Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board
Voicelessness and Emotional Survival => Voicelessness and Emotional Survival Message Board => Topic started by: Dr. Richard Grossman on November 09, 2016, 07:54:59 PM
-
My daughter, Micaela Ann Tuttle, posted this on Facebook today (https://www.facebook.com/micaela.grossman.1/posts/10211348722058054), and I wanted to share it:
"Last night America grabbed me by the pussy. It also grabbed my heart, my gut, and my head and squeezed. But like most abusers, there is a cycle of abuse that led to their actions. Please pardon this epic ramble, but I felt that I have stayed too silent on this belief for too long. There is a large portion of Americans who have felt ignored and mocked and finally felt like their voices were being heard. And I am sorry. I'm sorry I didn't do enough to hear you. I'm sorry your life experiences have been different than mine and perhaps you haven't had the opportunity to really get to know enough immigrants or lgbtq+ people or minorities or atheists or Jews or Muslims or people of color or women who have had abortions, or many other assortments of minorities that I now fear for. They aren't magical sanitized token characters that are all good, but they are real people who I am honored to know. I am also sorry for the people living in a liberal bubble that haven't had the opportunity to really get to know this other portion of society that they simply dismiss as stupid. All they see is a caricature. Both sides are wrong. There is so much shouting and not enough listening.
There are some fundamental breaks in society at the moment. People on both sides are dissatisfied. That is very clear. I fear the entrenched sides are similar to where they were leading up to 1861. Both sides also did shameful things then.
So what can we do? Have we reached rock bottom yet? Are we ready to make some fundamental changes? These two candidates were the least popular of all time. Clearly, we didn't end up with our first choices. That's a start. That's an opening to a conversation. But the conversation is the key. Speak with others who are different and believe radically different things from you and ACTUALLY hear them. Travel. Experience life outside of whatever comfortable bubble you've built for yourself. Ask questions. Question everything. Be open and honest. If you want you can start with me. I am a feminist, humanist. I don't believe in god, but grew up Jewish and appreciate the cultural elements. I have many, many queer friends and consider myself an ally. I grew up with and work amongst many immigrants. I've had an abortion that I don't regret. I have family and have known many wonderful people with cognitive and physical challenges. I believe in globalization but also value local government that is listening to the needs of its community. I believe in diplomacy over military action unless absolutely necessary. I believe that black lives do matter and that we have a system nationwide that stacks the deck against people of color.
Do any of these things shock you? Do any of them upset you? It's ok if they do, so let's talk about them.
The fear of the unknown and unexperienced on both sides is the thing that will actually build a wall. So dismantle the wall with questions and an open mind. I'm not saying everyone should be like me, but America is meant to be a melting pot of many different people and ideas, not just a rigid binary breakdown. The hate that has been spewed this last year is not a new development. There was just an open forum and it was deemed socially acceptable to say the things aloud that you had only whispered behind closed doors or alluded to in coded speech. I can't imagine the catharsis that must have provided so many. So if you have now found your voice, welcome to the table. I want to know why you feel like that. I want to introduce you to people and experiences that you might have missed. I want to hear about your experiences.
It's very clear that the civil war never really ended just as it took a long time to actually burst into full military action, but the battle lines have changed. The civil war wasn't JUST about slavery, it was about culture and ways of life and pride and of course money. Reconstruction did very little to fix this if not instill in the former confederacy a distrust of the federal government as the Union had and did carry out some other unspeakable atrocities on southern land and then moved out west where it grew even worse on the indigenous populations. All I'm saying is that we have put bandaid upon bandaid on our historical conflicts as a nation. Could this perhaps be the schism we need to pull those bandaids off and start to actually heal? Is that possible?
I don't know. I'm just a waitress. There are smarter people than me and all I can do is listen, assess, question, and then act. All I ask is that you do the same. Please.
Thanks for listening."
-
Wow.
How proud you must be to have raised a daughter with such a heart.
Thank you for sharing this, Richard. I love her calls for respect, and conversations, and really trying to understand each other.
Hops
-
Thanks, Hops! I am so lucky to have her as my daughter.
Below is a reply she wrote to a Trump supporter friend who responded to the above post. After reading her posts, I asked whether I could nominate her to run for president in 2020!
Richard
"Shawn, thank you so much for opening up and sharing your thoughts with me. I truly appreciate it so much. Below I wanted to address some of the points you brought up. For anyone else reading, please see his post on my wall. Facebook keeps deleting this as a reply.
1. Welfare
So I spoke with an incredibly smart friend who is a social worker about this. Again, I like to search out people with experience as I know there are smarter people out there and I was curious. Katie is one of those people. Here is what she had to say:
"First of all, there are so many things that are considered “welfare” it’s nearly impossible to determine any patterns at all (re abuse, re use, re populations, etc).
I would imagine that welfare probably refers to TANF (Temporary Aid to Needy Families) and maybe also SNAP (food stamps). And, each state makes their own decisions about public assistance so it’s even more complex.
TANF requires people to engage in work activities which they define SUPER broadly. Any kind of vocational training program counts, job searching, job readiness. Providing childcare for ANOTHER person doing work activity counts. Very loose. And for a two-parent household, there is only a requirement to complete 30 hours per week combined in any way between the two parents. So it may seem like people are doing nothing or gaming the system, but a big piece of this is actually the way the policy is designed. I won’t get into whether or not I agree with this or not.
TANF caseloads have decreased year after year since implementation, through the recession, and despite continuing trends of deep poverty. It is not easy to stay on TANF.
It’s really the way we pay people that keeps them on public assistance. So again, while those “thousands of people” may appear to be gaming the system by receiving assistance and working we all know that minimum wage (and also jobs OVER minimum wage) do not constitute a living wage. http://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-high-public-cost-of-lo…/
The big takeaway is that public assistance fraud trends are notoriously difficult to illustrate (and you can use/manipulate statistics to prove a point in either direction) but what HAS been proven is that it really happens on the level ABOVE the beneficiaries (eg. doctors and hospitals re. medicare/medicaid) http://www.theatlantic.com/…/just-how-wrong-is-conv…/278690/
Similarly, I would say that employers who do not pay a living wage are defrauding us, forcing taxpayers to make up for their unwillingness to fairly compensate employees.
The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities is a great way to get more info on this. But a blanket statement that lots of people abuse welfare is irresponsible. Yeah sure, there are anecdotal incidences of this happening, probably even people that this individual knows, but as a prevalent problem it’s not been shown to be the case.
2. The Oil Field
I have seen the decline in the oil field industry over the past few years and it is heartbreaking. It's so difficult when a region is so dependent on one industry and that industry falters (see Detroit). Unfortunately for the oil field workers, the future is clearly moving towards clean and renewable energy. I can't say exactly at what pace, but this dependent economy as it stands (without adjustments and refashioning of skills) is eventually untenable.
But what about the oil workers now? Well, the reason why the gulf was shut down was due to the 2010 oil spill, which actually hit the Louisiana economy of tourism and fishing quite hard (which I'm sure you know first hand). This being said, the Obama administration is actually trying to reopen the gulf, much to the chagrin of environmentalists (https://www.google.com/…/obama-administrations-plan-expand-…).
Also, considering how many oil field workers are unemployed or underemployed, it's pretty hard to stomach oil CEO's making upwards of 11 million dollars a year (http://www1.salary.com/MARATHON-OIL-CORP-Executive-Salaries…). That is some serious economic disparity. In addition, the oil and gas industry is a HUGE lobbying force. They have only increased government lobbying in the past ten years coming close to $180 million per year and most of this money is going towards republican candidates (https://www.opensecrets.org/industries/indus.php?ind=E01). With these numbers it's very hard to see the industry as the victim of the government.
3. Trump as a businessman
There is no question that Trump has built a brand with vast name recognition. However Trump started with quite a head start thanks to his father and his father built a business with a lot of help from federal subsidies which seems to be counter to your sentiment about government aide? (http://www.faireconomy.org/the_self_made_myth_infographic).
Also, Trump himself has declared bankruptcy six times (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/fact-check-has-trump-decl…/). No matter what, the guy is resilient, I will absolutely give him that!
Lastly, if you are using the model of Trump as the CEO of our national company and the citizens as his employees, please be aware that he has been plagued with labor issues. Just because Ebenezer Scrooge was a businessman, it didn't really work out so well for Tiny Tim? Garrett and I witnessed the strikes and subsequent failure of The Taj Mahal when we were in Atlantic City (https://www.google.com/…/trump-taj-mahal-casino-is-closing-…) but this hasn't been an isolated occurrence. (https://www.google.com/…/hundreds-donald-trumps-employees-h…)
Just because he is a business man, doesn't mean he is necessarily good at it or that he is benevolent towards those beneath him.
