I didn't realize how bad it was in congress, it's practically a blueprint for all the worst elements of groupthink.
What a mess.
Tuesday, November 13, 2018
Sunday, November 4, 2018
Banality of Evil
Thursday, November 1, 2018
Free Marketplace of Ideas
And one more thing, regarding the 'Free Marketplace of Ideas'.
There are things that can screw up a marketplace of ideas just as there are things that screw up economic markets.
It goes into that 'persuasion vs. manipulation' distinction. The whole concept of 'spin', of telling your people the 'party line' when it's isn't your true reasoning, means that you don't believe you can win in the marketplace with the ideas you have.
It shows that you don't think you can persuade someone else to share your belief, don't believe you can win the debate in an honest fight.
I get that you may not feel quite able to articulate your reasons, I just stated I have trouble capturing so much of the things that feed into mine. But I also have faith that there are other people, more articulate than me, who could lay out the arguments well.
This ties in with my complaints about gerrymandering, too.
Because if you think you can't win elections otherwise, what you're really saying is that you don't think your arguments are persuasive enough to get the support you need.
And if you believe them, and if you find them persuasive, then why on earth do you think someone else wouldn't? Just about the only 'reasons' I can think of that don't have the potential to persuade other people are the ones that are inherently selfish.
That is, you can't necessarily persuade other people that you deserve a million dollars (though some people apparently succeed at doing so.)
But if you can articulate why you believe x policy is a good idea, you may be able to persuade someone to change their mind. Depending on the person, and the strength of you argument, of course.
Anyways. Point is that attempts to gerrymander, to outright lie about your reasoning, and to manipulate the public into supporting policies you don't think they otherwise would pretty much destroys the free marketplace of ideas.
There are things that can screw up a marketplace of ideas just as there are things that screw up economic markets.
It goes into that 'persuasion vs. manipulation' distinction. The whole concept of 'spin', of telling your people the 'party line' when it's isn't your true reasoning, means that you don't believe you can win in the marketplace with the ideas you have.
It shows that you don't think you can persuade someone else to share your belief, don't believe you can win the debate in an honest fight.
I get that you may not feel quite able to articulate your reasons, I just stated I have trouble capturing so much of the things that feed into mine. But I also have faith that there are other people, more articulate than me, who could lay out the arguments well.
This ties in with my complaints about gerrymandering, too.
Because if you think you can't win elections otherwise, what you're really saying is that you don't think your arguments are persuasive enough to get the support you need.
And if you believe them, and if you find them persuasive, then why on earth do you think someone else wouldn't? Just about the only 'reasons' I can think of that don't have the potential to persuade other people are the ones that are inherently selfish.
That is, you can't necessarily persuade other people that you deserve a million dollars (though some people apparently succeed at doing so.)
But if you can articulate why you believe x policy is a good idea, you may be able to persuade someone to change their mind. Depending on the person, and the strength of you argument, of course.
Anyways. Point is that attempts to gerrymander, to outright lie about your reasoning, and to manipulate the public into supporting policies you don't think they otherwise would pretty much destroys the free marketplace of ideas.
Continuation of Previous Post
Although I sorted through a lot of thoughts in my previous post, I barely touched on a topic I wanted to delve into a little deeper.
It has to do with that concept of 'fear is the mindkiller', and with free speech.
And the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas'.
I understand the need for gatekeepers, I do. Someone has to help the average person sort fact from fiction, figure out who is credible and who isn't. Part of the furor over recent events is that those previous gatekeepers have lost credibility, and now the door is open for all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. When a significant portion of the population flat out refuses to believe the mainstream media, when the facts themselves seem under dispute, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down.
And yet... and yet the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas', kind of like that ex of mine who bought a Toyota truck, hinges on not being afraid of other people's ideas.
It's the idea that if we take an idea out and really look at it, the best ones will truly win. That we should have the discussions on these topics necessary, that trying to prevent people from speaking (even if they're horrid people, with horrid ideas) is bad.
There's this trend now, tied up with the whole notion of 'don't feed the troll' and 'it's not worth engaging _____' that helps heighten the division and polarization of our time.
I understand why we're not supposed to feed trolls, most of them aren't interested in a discussion anyway, and seem to take pleasure in being disruptive, destructive, and hurtful. And yet that refusal to engage, well...
If there's a 'marketplace of ideas', right now it's as though there are two competing guilds of merchants who refuse to trade with each other, creating two entirely separate markets of ideas.
And so I wonder... I know what I believe. I know, for example, that I believe white supremacy is a stupid concept. I do tend to agree with the xkcd comic on free speech, too.
But trying to articulate all the reasons it's a horrifying idea gets tied up with all sorts of other things.
Perhaps a better way of addressing such things would be to have a big debate, the way we do with christianity and atheism. Let them prepare all their arguments, meet, offer up counter-arguments...
Hmmmm. Anyways. I get the need, when people have been facing oppression for a long period of time, to try to prevent them from dealing with it any more than they have to. Like I, personally, would try to respect someone's wishes on how they ask to be called. I may not get it right all the time, and may forget, but I wouldn't say something deliberately hurtful, or deliberately disrespect their stated wishes.
But banning certain types of speech just makes it go underground, and you lose the opportunity for things like this.
Sure, the people who complain about 'political correctness' can come across as... well, spiteful, hateful and disrespectful. Offended that they have to take into account someone else's feelings.
