Voicelessness and Emotional Survival > Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Facebook post by Micaela (my daughter) on the day after the election
mudpuppy:
Your question implies two assumptions;;
1. That our assessments of either man's moral fiber or character can be divorced from our inclinations to their politics and,
2. That knowing some public figure through the lens of media coverage and the public persona they and their handlers project gives us the insight to make conclusive and objective evaluations of their characters.
What we think we know about any public figure is so colored by our confirmation biases as to make any personal assessment of their characters quite subjective and so I reject both assumptions.
I referred to a hypothetical third party able to avoid those biases. I do however know my brother quite well and his objective demonstrated personality traits are much closer to the projected persona of 44 than 45. What your personal and, whether you admit it or not, subjective evaluation of 44 or 45's "moral fiber" is, is not too informative or germane to the point I made about shared personality traits.
While I understand the urge to believe we have some special insights because of what we've been through, we should consider if what we've been through also makes us too ready to see the same traits in others, especially those we tend to dislike for other reasons, that we saw in our tormentors. We who have been the subjects of whisper campaigns and character assassination should be especially wary of forming opinions formed through the lens of competing cheerleaders and propagandists for and against someone we have little or no personal knowledge of.
I have heard the last four presidents repeatedly labeled as suffering from Narcissistic Personality Disorder or psychopathy based almost entirely on party affiliation and political conviviality, which should give us some clue as to the value of extrapolating our experiences to people we don't know and don't agree with.
sKePTiKal:
--- Quote ---If people don't like sarcasm then they should consider, if they're going to talk about politics maybe they should rationally discuss the issues rather than making either careless or malicious characterizations of the people they disagree with.
--- End quote ---
Thank you for this very clear statement, mud.
It helps resolve an awful lot of the confusion that is tossed around in political discussions - which I participate in quite frequently, just not here. As a life-long independent, I've been totally horrified at the behavior and beliefs of people over political sloganeering and propaganda on BOTH sides. It went "us and them" quite some time ago and now that we're at the inevitable undeniable results of that my fears have deepened for the future. I find it ironic that my way more progressive-minded daughter (at 40, self-educated and compassionate) has also recognized the fearful state of affairs we are living in.
I've also had a strong amateur interest in sociology and done enough deep reading to know that "identity politics" almost ALWAYS ends in social and political division that are irreconcilable and lead to more overt conflict. We are seeing a beginning of that, in the news. I don't exaggerate or inflate those occurances to the point that some do - those who believe we are on the verge of open fighting in the streets - but I DO see that condoning and dismissing this kind of misbehavior and disturbance of the "peace" is a tacit statement that "Rule of Law" is becoming "Rule of Men". And that is a serious problem for a country established on the principle that we are ALL EQUAL in the eyes of the law.
I believe I may have mentioned here at one time, how I've noticed that morality and the basic tenets of value systems have been twisted around to mean something entirely the opposite; and how how the definitions of certain words, phrases and slogans have been twisted to mean - whatever the person using them SAYS they mean in this moment - and it can be different in the next.
If we can't agree on the definitions of words, we can't truly communicate. "Mind reading" what someone "means" is not reliable.
If some people choose the traditional beliefs of value systems and some the "reformed", "new and improved" values going by the same name, life can still go on to everyone's benefit. Right up until the point, one group tries to force their beliefs onto everyone holding the traditional version. Live and Let Live, as a philosophy, upholds the concept of individual freedom and opportunity to pursue their own happiness.
When the law carves out special protections for one group or another and then force the majority to adjust and adopt those protections, we have a situation where "rights" collide and Mr. Jone's right to build a fence, tramples Mrs. Smith's right to enjoy the view unobstructed. And when politicians - of all stripes - hold themselves to a different standard of accountability while applying the law to others who are not in their exalted group - the only thing left to persuade those non-politicians to obey the law are the risks involved in getting caught and being punished by the powers that be; FORCE, in plain language.
I seem to be quite the oddball, in that I don't truly fear change. Change involves accepting that the consequences are often unknown and unseen, at the moment of decision to accept change. I can and have adjusted my plans as quickly as possible to accommodate those unknowns that make themselves visible after setting my course. But much of what I see happening in people's behaviors is a clinging to the status quo and a fear of change - regardless of political views. Add a few dashes of anger & resentment and double standards and you can guess how that story ends.
Two last thoughts. As a society, we must be reminded that belief and behavior are two very different things. The law applies to behavior only (or should) and never dictate beliefs or moral value systems.
The other is, that most of life is NOT POLITICAL. Politics should not be applied to every human experience of life - beliefs, most importantly. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong, but my perception and observation of the last several decades is that politics has become enmeshed (inappropriately) into almost all aspects of individual life. (And that might just BE an exaggeration, but examples aren't scarce). That phenomenon has been associated with some of the most tyrannical and devastating political events in recorded history.