4. Make America Great Again
I've never been clear as to what era he was referring to in this statement? Sure, there have been plenty of economic booms and busts over the past several hundred years, but what about the social changes? Does he want to go back to a time before gay marriage? Before civil rights? Before women's suffrage? Before child labor reform? Before slavery? It's true that most of these issues are still things that we are grappling with, but why go back when you could go forward?
I find this phrase to be dog-whistle politics (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dog-whistle_politics) In addition to his overtly hateful speech, this type of coded language appeals to people who want to go back to a whitewashed fictional version of America. A Pleasantville, if you will this is why groups like the KKK supported his campaign. (https://www.washingtonpost.com/…/the-kkks-official-newspap…/)
5. Campaign Donations
So, here is where I completely agree with you regarding getting money out of politics. Full disclosure, I voted for Bernie Sanders in the primary. I think this point of politicians being bought by special interests is the common ground we all need to move forward together.
However, it's a fallacy to think that Trump is immune to the special interest money. Trump has plenty of super PAC's supporting him (http://www.thedailybeast.com/…/trump-hates-lobbyists-except… or http://www.truth-out.org/…/37219-the-biggest-spender-backin…)
Also, no matter your feelings regarding the NRA, they have not been shy about how much money they have been donating to his campaign. The NRA donated 6.5 million in ad buys at the very end of the campaign (http://m.washingtontimes.com/…/nra-donates-65-million-to-d…/). Again, regardless of whether you agree with their stance or not, it's hard to say that Trump doesn't now owe them something in terms of policy since they are a single issue lobbying group.
My follow up questions for you, as they weren't mentioned in your reasons for support, are that in spite of having loved ones in the lgbtq+ community, how you could support someone (especially Mike Pence) who wants to revoke their rights? How in spite of being surrounded by smart, strong, incredible women, you could back someone who is accused of sexual assault and clearly uses violent and hateful language about women? How as a man of faith, you could support someone who wants to ban an entire people from the US based on their religion? If you substituted the word Christian every time he said Muslim, could you stomach that?
I hope all of this has opened a dialogue and I hope you know that all of this comes from a place of wanting to understand and communicate. It's not from anger. I'm over anger. We need mediation in this country, not war. We need listening and hearing, not shouting.
Both sides are demonizing the other and all we can do is look at the facts and try to empathize with the other. Strip away the noise and hear what people actually, truly want.
Shawn, you're amazing. Thank you again for reaching out to me. I'm honored."
-
Richard, your daughter is AMAZING!!!!
I've had some people on Facebook give me a hard time because I took a stand. One attempted to shut me down because my opinion gave her "stress". Other responses were worse. I responded as follows:
I am posting this notice to make my position CRYSTAL CLEAR! If my taking a stand against a racist makes you uncomfortable, then you are free to leave. I am not going to relinquish my voice in order to make you comfortable. I REFUSE to respect an A$$WIPE who is a bigot, misogynist, raping PIG! My taking a stand is making you uncomfortable in your White Privilege? Well guess what? Ever since this A$$CLOWN was elected, I've had family members harassed because they are not white. I've been told to "delete myself" because I objected to Islamophobia. White Privilege has NO business telling me and anyone who is a member of a marginalized group to shut up and take it/suck it up because my speaking out is giving your White Privilege "stress". White Privilege does NOT HAVE A CLUE what "stress" REALLY is when you're threatened with lynching because of the color of your skin, or being threatened with rape because you're a woman, or being threatened with death because you're a member of the gay community, (I'm so ANGRY right now I can't remember the acronym in the correct order!) The KKK are dancing in the street and YOU expect ME to STAY SILENT?!?!?! I DON'T F**KING THINK SO!!!!!! I have more to say and I need to stop and breathe for a while!
Just my two cents.
-
Hi Bones,
Richard, your daughter is AMAZING!!!!
Thanks! As you can tell, Micaela is the furthest thing/person from "voiceless." My 91-year-old father printed out a copy of the Facebook posts above to keep. Sadly for her, in many ways she is more like me than any other person in the universe ;-)
I've had some people on Facebook give me a hard time because I took a stand. One attempted to shut me down because my opinion gave her "stress". Other responses were worse. I responded as follows:
I am posting this notice to make my position CRYSTAL CLEAR! If my taking a stand against a racist makes you uncomfortable, then you are free to leave. I am not going to relinquish my voice in order to make you comfortable. I REFUSE to respect an A$$WIPE who is a bigot, misogynist, raping PIG! My taking a stand is making you uncomfortable in your White Privilege? Well guess what? Ever since this A$$CLOWN was elected, I've had family members harassed because they are not white. I've been told to "delete myself" because I objected to Islamophobia. White Privilege has NO business telling me and anyone who is a member of a marginalized group to shut up and take it/suck it up because my speaking out is giving your White Privilege "stress". White Privilege does NOT HAVE A CLUE what "stress" REALLY is when you're threatened with lynching because of the color of your skin, or being threatened with rape because you're a woman, or being threatened with death because you're a member of the gay community, (I'm so ANGRY right now I can't remember the acronym in the correct order!) The KKK are dancing in the street and YOU expect ME to STAY SILENT?!?!?! I DON'T F**KING THINK SO!!!!!! I have more to say and I need to stop and breathe for a while!
Just my two cents.
Good for you for not being silent! Keep it up!
Richard
-
Hi Bones,
Richard, your daughter is AMAZING!!!!
Thanks! As you can tell, Micaela is the furthest thing/person from "voiceless." My 91-year-old father printed out a copy of the Facebook posts above to keep. Sadly for her, in many ways she is more like me than any other person in the universe ;-)
I've had some people on Facebook give me a hard time because I took a stand. One attempted to shut me down because my opinion gave her "stress". Other responses were worse. I responded as follows:
I am posting this notice to make my position CRYSTAL CLEAR! If my taking a stand against a racist makes you uncomfortable, then you are free to leave. I am not going to relinquish my voice in order to make you comfortable. I REFUSE to respect an A$$WIPE who is a bigot, misogynist, raping PIG! My taking a stand is making you uncomfortable in your White Privilege? Well guess what? Ever since this A$$CLOWN was elected, I've had family members harassed because they are not white. I've been told to "delete myself" because I objected to Islamophobia. White Privilege has NO business telling me and anyone who is a member of a marginalized group to shut up and take it/suck it up because my speaking out is giving your White Privilege "stress". White Privilege does NOT HAVE A CLUE what "stress" REALLY is when you're threatened with lynching because of the color of your skin, or being threatened with rape because you're a woman, or being threatened with death because you're a member of the gay community, (I'm so ANGRY right now I can't remember the acronym in the correct order!) The KKK are dancing in the street and YOU expect ME to STAY SILENT?!?!?! I DON'T F**KING THINK SO!!!!!! I have more to say and I need to stop and breathe for a while!
Just my two cents.
Good for you for not being silent! Keep it up!
Richard
Thanks, Richard!
I posted more later when another idiot started attacking a family member of mine because my family member was defending me and my First Amendment rights. The idiot went so far as to verbally attack my family member based on her disability and THAT earned the idiot a free launch in my trebuchet bucket! The idiot didn't stop there! Idiot kept insisting that my general comments about White Privilege were specifically targeting HER! (I have NO idea WHERE she got THAT idea as it was a GENERAL statement regarding White Privilege!) Then idiot ended her rant at me by calling me a Narcissistic Bigot! I didn't attempt to JADE, I just simply blocked the idiot so she can't continue to harass.
-
Hmm, not feeling too welcome here anymore.
mud
-
Hi (((((((Mud)))))))))--
To my mind, you're more welcome than ever.
There's nothing more vital we all can do these day than love across boundaries, even when in some areas we'll disagree.
Sending you love, and hoping you've had a happy Tgiving.
I'm very glad you're here. And appreciate you in many ways.
STAY!
love to you,
Hops
-
Not feeling a lot of boundary crossing love above your comment, Hops.
mud
-
Hi Mud,
Politics, wherever one lands and however one reasons it...is deeply personal, I think. And I have realized I don't ever need to debate it again. I can do that voluntarily at times when it's welcome, but mainly I just need to live in a right way, as best I can.
The only way I see through the alienation we feel (generic "we") from one another is to focus on something a wise therapist told me once (and that I read in other places since).
It's a choice to take offense, maintain a grudge, and especially to judge.
