politicians still continue to represent primarily the interests of the same people as always. Same goes for the media, pressure should be applied to ensure that in terms of employment and publication there is a fair gender and racial balance. I haven’t said anything about business, as I can’t see how or why to enforce, and I believe that if we have fair representation in politics and media, other areas will naturally follow.
LikeLike
Pingback: sticking our liberal noses in your life | violetwisp