I refuse to point fingers at anyone to blame them or try to foist responsibility for this phenomenon on them. At this point, even the "the People" who have silently seethed - but outwardly accepted this serious "boundary violation" in our governing principles - participated in the phenomenon. My intuition says the evolution of this phenomenon is going to come to conflict, sooner or later; in isolated locations and widespread. It scares the living bejesus out me on multiple levels because it is wantonly destructive of freedom - one doesn't have freedom, if one lives in fear of giving offense or being assaulted just because of what you look like - and it wiill make it impossible to "work things out" and resolve the conflict with words and diplomacy once it's gone to violence.
Politics is not the most important thing in life or about a person, IMO. Government has no right to intrude on the personal lives of so many people at the level they do -- my value system and what I believe about other people is NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS. On the other hand, they do have a vested interest in making sure that I treat all people the same. And that will unfortunately hurt some people's feelings. Not everyone likes me; I don't have to like everyone else.
lighter:
--- Quote from: mudpuppy on March 28, 2017, 12:20:02 PM ---Your question implies two assumptions;;
1. That our assessments of either man's moral fiber or character can be divorced from our inclinations to their politics and,
2. That knowing some public figure through the lens of media coverage and the public persona they and their handlers project gives us the insight to make conclusive and objective evaluations of their characters.
--- End quote ---
Mud:
I asked you if Trump reminds you of your brother.
To clarify.....
does Trump's combative world view, litigious record, and aggressive style remind you of your brother?
From my POV Trump seems to resent that he'll be expected to follow the rules, or be held accountable for not following them.
Does he not remind you of your brother at all, ever?
When you brought #44 into the conversation it was confusing, and read like a tactical pivot, IMO. I'm not going to debate politics, or presidents with you. I'm not going to provide all the sound bites and footage of Trump that remind me of my late husband either. I don't want to, and you've already seen them.
Trump is the least "handled" politician in our time, IMO. He's not shy about sharing his world views, and feelings about..... so many things, IME. I've seen more than I'm comfortable with of the man's inner world, frankly.
I'm not asking you to defend any political party....
admission that Trump reminds you of your brother in certain ways isn't an admission about anything else, IMO.
I know you feel ganged up on, but I'd like to feel you can say Trump reminds you of your brother if he does, and just keep it at that if it's the truth.
Lighter
mudpuppy:
Lighter;
Is a "tactical pivot" a nice way of saying "lie"?
My reference to Obama was because I don't recall ever having thought to compare either man to my brother so it would be hard for me to pivot to the one from the other when neither were on my radar.
I earlier said I didn't feel welcome by the rhetoric being employed in this thread. That doesn't equate to feeling ganged up on because it was not directed at me personally. That's part of why I noted it. When people casually and generally impute the basest of motives and traits to those who simply happen to disagree with them they are necessarily defaming and alienating of some of their friends and family and people they don't even know.
Do you or anyone you know like being defamed over your political views? If not then I assume you understand why others don't.
Except for the purposes of civility or legal protections have you ever known me to not speak my mind openly and forcefully? If you haven't, in reviewing your last sentence do you understand how it might sound a little patronizing over here on the receiving end of things?
SKePKikal (hope I got that capitlalized right),
I agree with most of what you say partly because it is so general as to be hard for anyone of good faith to disagree.
But I do disagree with the assertion both sides of the political divide engage in involving politics into every aspect of life.
One of the clarion calls of the New Left in the 60s, which is the ground from which the current weeds of authoritarian political correctness and demonizing of political opponents sprang, both of which necessarily deeply inject politics into every aspect of our lives and relationships was and is "the personal is political" to the extent it has its own wiki page.
Unfortunately if those who don't believe that is how we should live do not live by those rules we are steamrolled by those who do in precisely the same manner as if we pretend we don't have to fight back against a schoolyard bully. Turning the other cheek is a proper sentiment for us as individuals until it sends us to the hospital and it is never a proper sentiment to enable systemic bullying or stand by and watch someone else be steamrolled. And that is my point through all of this thread; the inflammatory and accusatory rhetoric routinely employed by the left has become not a method of debate but of stifling debate and the responses to that rhetoric is falsely accused people attempting to defend themselves from unwarranted and scurrilous attacks. I would think that reality would resonate on a board discussing voicelessness.
I don't particularly believe in the artificial left/right divide terminology that has been in use for so long. Political belief to me spans a spectrum from the almost complete political and economic liberty of classical libertarianism on one side to the total extinction of any liberty under totalitarianism on the other.(anarchism is such a mess it merits its own little category of nuttiness)
Viewed this way we very clearly see Nazism and Marxism not as some vastly different systems on opposite sides of the political spectrum but as kindred spirits who only differ in the details of why they think they should be given the power of life and death over their fellow man to use the power of the state to mold him into what invariably is their own image. Those actually on the opposite end of the spectrum are those who wish neither to mold nor be molded in any way.