(I like all those. They keep me comfy in my echo chamber. And sometimes they serve a true purpose...to help me not feel alone if I am despairing. But they're not useful or humane as places to live in.)
If it is a choice to take offense, which I have come to believe is mostly true...for me, in order to get unstuck again, I have figured out that compassion is the most powerful thing there is. I don't have to, and there's a lot in the world that wants me not to, but I can choose it. I know it has many names but that's the word that works for me.
Once I choose compassion, for others and for myself, there is no wall between me and anyone. I have to RE-choose it, over and over, when things/people/events knock me out of it. And it's still okay to protect myself (compassion from a distance is sometimes necessary...with Ns, for example.) But it always feels like True North, so I wobble back. Then I feel I have got the direction right. I can't persuade or force anybody else to think about it; it just is what it is.
When I'm angry or hurt or excluded or miffed or frustrated with others, there's still this in my mind: ...it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. I don't do a very good job of it, being at least 9/10 clay, but it's still the lodestar.
That's really the main thing I retained from my childhood faith. That was what I understood. That's what I took in, very profoundly, in my heart. All my thinking, positions, or experiences since then...have never contradicted the truth of that.
Love to you,
Hops
-
"Racist, misogynist, xenophobe etc" are not words designed to further rational discussion or debate.
They are words intended to prevent debate precisely because they are intended to offend.
Nobody reasons with a fascist or a Hitler so if you delegitimize someone and their opinions by labeling them as something scurrilous you not only shut them up, which I would think if it was going to be frowned upon anywhere it would be at a place called "voicelessness", but you don't have to go to all the trouble of, well, thinking or fashioning a rational argument.
Nor is leading off with "Last night America grabbed me by the hoohaa" a way to encourage thoughtful responses.
If people who voted for Trump were endorsing his crude private remark ten years ago then can I assume people who voted for Hillary were endorsing her harassment and smears of women who came forward describing her husband's undeniable affairs and assaults and at least one credible accusation of rape or her other numerous crimes and corruptions.
There are people who really do hate minorities and women and foreigners. What they believe is vile.
Trump's rise was fueled in no small part by people who are sick to death of being lumped in with the KKK and denounced as deplorable and irredeemable not because they believe any of those vile things but because they simply disagree with the people trying to shut them up.
Nor is some guy working three part time jobs in Alabama to try and keep his family from starving going to be too understanding when a bunch of punk kids from Harvard and Princeton and heading for some gold brick job at a non profit stage a protest to denounce his white "privilege".
There is an evil destructive fringe on the right that uses similar tactics and terms as the above and it is sedulously marginalized by the mainstream right.
The left accepts and embraces comparably fringe tactics and terms within its mainstream constantlyn as evidenced by their use in this thread, so it shouldn't be surprised that somebody who plays by their rules and gives it back just as hard as he gets it was successful and popular where obsequious losers like Romney and McCain were not.
The left's political success has depended for decades on them playing hardball while their opponents were playing tiddlywinks. Now some guy gets up and starts throwing the same kind of bean balls at their heads as we've been ducking for all these years and suddenly the snowflakes need to find their safe spaces and stress relieving coloring books.
They made the bed but they don't want to lie in it. That's not how the world works. Call somebody enough names and eventually you find yourself counting your teeth.
Mud
-
It's pretty chicken or egg once people get more into
being angry, outraged and/or right than anything else.
I don't know if it'll have value, but since it does address
more intelligently than I can some of your objections, while
also ceding several of your points, thought I'd share this article (from
a librul site) with you. Would love to know if you find any common ground mixed in.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/democratic_politics_have_to_be_identity_politics.html (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2016/11/democratic_politics_have_to_be_identity_politics.html)
(You're welcome to PM me so we don't tie up the board with politics.)
Yer snowflake friend,
Hops
-
Hi Mud and Hops,
Thanks for your responses! I'll pass them on to Micaela.
Richard
-
Doc G,
I only mentioned one part of the comment by your daughter. The bulk of her comment was an admirable attempt at rational discussion and I don't want to leave the impression that was unappreciated or unnoticed.
Her response to her FB friend was wrong on almost every point but was again a courteous and reasoned and reasonable comment.
A few more like her would make a world of difference.
Mud
-
Thanks, Mud!
I very much appreciate your reply and passed it along to my daughter, Micaela.
Richard
-
Have her email me. Maybe I can convert her to the dark side. :P
(Proudly deplorable) Mud
-
Have her email me. Maybe I can convert her to the dark side. :P
Hi Mud,
If you knew Micaela, you would know that "conversion" would be highly unlikely :wink: Dialogue, however, is another story! Here is her response to your post:
"1. I would love to hear how you do not agree that Trump and/or the people he has appointed to speak for him are not racist, misogynistic, and xenophobic. I found it odd that you were more offended by seemingly name calling and less so by the words and actions that inspire those titles. Normalizing these behaviors and dismissing them is certainly open for debate. They are not name-calling. They are summations of behavior.
2. Before Hitler was a Hitler, he was Adolf, a man and a politician. It is only in hindsight that he becomes a mythic villain. Being a Fascist is not just a word to throw around about someone being unfair, but a political structure and dogma. Many leaders have openly run as Fascists. It just has not been a popular platform in the United States. Likening the actions of someone who riles the economically depressed into blaming factions of Others for their problems is pretty straight forward whether it be Jews or Muslims or Gypsies or Mexicans or LGBTQ members (always a target). Did Hitler come out of the gate talking about interring and murdering millions of people? Absolutely not. It's an issue of learning from past mistakes. Interestingly enough, you were the first one to bring Hitler and Fascism into the conversation. I actually never mentioned either. I don't know if you are familiar with Godwin's Law, but it's actually a pretty funny application of it in this scenario.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law)
3. Obviously my opening line using the word "pussy" engaged you into a thoughtful response, as I believe yours was one. Also, I think perhaps you might be missing the offensive quality of the "grab her by the pussy" comment--it wasn't the use of the word “pussy” but the use of the word “grab.” If Bill Clinton's sexual assault offends you as much as you say it does (I am assuming you are a “he” and not a "pussy owner") than you should be equally as outraged by and not dismissive of Trump's sentiment. I do not defend Hillary Clinton's actions of smear, but I would rather that than the actual person who commits the assault. Also, Hillary was never my first choice as a Bernie supporter, but I do believe that she is/was more competent and prepared for the job and more receptive to the policies I hope to be furthered by the Progressive wing of the Democratic Party.
4. I also agree that not everyone voted for Trump based on hatred and bigotry. I do believe they did have to turn a blind eye and a deaf ear to it though and normalize it. If I were to be lumped in with the KKK by other similar groups, I would question what I was doing to be perceived as such. Everyone has blindness to his or her own biases and bigotries, and everyone is a little bit racist. All one can do is to try to evolve and grow and learn and listen. Also, who are the people that you refer to as trying to shut up the KKK that this other group of Trump voters were so adamant about taking down? If Trump's behavior thus far with his detractors has been any indication, he seems much more akin to this silencing of opposition than any other candidate before him.
There are two ways to listen to a pop song--listening to the tune and listening to the lyrics. People that either believed in Trump's coded messages of hate or were appalled by them were listening to his literal lyrics. Those that liked a lot of the attitude and general messages of the campaign were listening to Trump's tune and legitimately didn't realize they were humming along to a song about hate.
5. The glorification of the impoverished White Southerner working three time jobs and the vilification of the Ivy League-Non Profit student is a little pat. I truly know plenty of people who fall into both of those categories as well as plenty of people who fall into shades of grey of those categories as well as plenty of people who fall into neither. Pitting one against the other is not exactly productive, and in fact exactly the thing that distracts from the real issues of poverty and social iniquity in this country. Perhaps the non-profit that this Ivy League educated student is going to work for is the Southern Poverty Law Center? I would have to assume that you are not a POC but self-identified as White, as I truly have never heard any POC claim that white privilege is not real. But still, I would love to hear your thoughts on why it either doesn't exist or should not be protested by people who perhaps have the privilege of the time, energy, and national freedom to protest. As one of my friends once told me, "one of my white liberal friends watched me try to get a cab one night and after many failed attempts, was actually shocked to find out that what I had been telling him for years as a black man was true.” Also, remember that due to the concept of intersectionality, people can be privileged in one way and not in others. Class and race are two different things, although sometimes tied together.
6. The mockery of the term “safe space” seems to demonstrate that you have never needed one (again perhaps this is a great time to revisit white privilege and gender and sexual identity).
Also, if you feel that Trump is standing up to the Democrats in a way that the Republicans haven't before, I'm confused as to how you understand the House Republican majority? Or any previous Republican presidency? But truly, Trump barely ran as a Republican, considering that a number of high-ranking officials would not support him, in addition to the entire Bush family. So Trump ran as some new offshoot of the Republican Party, which brings me back to the question of who Trump is surrounding himself with--the people who voted in a sort of nihilistic sense of anything but Hillary, the outwardly racist, and honestly a lot of people who were duped by his posturing as a successful businessman. Having witnessed first hand the strikes by Trump's casino employees (a good stand in for the Alabama man working three jobs to support his kids), and the additional labor lawsuits he has faced, I cannot say that Trump is looking out for the working American. His Treasury Secretary nomination is a man who worked for Goldman, and is the son of a Goldman exec, who went on to found his own hedge fund that was sued for improperly foreclosing on people. Trump is a businessman who has successfully rebooted his brand after at least 6 bankruptcies, but that does not bode well for America as a brand."
Richard
-
Thanks Richard.
1. My point is the actions that spawn those epithets do not rise to the level of what they describe.
Moreover the person making such serious charges is obligated to prove them, not demand someone disprove them.
What action in Trump's personal history indicates he is a racist. The closest I am aware of was his complaint about Judge Curiel but that was based on the judge's membership in a lawyers group apparently affiliated with the fairly radical pro illegal immigration group La Raza. If that is the standard for racism then I suspect almost every person of every race qualifies (I do indeed find the claim by some on the left that minorities can't be racist to be so absurd that I find those holding it incapable of reasonable discussion)
If the claim stems from his desire to enforce immigration laws, is it actually the position of those on the left that having secure borders and attempting to prevent the illegal crossing of those borders and attempting to weed out criminals and terrorists from those we do allow in constitutes racism?
If it is I hope you are prepared to be at odds with most of the country including the large majority of immigrants who followed the law to emigrate here.
None of those rise to the level of racism as it has historically been understood. So what is this claim based on? And the preceding arguments apply to the charge of xenophobia as well. Indeed Trump has said those non criminal illegals deported would be free to then apply for legal entry and even citizenship. Hardly the policy of a racist xenophobe.
Misogyny as I understand it refers to those who are hostile to and perhaps even hate women. Trump's problem in this area seems to, on the contrary, be that he is entirely too fond of them.
His locker room rhetoric belies a man who has hired and trusted many women at some of the highest levels in his corporations.
2. Hitler wrote Mein Kampf in the early 20s and in it made it rather clear he hated and would have no problem exterminating no small number of Jews. Moreover he began it in prison after his failed Beer Hall Putsch to topple the German government. To imply Trump or his voters are embarked on that same road after he and they won an election fair and square is a type of McCarthyism that one ups McCarthy.
Who are these many fascist "leaders" who ran as fascists? Mussolini, the man who invented fascism was a man of the socialist left. He eventually combined a bastardsized socialism with nationalism to create fascism. In any event he didn't attain power legitimately. He and his fascists staged an intimidating insurrection and compelled the legitimate government to capitulate.
And it's always interesting when Hitler is described as a fascist. The origin of the term Nazi is of course the National Socialist Party. The ascribing by the left to free market, politically liberal parties in the West some kind of kinship with progressive men of the left like Mussolini and Hitler is one of the great political gymnastic maneuvers in history.
I never said you brought Hitler up. I was discussing the outlandish criticisms of Trump and his supporters one of which is he and they are rather like Hitler. Your implication Trump may very well be an incipient Hitler would seem to indicate I was not exactly too far from your views.
As to Mr Godwin the only thing funny is him beclowning himself by actually and recently endorsing the resort to Hitler regarding discussing Trump.
3. Tump was not describing an assault. The context of the discussion was that there are women who will throw themselves at celebrities and allow actions as the ones he described . Regardless of how crudely he put it does anyone seriously dispute what he said.
Moreover there is simply no comparison between his crude words and the actual innumerable actions by Hillary's husband, a man she was quite willing to talk about placing in charge of the economy. A former president is not just some house husband who can be dismissed as irrelevant when his spouse is running for the presidency.
4. That's pretty funny. If someone makes a false accusation against me I should examine myself to see what's wrong with me.That sentiment is particularly offensive in light of where this discussion is taking place; a board full o people subject to interminable character assassination and slanders.
The Communist PARTY USA endorsed Hillary Clinton as did many rap stars who regularly speak the most vile sentiments imaginable toward women and in some cases Jews and white people and brag about killing cops and judges. Indeed, our gracious First Lady allowed that she was shocked and scandalized by Trump's words and yet she and her husband have hosed with great fanfare guys who brag about raping "ho's" and pose on album covers with dead judge's under their feet and guns in their hands.
Do you believe you, Hillary and Michelle should all sit down and do some honest soul searching about what kind of intolerant, misogynistic and murderous thoughts and policies you support that would lead such people to support your candidate?
5. This one nearly deserves an LOL. Who is pitting one group against another but those who claim whites enjoy a privilege that oppresses minorities and gives whites an unfair advantage that government must resolve by taking from the privileged and giving to the oppressed? It's rather difficult to conjure a more precise example of pitting one group against another.
6. Earth to the left; there are no safe spaces. The world and life are hard, difficult places in which bad things happen all the time to everyone. There are any number of white women on this board whose lives were turned upside down by their own white mothers.
Anyone is entitled to carve out whatever "safe space" they can for themselves or their group. What they're not entitled is demand someone else be compelled to provide them one, especially if the demand entails they not have to hear some opinion they don't like.
With the notable exceptions of Reagan and Gingrich and a few others the GOP has largely accepted playing on a field constructed by their opponents playing a game with rules drawn up by those same opponents. The result has been a vast bureaucratic state that depends on and rewards the leadership of both parties.
Whatever Trump's faults he represents a chance to at least begin to break through that growing, extra constitutional and increasingly authoritarian state. That is why the entrenched establishment of the GOP fought Trump as vigorously as the Dems: cracking that gravy train threatens both establishments equally.
As far as Trump being sued, filing bankruptcy or posturing as a successful businessman, it is impossible to be in the businesses he is and not be sued repeatedly. Use of bankruptcy laws is perfectly legitimate and has been used by corporations of all sizes. It is especially common in boom and bust industries like construction and real estate. The fact remains he turned a medium sized fortune into a rather large one. If he had employees striking we can safely conclude he must have created jobs to be struck. In fact he created probably hundreds of thousands of jobs over the years. How many did Hillary create prior to her run? How about Obama?
If being sued or working for Goldman was disqualifying I assume you worked assiduously to defeat Hillary because she has been sued repeatedly and gave a multitude of speeches for many millions of dollars to Goldman. Moreover her husband's treasury secretary was the CEO of Goldman and the recipient of no small number of lawsuits.
Name someone outwardly racist that Trump is surrounding himself with. Argument by defamatory assertion is not actually argument. It's precisely what I described these gratuitous accusations to be; lazy name calling in place of thought and reasoned argument.
Finally take a look at this essay with an open mind:
http://www.independent.org/issues/article.asp?id=8932
Perhaps it will enlighten you. Perhaps not.
In any event thank you for the largely thoughtful, even if completely wrongheaded reply. :)
Mud
-
Mud my bud,
Reading your exchange with Micaela I know better than to try to be more articulate than either of you.
I doff my hat and bow to her for her clarity and willingness to engage at the granular, this-is-how-I-see-and-reason-and-why level. That's arduous and brave, especially from the "losing" side.
And for you I also doff my hat and send a bow. You have hung in here through tragedy and loss and often, if not nearly always, as one of the few men to trust and open up in this space. You made the large effort, just as Micaela has done, to explain your point of view. "Splaining" is often done with very genuine intention and taking offense is pointless, I think. I'd proclaim that mansplaining, womansplaining, librulsplaining, whitesplaining and blacksplaining are only similar in condescension.
We are very different. We see the world and live in our skins in such opposite ways and have had such different experiences. Hurt by different things, yearning for different things, moved and inspired by different things, too. (Though at our cores, I am positive there's way more the same than different.) They all add up, and our stories define us in temporal and cultural ways.
I have felt quite close to you at times and always value you, Mud man. (Hope you've noticed!) So just want to say from a full hopsy heart: blessings and peace to you. (And to Micaela, whom I don't know...the same!)
love,
Hops
-
Dr. G,
Wow! As a writer myself, I am in awe of Micaela’s talent. This essay is very powerful and certainly offered me some comfort with my increased anxiety in the wake of this election; increased anxiety for so many reasons, perhaps the foremost being that I am a survivor of both a narcissistic parent and a workplace sexual assault.