Until about 100 years ago pretty much everyone in the US gravitated toward the non molding end of the spectrum. With the advent and subsequent growth of the progressive movement, which is little more than Marx's historical determinism watered down sufficiently to not immediately kill the patient that social and cultural contract and common ground began to wither and die. The state became the mechanism by which this supposedly inevitable "progress" would be imposed. And because amorphous "progress" whatever that might mean is essentially limitless in its drive toward perfect human society there is no practical limit to its ambitions, the power of the state realize those ambitions and most importantly there is no practical check on the power of the self regard and self righteousness of the goodness of the progressive's cause. So who can stand in the way of the absolute goodness of "progress" other than the selfish, the greedy, the racist and all the other labels used to justify the bulldozing of those who think the power of the state is historically the most reckless deadly and senseless force on earth and it is always commandeered by those who think they know best how to force their fellow man into the perfect society. And every new boss, including the current progressives who envision themselves as uniquely qualified for the job and preternaturally benevolent, thinks they finally have it figured out unlike all the old bosses who came before.
They don't. They never do. The new boss is always the same as the old boss, he just has a different shiny badge. The only constant is they always think they know what their fellow man needs and they're willing to give it to him good and hard.
And there are always millions who follow along and are shocked that their fellow man doesn't see the undeniable virtue in their project of externally imposed self improvement or being told how they prefer to live and think is not only different, it's wrong. Eventually they learn it's not just wrong it's intolerant. Then it's not just intolerant it's intolerable. What perfect society can progress to perfection if it's full of racists and homophobes, or in other iterations of the race to the perfect society,, jews or capitalist pigs or infidels.
Problem is the fault lies not in the stars but in ourselves. The drive for utopia always ends in disaster because we are hopelessly flawed, particularly and most especially those who have the strongest drive to perfect everyone else.
If you ask most of those millions if they're engaged in some utopian project they'll say they're simply trying to better the state of man. When it all blows up they sit around bewildered like the Germans sitting in the ruins of their country in 1945 wondering how they couldn't see where their project was headed.
But man the moron immediately begins organizing the rubble back into a cobblestone street. Pretty soon he wonders why his neighbor's part of the street isn't as nice as his and so he wanders over to show him, with only the best intentions, how to do it the way it should be done and pretty soon the road to hell is being paved all over again.
Our Founders struck the most successful balance in history of competing human interests and defects and the ideology of the progressives would have been as foreign to them as either international or national socialism. That is why the progressive cause is hostile to the constitution and seeks to fundamentally transform it an why so many of us are yelling stop.
And so I reject the idea the present toxic political atmosphere is a matter of a pox on both their houses. The vast middle of the left has nothing but good intentions and wishes to make the world a better place. I don't impugn their motives. But their leadership and their ideology is headed in a toxic direction and the venality and the uncharitable rhetoric of that leadership is filtering down though the hoi polloi.
What is almost comic is that when a guy from the other side comes along who understands their game and employs it against them they're shocked and appalled that anyone else might question their motives or throw a few bean balls like they incessantly do. The aggressive, demonizing politics of the left created Trump and it will create many more before its done.
It's the way the world works; leave your neighbor alone and he'll probably leave you alone. Punch him in the mouth and he'll probably punch back. Punch him in the mouth and claim it's for his own good and on top of that he deserves it because he is ignorant, evil and privileged and while he's at it he's so ignorant, evil and privileged he needs to hand over his dining room set, he saved five years to buy, because his unprivileged neighbor wants it, he's probably going to punch back considerably harder than the do-gooder anticipates.
Why?
Because the personal has been made political.
Unless and until that ends things will only get worse.
mud
lighter:
--- Quote from: mudpuppy on April 03, 2017, 11:03:44 AM ---Lighter;
Is a "tactical pivot" a nice way of saying "lie"?
mud
--- End quote ---
No, the tactical pivot I'm referring to is used to change topics when one doesn't wish to address the topic at hand.
I asked you if Trump every reminds you of your brother, which would be a reason to consider if he does.
I'm wondering if, for reasons I've stated...Trumps litigious history, dependence on altered facts, entitlement to skirt the rules, and combative response to being held accountable.......
does Trump remind you of your brother at all?
That was the question, and I'm resisting feeling patronized or offended by anything you've written in your very straightforward direct style. Please don't assume I'm patronizing you, or in any way disrespecting you, bc it's not my intention.
I honestly want to know.... does Trump every remind you of your brother?
Lighter
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version