I have not posted much on Facebook since the election. Unlike your daughter, I retreat from confrontation. I applaud Micaela for speaking her mind, and doing so with such eloquence. Please let her know that her words have helped me with my anxiety, even if just a little bit. Words are so very powerful. As we know, an N can cause irreparable damage with their words. But words can also lift us up. Micaela has succeeded in doing the latter.
And I have to concur with the last comment under her post. She is far more than “just a waitress.”
Thank you for sharing this.
Kathy
-
Hi Doc G--
You and Micaela may enjoy the film The Brainwashing of My Dad (available on Amazon) if you haven't already.
Smart analysis.
Sadly,
Hops
-
Fox News is accused of using Goebbel's tactics to brainwash people and the gal consults noted centrist Noam Chomsky (centrist in this case meaning a radical revolutionary anarchist) to help explain her father's radicalism.
I was concerned for a short time that the Democrat party might throw off the shackles of the New Left that has captured it and it might return to a sensible JFK/Harry Truman center-left philosophy to put a halt to its long march to the political wilderness.
I guess my concern was misplaced. Carry on
BTW, the left consoles itself that Hillary won the popular vote but that is deceptive. A substantial majority of the population lives in uncompetitive states like CA and NY leading to millions of Rep voters who stay home, more so than Dems who stay home in so called red states. A better measure is the national congressional vote which when adjusted for non competitive races shows a Rep vote advantage of around 3 million votes. And the fact Reps now control about 2/3 of state governments confirms fewer and fewer people are following the increasingly leftist Dem pied piper. Now, the typical response to this is that the numbers don't matter because being "correct" is all that counts and that the people will eventually see the error of their ways and will catch up.
That's an interesting theory that I guess we'll get to test.
What's more interesting to me is how a political ideology, as opposed to a political philosophy, is so dependent on self affirmation and confirmation bias while being nearly impervious to external criticism or even external data. If an ideology is defined as a rigid system of thought that seeks to conform the world to its vision rather than a philosophy that seeks to adapt itself to certain unalterable aspects of the world, it's remarkable how closely ideologies match the us vs them of the networks Ns surround themselves with, even to the point of labeling those outside the network as not merely wrong or mistaken but insane and evil.
What's equally analogous is how blithely the most vile accusations are flung at those outside the network as though their insanity and evil compared to the network's probity, truths and morality is so self evident that no rational person could fail to come to the same conclusion.
Which leads to the rich irony of those reacting emotionally and most impervious to opposing views or data points looking for, and not surprisingly finding in great abundance exactly those traits in those outside the network.
The world is a very odd place.
Mud
-
I didn't think you would enjoy the film, Mud.
I thought others might.
Peace,
Hops
-
On the contrary Hops, I enjoyed it immensely under the "never interrupt your adversary when he's making a mistake" maxim. :)
Mud
-
Last word to you, Mud.
Not your adversary,
Hops
-
I was referring to the movie not you, Hops, but I still consider us political adversaries in that we disagree about most political issues. An adversary is an opponent.
However we are not personal adversaries or opponents, which is a distinction an increasing number of people of all stripes seem unable or unwilling to make.
Mud
-
Whoops!
I just realized what I wrote might sound like "last word" as in "I'm not speaking to you any more."
NOT, not what I meant! :oops:
I just meant that I wanted to give you the last word on this subject (only done with that).
Sorry for being a spaz-brain!
love
Hops
-
Dr. G,
Wow! As a writer myself, I am in awe of Micaela’s talent. This essay is very powerful and certainly offered me some comfort with my increased anxiety in the wake of this election; increased anxiety for so many reasons, perhaps the foremost being that I am a survivor of both a narcissistic parent and a workplace sexual assault.
I have not posted much on Facebook since the election. Unlike your daughter, I retreat from confrontation. I applaud Micaela for speaking her mind, and doing so with such eloquence. Please let her know that her words have helped me with my anxiety, even if just a little bit. Words are so very powerful. As we know, an N can cause irreparable damage with their words. But words can also lift us up. Micaela has succeeded in doing the latter.
And I have to concur with the last comment under her post. She is far more than “just a waitress.”
Thank you for sharing this.
Kathy
Hi Kathy,
Thanks so much for your reply! I will make sure that Micaela sees it.
These are, indeed, scary times for many people, including myself.
Richard
P.S. I see these new combination stores, e.g., bank/coffee shops in my neighborhood. Maybe Micaela should open a restaurant/therapy office in NYC :lol: !
-
Hi Doc G--
You and Micaela may enjoy the film The Brainwashing of My Dad (available on Amazon) if you haven't already.
Smart analysis.
Sadly,
Hops
Hi Hops,
I'll take a look, and pass along your recommendation to Micaela.
Thanks,
Richard
-
Never even occurred to me that might be what you meant, Hops.
.That wouldn't be you.
Mud
-
I really liked Micaela's passionate response to the Trump election. It is not watered down in polite fancy dancing but comes straight from the shoulder. Firey opal girl.
Trump got elected and it is a wake up call for me and I realize that even after hearing about whole cities being defeated and ruined by economic decisions made by government. I think it is about armies of frightened people struggling to live the American dream and realizing that they are in quick sand because the government has failed them. We hear that the middle class is struggling but they are not hungry, they don' t have to try to feed and be there for their children when the money cannot stretch that far, or face health problems with no support.
The squabbling that goes on between the rich and uber educated about what America needs ,where they seek answers in polls and popularity really makes poor people feel sick with hopelessness.
The reason Trump got elected is because of fear and ignorance. People had little or no understanding of the issues and were not educated enough to understand and people are scared. So they are scared of anything that looks like it will create more stress. The resiliency and willingness is not there.
So much governmental policy seems to be initiated in a top down way. Just pushing people around and walking into their lives in such a glib and egotistical top dog way. The people have spoken. They would rather go down in flames than stand for a continuation of the same old crap.
I am not a Trump support and never was . I'm Canadian and even I feel disheartened and yup, i felt grabbed by the pussy when Trump was elected. Come to think about it...... lets all women where badges that say that so we are not silenced by Trump's language in being pussies.
Micaela, don't stop speaking your mind. Bless you fierce warrior woman. There are no prizes but it needs to be done.
Lot of love
Sea
-
How wonderfully, perceptively written this is, Sea.
And how I value you.
love,
Hops
-
Awwwww Hops. Hugs and cuddles to you.
It is good to see a lively debate. I don't know how to do it properly but at least i get the ideas out there and they can get honed by wiser people than me.
I am so surprised to see great hordes of people coming out to protest. They are even doing it in Canada, in my little town of Port Albern and in Vancouver, BC. The world has woken up. The slumbering haves of the western world are awake to how fragile their freedom has become.
Personally, I don't go for parties and they seem more corrupt all the time. The beauty of values over consumption and greed is emerging in a humanistic and uniting way. I opposite is Trumpism.
I bet that is a landmark for political writing from me. AND I am joining the NDP party to try to get more votes in our election.
Well, I think I will just ramble on drifting along with the tumbling tumbleweeds, Hops. Keep the faith
Sea
-
The world has woken up. The slumbering haves of the western world are awake to how fragile their freedom has become.
The beauty of values over consumption and greed is emerging in a humanistic and uniting way.
Sea
Yes to the above..... Corporate greed, and using insanely triggering arguments to distract, and pit us against each other.... Yes.
The destruction and pillaging of our planet, without responsibility to clean up their mess, or make safe again, is the world's reality now...... even the safe, white entitled people's reality.
Standing up for the immigrants, and minorities and people in the line of fracking fire, etc.... everyone who stands up for them is standing up for their own rights, IMO.
Lighter
-
I agree. Our voices really need to be heard now. Women know about how the world is suffering. Men too. Things need to shift and I think they are at some level that is not clear yet. Paradigm shift.
-
I watched NETFLIX documentary last night.....
Inn Saei is title, I think that's how it's spelled.
Timely watch for anyone with Netflix. It speaks to this topic directly, IMO.
Lighter
-
It is good to see a lively debate. I don't know how to do it properly but at least i get the ideas out there and they can get honed by wiser people than me.
That's not a debate. That's having someone you assume is sharper than you confirm your biases.
Personally, I don't go for parties and they seem more corrupt all the time....
..... AND I am joining the NDP party to try to get more votes in our election.
One of these things is not like the other.
....using insanely triggering arguments to distract, and pit us against each other....
I'm going to guess calling people who disagree with you greedy, rapacious, Nazi, fascist, racist, hateful, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic bigots are most definitely NOT examples of insanely triggering arguments to distract and pit us against each other. They're just obvious facts every right thinking person acknowledges because there is only one right way to think, right?
I would delicately suggest this kind of rhetoric and demonizing of anyone with the temerity to not toe the statist line is an impediment to political success and most of the reason those toeing it find themselves close to the political wilderness.
... they are in quick sand because the government has failed them..... So much governmental policy seems to be initiated in a top down way. Just pushing people around and walking into their lives in such a glib and egotistical top dog way.
So the solution is more government?
Government is by definition from the top down. The perpetuation and growth of itself is its only core value and it is by its nature unreformable. And the greater its distance from the citizens the greater its arrogance yet the left demands every law and regulation be a national one. But even at the local level government is by definition some of the populace or simply unaccountable bureaucrats imposing by force policies on either everyone or those without a voice.
And contrary to what the left seems to think, every one of the most destructive acts perpetrated on the poor and minorities was done so by force of government; whether the statutory legality of slavery, the codification of Jim Crow and its support in the Plessey decision or the soul rotting and family destroying evil disguised as do-gooding called the welfare state.
A wise man once said government is the problem not the solution.
-
I'm always saddened when I hear you generalize and seethe with sarcasm here, Mud, when no one here to my memory has ever treated you this way:
...calling people who disagree with you greedy, rapacious, Nazi, fascist, racist, hateful, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic bigots are most definitely NOT examples of insanely triggering arguments to distract and pit us against each other. They're just obvious facts every right thinking person acknowledges because there is only one right way to think, right? (http://...calling people who disagree with you greedy, rapacious, Nazi, fascist, racist, hateful, xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic, misogynistic bigots are most definitely NOT examples of insanely triggering arguments to distract and pit us against each other. They're just obvious facts every right thinking person acknowledges because there is only one right way to think, right?)
I don't know what it feels like to be "insanely triggered" but it makes me sad to hear you this way.
I disagree with your characterization of welfare. I don't need to call you names to say so, and I'm not thinking up some scathing way to put you in your place or condemn you to any kind of wilderness.
We need to put down the condescending explanations and contempt and listen to each other. Many of your points about government are well taken. Good people can disagree in good faith about how to re-balance this country.
I'm not content with the direction it is going, but am unsure whether this board is the place for politics. If there is more light than heat, I'm game, but much as I have always respected you, I feel intimidated and nearly silenced by your tone.
Sometimes I wonder if your feelings toward liberals have anything to do with your life as a logger. I don't know if that makes any sense but I know the work we do can get us into fixed mindsets as much as our faiths sometimes can. To me, it matters more that we always speak to and treat each other with dignity and respect. We don't have to think alike to love alike.
love,
Hops
-
I didn't say you called anyone any names and I didn't call anyone any names.
However a good many of those labels I listed have been used in this thread and all of them are used routinely by the left to describe, not far right fringe groups, but elected Republicans and their voters.
Nor did I condemn anyone to a wilderness. I tried to helpfully point out the over the top rhetoric that I listed is contributing to the left and the Dems suffering historic electoral setbacks at every level of government. IOW they're condemning themselves to the political wilderness.
Disagreeing with my characterization of welfare is fine but pointless. One only has to compare the state of the black family and inner cities prior to the welfare state and post welfare. You have to try to make a system with worse results than Jim Crow but the architects of our present system were up to the task.
I note your call for reasoned debate and to end the name calling, the first of which I have engaged in and the second of which I have not, did not occur for instance after Bones's original comment which really was seething and filled with quite strident name calling. And you congratulated Sea after she reckoned Trump was elected by ignoramuses and Doc's daughter who equated people like me electing Trump to sexual abusers.
I'm thinking maybe you are seeing things a bit less clearly than you think you are and maybe I'm seeing them a bit more clearly than you give me credit for.
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.
If you start off punching somebody in the mouth you shouldn't be surprised if they punch back. And if you engage in lazy thinking, who is at fault the lazy thinker or the person who points it out?
As to logging forming my political philosophy didn't you just inveigh against generalizations?
My political philosophy stems from my observations of the real world, my valuing of liberty over safety, free will over coercion and my comparison of the philosophical root of the Founders and our Constitution and the ideological roots of those who seek to fundamentally transform it, to quote the recently departed president.
I do agree this is not the forum for politics which is why I don't start political conversations here. However when others do, particularly when views I hold or people I voted for are being characterized as hateful fascists, it would be a little ironic if I didn't speak up on the Voicelessness board, wouldn't it?
mud
-
Referring to "ignorance" as a cause isn't the same as name-calling a person an "ignoramus." Sea did the former, and I agree. I also thought she expressed a lot of empathy for voters, how'd you miss it?
I think savoring anger isn't a good thing.
I am ignorant about a whole lot of things. And lucky, because I was born into the opportunity for an high-quality education. That should not be but IS an elite privilege--a class accident. I can never take it for granted. It was not earned...every child deserves great teachers in safe, well-funded schools. Because like health care, equal education should be a human right, not a privilege (yet evolved according to where power lived, thus becoming privilege). That education, in an environment where I could study and learn (in a well-nourished body that had plenty of wholesome food and easy access to health care) can lead to a peaceful home full of books, music and hopefully kindness. It's hard to create strong families and cultural awareness if one's never been exposed to them. But there are different kinds of knowledge. The knowledge I lack--many pragmatic strengths, huge areas of thought I wasn't drawn to--I'll never gain completely. I had the enormous gift of liberal arts. Just learning to think.
I don't know if I'm a lazy thinker. Probably I am. Or maybe a simple thinker is a fairer term. If fact + compassion guide a policy, I'm likely to favor it. If fact - compassion seem at play, I likely won't. I'm also drawn to common sense and when I connect the dots about what causes or has laid the groundwork for suffering, my awareness rises. Anyway, one thing I learned is that what we all have in common is much larger than what divides us. I'd rather focus on what we have in common.
Where I live, I experience people newly since the election. I wear a pretty BLM pin on my coat that I got at church; it's a simple thing. I've had small encounters in town that I would not have had otherwise, that have touched me. One young man who works in parking at the Medical Center asked me about it and when I promptly gave it to him he reacted with such emotion. A lady in the grocery beside me suddenly opened up and shared with me her sweet-potato recipe. A checker's face lit up when she saw it. And so on. Every day. Simple as this is, their reactions underscore for me how painful it has been for so many people to be guarded, careful, wary every day...because the assumption was their lives did not matter. Not as much. (Even as a child I saw evidence every day that their fear was reality based.)
I just realize, wearing my pin, that it is a tiny way for me to say, I see you. I have seen your unequal opportunities and struggles and suffering and mistreatment here, in my lovely town, my whole life. I understand your pain not firsthand, but because I feel it. And in this time, I'm going to say so.
I am Hops, hear me squeak roar.
Rambling on, I've never understood the absurdity of taking offense at the statement that Black Lives Matter (as though it states, Only Black Lives Matter, which it does not)...and the lack of empathy for WHY black parents live in terror for their children, a very specific terror most white parents can skip over...that absurd reaction saddens me. BLM is a positive message, and was a flash of brilliance, imo. Likewise, reading books about white privilege is a revelation I'm grateful for. It's so logical and even denial makes sense, too, when you understand how fearful everyone is of the Other.
Anyway, I realize in writing this ramble that I am just telling stories about people, and it all intersects. What you experience as "reasoned debate" to me just feels hostile and makes me sad. That's an emotional construct--I'm a poet partly because of it...and I can't help it, I'm wired that way. I've always been sensitive this way, no matter which political side I have been on. I've never, ever enjoyed passionate arguments that tear others down. Whether I think an argument is "correct" or not. I like light but recoil from fire. (There was hellfire-and-brimstone in my childhood, too.)
I know if we ever met in person I'd hug you and be happy to see you, Mud. Maybe we could volunteer together for some effort that makes sense to both of us.
I hope it happens. Countries do split, and wars happen, dictators rise and civilizations collapse. That's history. If love's going to win it needs to win everywhere.
Hops
-
The problem is all that rambling sounds compassionate but in the real world it leads to more misery not less.
Sentiment is worth less than zero when it meets the hard edge of human nature. There is for instance no compassion in patronizingly feeling sympathy for the fear of the mother of a black child at the hands of the police when he is at least 1,000 times as likely to be killed by another black child.
After 50 years of a war on poverty based on the concept of white privilege the poverty rate is the same and the inner cities are if anything worse.
The thing that is killing blacks more than anything is white liberals working out their guilt complexes on them regardless of the consequences.
People die by the thousands due to the policies that have torn their neighborhoods and families apart and you worry that sarcasm isn't appropriate when people suggest doubling down on these murderous policies that will kill and maim thousands more and condemn another generation or two to government dependency and the hopelessness that goes with it.
Under segregation black families were nearly as intact as whites and black teenage unemployment was actually lower than whites. Now, segregation was awful but for the black underclass the last fifty or sixty years of left wing government paternalism has been vastly worse in almost every single category that can be measured. That takes some doing.
So pardon my anger but you're damn right I'm mad when the people who constructed this catastrophe for the most vulnerable members of society ignore what they've wrought and prattle on about checking my privilege when they apparently long ago checked their brains in order to preen about how much they care about the lives they've destroyed. Toss in the almost unspeakable conceit of calling those who oppose what they've done racists and it seems to me the anger is rather more muted than it should be.
Leftism not only means never having to say you're sorry, it provides one with the moral certitude to expect thanks from the ones you should be saying sorry to.
I'm not sure why those on the left side of the spectrum are so unhappy. You won. You told us drugs are fun and the most vulnerable believed you and now swim in a sea of narcotics and opiods. You told us we needed a sexual revolution and that marriage was old fashioned and that we should pay mothers without husbands. We now have a legitimacy rate approaching single digits, abortions vastly disproportionately hitting blacks, roving bands of fatherless boys killing each other and almost total devastation of black inner city families. You told us we needed open borders and now the same pathologies are hitting Hispanic neighborhoods and illegal aliens are soaking up the entry level jobs black youth used to use to get a foot on the ladder. You told us blacks lagged because of whitey's racism and privilege and so black youth don't even try anymore because somebody owes them an "A" and a job or the dole.
You told us progressive policies were what were needed and after decades of almost complete progressive rule of every major city the poor black population is in worse shape than before. You told us black criminals were really victims and we went soft on crime and the crime rate soared. Who were the victims? White professors and politicians who told them criminals were really victims? No their black neighbors were the overwhelming victims of the crime wave. Thank God common sense prevailed and the crime rate was brought down, but now the left whines about "mass incarceration" and if they have their way they and the BLM crowd mouthing the same platitudes will unleash another crime wave on the poor black neighbors of the thugs the left wants freed.
Congratulations. The left won.
That's why people are so ticked off: when the left wins everybody else loses.
mud
-
BTW;
ig·no·ra·mus (ĭg′nə-rā′məs) n.
An ignorant person.
I didn't miss the sympathy. I found it underwhelming when she said we are ignorant.
How'd you miss the insult? More importantly why did you approvingly repeat it?
We're not ignorant and the vast majority of us are not any of the things the left accuses us of so they don't have to debate ideas; a debate they invariably lose.
We're sick of the arrogant, casual insults and the supercilious condescension and projection by people who are routinely wrong and who are locked into a rigid ideology that prevents their admission they're wrong but instead prompts them to become ever more condescending and averse to debating ideas.
There are a few relatively gentle souls like you but unfortunately you are, in my experience, more the exception than the rule.
mud
-
Mud:
Does Trump never remind you of your brother or his way of operating in the world?
I was struck hard by similarities between my husband and Trump during the election.
Think for a moment .....Any simarity at all?
Lighter
-
Trump and my brother are dissimilar in ways too numerous to count and similar in very few and those are superficial. In fact I suspect a neutral third party with their perspective not ensnared in politics would almost certainly note that my dear brother shares many, many more personality traits with the 44th president rather than the 45th.
Regardless, personalities are irrelevant to good policy and a political philosophy that sustains life, liberty and property and those are the things that interest me in the political realm, not how somebody feels or makes other people feel.
Feelings are for the Hallmark Channel. Thought, experience, reason and the basic morality that government's only legitimate purposes are to protect the country from foreign threats and from one citizen harming another are for political philosophy.
mud
-
Mud:
If you leave out party politics, are you saying that your brother shares the moral fiber and character of #44, and not with #45?
Lighter
-
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
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
-
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;
Is a "tactical pivot" a nice way of saying "lie"?
mud
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
-
Well said, mud. We're on the same page (all of it).
-
Thanks SKePTiKaL.
Are you gonna be down at the Reichstag tonight for the big bonfire so we can get this party started? :)
Mud
-
LOL... well no; I'll have to take a rain check mud. I'm digging down deep into the earth and rocks in a desperate attempt to finally become unimportant enough and invisible enough - that the maelstrom passes me by. Different strokes...
But, I'm going to pass on an idea I had, that I believe you could do a much better job with, than I could. I was thinking that it's past time to write an essay about Freedom; and what Americans traditionally believed in -- and perhaps enough of the why they believed in it, to point people in the right direction for their own reflection on it. Sort of a touch-stone to those principles that have morphed into the opposite, in the name of "reinventing the wheel" for "progress". Not a reverse evangelisizing; just a "here, read this and THINK about it" piece.
Soon, the noise-levels will be too loud for something like this to get noticed. It may already be that way. But we have to TRY.
As for politics, here... I'm going back to my old practice of never asking who someone voted for, and not talking about my vote (it used to be impolite); same with not discussing politics and religion in "mixed company". Society is trying to compel "over sharing" and it's a contributing factor in some of the insanity I'm seeing play out in public. So much of what is driving things nutz is making public the things which should be private, IMO.
It would take a long time for me to search out my old comments on duality and the realizations I had about how dualities and either/or choices are used to muster reluctant people in choosing sides and
"making war" over those limited choices when I know for a FACT that there is more than two sides, choices and ways forward. The power of "AND", for instance.
And besides, y'all are all my friends. No matter your political persuasion; that's IRRELEVANT to whether we can care about each other or not and trust each other. But that's not a message that anyone is open to hearing these days, and it'll make me roadkill in certain circles. But I can SAY THAT here, and it's OK.
And for that, I'm immensely grateful and I love y'all. Warts & all. LOL.
-
IMO, this place should not be used for political discussions, period.
With the political rhetoric as divided and as extreme as it is virtually everywhere else, what I took to be a place for people to have a voice presents people with same choice Ns do; shut up and shut down in the face of what amounts to a personal attack or respond and become enmeshed in a bitter, rancorous, interminable fight.
"The personal is political" POV is a cancer on the nation expressly designed to divide and inflame people by assigning everyone an identity, whether they want it or agree with it or not, of "you're either for us or against us" personal friend or foe status. Those who disagree are no longer wrong in good faith or believe differently because they prioritize differently but in legitimate ways, they're wrong because they're ignorant hicks led astray by hucksters and pompadoured televangelists, they're greedy racists who want little black kids with big eyes and distended bellies to starve and they're evil authoritarians who long for Kristallnacht becoming a day ending in y.
That's not only a perfect recipe for voicelessness, it's hard to see it as anything other than a calculated attempt to induce voicelessness. There are literally thousands of forums for people to shout their political voices with their thumb on the caps lock key, but very few, perhaps only one, for those who've had their voices stolen or suppressed.
Mud
-
Mudpuppy,
You are so articulate and scathingly brilliant that I hesitate to jump in and say that you are loved. Ever since your wife died you seem to be so hurt and in such a brilliant way that it is hard to let you know that you are welcome here and even your anger is welcome here. Pretty confusing but welcome. I personally don't have enough ego strength to withstand your angry barbs but you still belong.
I think you will always win a discussion, debate or argument because you can. You can hammer the begeezus out of any point you want to make. For Pete's sake you are the Mudpuppy guy and brought us the Mudpuppy song. That is a dorky thing to say maybe.
I asked a Tibetan monk how the lamas and nuns who were tortured for years in a Chinese prison survived the experience and were not destroyed. He said that they believed that nothing was more important than their belief in being connected to a higher power, compassion and love. When the angry man or woman offers some horrible, ugly thought the Tibetans treated it as a gift that was not suitable or welcome. So they would say , Thank you for offering me your anger, but no thank you.
I accept you and care for you but I do not want your anger. Especially not righteous anger as it makes me feel quite queasy.
So, after all that I want to say that you are welcome. And who cares what any of us think, you are welcome because you say you are welcome. Not because anyone here says you are welcome. There. I can see you standing in a bright glow of welcoming yourself and no longer walking into the arena feeling attacked and loathed. You are tremendously valuable and your voice deserves to be heard. I don't know how you got into the state of feeling shunned here or anywhere else. You just are not shunned and unwelcome. It is confusing when you talk like that. You are a tad too smart for me to fully get what you are saying when you talk politics and you get so mad.
God .... I need a cup of tea.... Bye for now
-
I had one of those brain fart ideas pop into my head the more I thought about the idea: "The personal is political". Or maybe, it's more correct to say Twiggy pointed out something that should've been obvious about it.
It's akin to saying that a machine is a gear; or that a fish is a rhinocerous. Apples and oranges. And parts are not equal to the sum of the parts. A process or method is not the same as an entity, or person.
And the reason is because of BOUNDARIES and subordination. There are a whole lot of things that are blurred, merged, and smooshed into that slogan...in un-natural ways.
Just like a person isn't identical to what they do as an occupation, my personal experience, being, and life is not; can NOT be political. Politics requires a group - even as small as 2 - to even exist. (Barring the occasional person who's schizophrenic or has multiple personalities, of course.)
Politics is a system of "persons" who agree and consent to a set of rules governing their behavior in the acts of cooperating, working together, being in a group for a PURPOSE... usually defined as well-being, success, or "security". And here is the first boundary... there is the group, the system, and a person.
I think we can all agree that behavior is separate and subordinate to the person-entity. There is a boundary between them. The person IS - and can be many things without interfering or constraining another person. It is what a person DOES - behavior - that impacts, for good or ill, the other persons around them. I can control my behavior - sometimes temporarily, definitely by choice and intent - or NOT. I often choose not to smoke around people, for instance. I can control that behavior and therefore it is subordinate to my "being"... and there is a boundary between my being and that behavior.
So, I'm thinking politics is subordinate to, and separate from... the personal. And like my choice of controlling my behavior - it's fluid and sometimes situationally conditional. Sometimes, because it's always wrong for me to tell another person how to BE. And often, it's none of my business and doesn't impact me at all, how other people behave. Sometimes it DOES, and then it is my business and I have a choice then, about how to behave... and I need intelligent and wise boundaries to protect myself without harming others.
Politics are the mutually accepted definitions/process of regulating behavior among and between groups of people. A group may be said to have a "being"... but each person within the group has their own distinct and separate "being"... therefore a boundary.
That's probably enough of the foundation of the thought-process that plopped a pile of turkey-poop on my head, for you all to think about this on your own. You can see where I'm going with this. And maybe the analogy falls apart further on down the merry little thought-exercise path.
But Twiggy wouldn't let it rest; she tortured me with that "the personal is political/the political is the personal" crap until I started to get it. There is something in it, that's very much akin to an N saying: you're not, never gonna be "good enough"... all because you aren't exactly as the N wants you to be, when they want you to be. There is a very natural and OBVIOUS boundary between the self and what a person IS and what some other person thinks you "ought" to be. (Behavior aside for this bit, although it's not irrelevant here. An N will often confuse and conflate "being" and "behavior in others.)
Maybe I'm overthinking again.
-
Sea,
I'm not particularly brilliant and I'm not particularly angry.
My dander only gets up when people go from saying "I disagree with your views" to "your views make you _____". Fill in the blank with any of the vile epithets that are routinely assigned to anyone that doesn't toe the party line these days; racist, homophobe, Islamophobe, misogynist, greedy, sexist, ageist, genderist, transphobe, Nazi, fascist .
A person routinely accused of being those things would have to be a saint NOT to get angry. They are dismissive, devaluing, false and inflammatory. That in fact is their purpose. To inflame, not debate. They are designed specifically to falsely accuse someone and enrage them. In my humble opinion you might more profitably direct your concern to those who employ them.
This thread started off with the good Doc's daughter essentially accusing me of being a participant in a sexual assault on her person. That kind of rhetoric generates heat not light and so I repeat, I don't think politics is an optimal subject for a board discussing the personal, almost exclusively apolitical pain of being raised by or otherwise attached to Narcissists. Obviously anyone can talk about whatever they want, subject to Doc's admin superpowers, but it seems a cross purpose here.
It especially seems so if to avoid a conflict some are allowed to voice risible claims regarding others and those others are expected to remain Voiceless or be told how scary and angry they are when they're accused of metaphorical sexual assault and other vile things and they respond accordingly. That cycle and dynamic seems awfully reminiscent of what many of us have been through and why we came here in the first place.
I didn't come to this board to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.
mud
-
but much as I have always respected you, I feel intimidated and nearly silenced by your tone.
I've been reading through this thread, not replying, but am finally going to jump in and says yes, I agree with Hops. Someone decided to stir the pot on this thread, left, then returned a few weeks later to revisit it and continue their bullying. And yes, it IS bullying. I'm not comfortable with it, I feel intimidated, and am choosing not to engage in future conversation with this person. That is all.
Kathy
-
Too funny.
This thread began with the accusation I, and people like me, metaphorically sexually assaulted the Doc's daughter and that we are all also, of course, abusers.
I was told I knowingly voted for a racist, misogynist, raping pig and my vote was one which had the KKK dancing in the streets. I was informed if I didn't vote for Trump because he is so obviously a racist bigot it is only because I'm so stupid and uninformed. It was implied that while Trump is not yet a Nazi he is a proto-fascist who is just getting started. I apparently bathe in "fear and ignorance" every evening and powder my behind afterward with "white privilege".
I noted that kind of rhetoric was not justified by anything Trump had actually done in his life, did not lead to reasonable discussions but food fights, was unfair and unkind to the millions of very well informed voters who hate no one and simply disagree with people throwing the epithets and calumnies at them in place of reasonable debate and I noted people who throw stones shouldn't be surprised, if, when some of those stones hit others in the head, that they might want to have a heartfelt word or two with you.
After all the, what I can only describe as, defamations, and my tentative first efforts to get people to dial the rhetoric back a bit and my defense of my positions and criticism of others positions, I'M the one accused of bullying. That's what's too funny.
In reskimming my comments the worst thing that I saw was the claim that the left "checked their brains" when ignoring the catastrophe their policies have wrought in black neighborhoods. That doesn't even rise to the level of an insult compared to the stuff lobbed my way and people like me.
I note it was only after I made prolonged defenses of my position and people started saying "oh it's too hard to argue with you" that the bullying meme arose.
Starting a conversation with libelous insults and then crying "bully" when you can't defend your position seems to me to be the actual bullying.
I've been here a long time and it did me a lot of good, but the fact is this election and the left's bizarre reaction to it, including this preposterous thread, demonstrate I am only welcome here, as I noted at the outset, if I hush my mouf and play the lovable, equanimous mudpuppy role.
If I have to keep my mouth shut and absorb egregious insults about my character and supposed foolishness without defending myself or pointing out where I think other people are mistaken then I am in a system that has taken on too many of the characteristics of the system that drove me here in the first place; my family of origin.
If I have to walk on eggshells and absorb unwarranted abuse and not rock the boat by speaking up to get along at the Voicelessness board then it has moved beyond what it used to be when I first came here; a place to be heard. The truly astonishing thing to me is that otherwise kind and decent people apparently cannot see that the egregious, defamatory rhetoric is not only virtually guaranteed to drive anyone not part of the group spouting it out of this place but is exactly the same kind of reckless, thoughtless, over the top stuff many of us endured at the hands of Ns. And it's the same same 'shut up and conform or be shunned' mentality.
I understand Doc's decision to close the board to new members but IMO that began the downhill trend of making it a small, insulated, coffee-klatch kind of club of like minded pals rather than a place where people going through hell could find a calm port in a storm. Insularity inevitably breeds pressure for conformity and conformity necessarily breeds rejection of those who refuse to conform, especially if they speak up about it.
It was fun while it lasted, but as Sam Goldwyn said "include me out".
mud
-
I understand Doc's decision to close the board to new members but IMO that began the downhill trend of making it a small, insulated, coffee-klatch kind of club of like minded pals rather than a place where people going through hell could find a calm port in a storm.
What you say is true. At least I agree with it. Like any relationship there will be struggles. I don't expect it to be a golden zone of compassion here and there is a normal amount of whinging, complaining and sending out little toxic darts. Human very human. If your statement is a call to make things better and more authentic then that is wonderful. Respond to some sad, sick, brokenhearted soul and there are plenty here. Me included. It is cold and unforgiving out there and I still find refuge here even though I don't share very much.
I am not sure if I am getting lumped in with the insensitive, shallow , koffee klatchers. Just wish you could come for coffee and have a heart to heart ole buddy.
Sea
-
Me too.
I'd drive hours for coffee and a 3-D hug with Mud.
I know we'd be okay.
Hops