Consider the 'debate' over saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Now, tbh, I think I say both, at various times, especially if someone said Merry Christmas to me first, or we were talking about Christmas plans, or somesuch.
But I understand why say, a Jewish family might feel alienated and excluded at the constant reminder that they are different. That Christmas is not something they celebrate, and wishing them a Merry Christmas is sort of silly, but it's too tiresome and troublesome to try explaining that to everyone you meet when so many people greet them with "Merry Christmas" come December. That maybe they can shrug it off once or twice, maybe most of them shrug it off, but the sheer pervasiveness becomes an ongoing reminder that they are different. A minority. Not the norm.
And I don't want them to feel that way, don't want them to feel excluded. So yes, I would try to wish people "Happy Holidays", because I don't want people feeling excluded like that. (Even though I sometimes forget.)
The people who vehemently, almost violently, insist that it has to be "Merry Christmas" come across as- well, as some variation of mean, spiteful, or disrespectful. Really, the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit. Because God forbid you be forced to wish someone a "Happy Holidays" instead, as if the good will behind it is somehow different when you change the words. (I know, I know. They're really more offended at having to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Except their very insistence seems to take the 'Christ' out more than any 'Happy Holidays' would.)
Anyways. I value free speech, I think we need to shine light on some of the nastier views rather than drive them underground.
And yet I also value respecting others, no matter what their shape, color, religion, sexual identity, etc. You say you don't want to be called something, or do want to be called something else, and I'll make a good faith effort to do so.
When you add in the issues we've been having in social media, and their role in influence campaigns, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.
Should social media ban accounts that are offensive? Is that censoring them, infringing on free speech? Or saving our discourse? Helping stop the internet from degenerating into trolls and the like?
It's so easy for a troll to spew their hate online, and they can have a large impact on the people they target. Can we address that without banning such speech?
I suppose that's part of why I always like the articles showing someone engaging a troll respectfully, doing a sort of mental jutsu that winds up permanently improving things. It happens, though rarely. I actually have trouble finding one of the examples I'm thinking of, because there's so much advice there on dealing with trolls and articles showing responses to trolls, and none of them was quite what I was looking for.
I suppose that says something about us all, though. That the ones who know how to engage in ways that make a true difference are so rare.
Engagement, true engagement. Why is that so hard to find?
It has to do with that concept of 'fear is the mindkiller', and with free speech.
And the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas'.
I understand the need for gatekeepers, I do. Someone has to help the average person sort fact from fiction, figure out who is credible and who isn't. Part of the furor over recent events is that those previous gatekeepers have lost credibility, and now the door is open for all sorts of crazy conspiracy theories. When a significant portion of the population flat out refuses to believe the mainstream media, when the facts themselves seem under dispute, it's hard to tell what's up and what's down.
And yet... and yet the concept of a 'marketplace of ideas', kind of like that ex of mine who bought a Toyota truck, hinges on not being afraid of other people's ideas.
It's the idea that if we take an idea out and really look at it, the best ones will truly win. That we should have the discussions on these topics necessary, that trying to prevent people from speaking (even if they're horrid people, with horrid ideas) is bad.
There's this trend now, tied up with the whole notion of 'don't feed the troll' and 'it's not worth engaging _____' that helps heighten the division and polarization of our time.
I understand why we're not supposed to feed trolls, most of them aren't interested in a discussion anyway, and seem to take pleasure in being disruptive, destructive, and hurtful. And yet that refusal to engage, well...
If there's a 'marketplace of ideas', right now it's as though there are two competing guilds of merchants who refuse to trade with each other, creating two entirely separate markets of ideas.
And so I wonder... I know what I believe. I know, for example, that I believe white supremacy is a stupid concept. I do tend to agree with the xkcd comic on free speech, too.
But trying to articulate all the reasons it's a horrifying idea gets tied up with all sorts of other things.
Perhaps a better way of addressing such things would be to have a big debate, the way we do with christianity and atheism. Let them prepare all their arguments, meet, offer up counter-arguments...
Hmmmm. Anyways. I get the need, when people have been facing oppression for a long period of time, to try to prevent them from dealing with it any more than they have to. Like I, personally, would try to respect someone's wishes on how they ask to be called. I may not get it right all the time, and may forget, but I wouldn't say something deliberately hurtful, or deliberately disrespect their stated wishes.
But banning certain types of speech just makes it go underground, and you lose the opportunity for things like this.
Sure, the people who complain about 'political correctness' can come across as... well, spiteful, hateful and disrespectful. Offended that they have to take into account someone else's feelings.
Consider the 'debate' over saying Merry Christmas vs. Happy Holidays. Now, tbh, I think I say both, at various times, especially if someone said Merry Christmas to me first, or we were talking about Christmas plans, or somesuch.
But I understand why say, a Jewish family might feel alienated and excluded at the constant reminder that they are different. That Christmas is not something they celebrate, and wishing them a Merry Christmas is sort of silly, but it's too tiresome and troublesome to try explaining that to everyone you meet when so many people greet them with "Merry Christmas" come December. That maybe they can shrug it off once or twice, maybe most of them shrug it off, but the sheer pervasiveness becomes an ongoing reminder that they are different. A minority. Not the norm.
And I don't want them to feel that way, don't want them to feel excluded. So yes, I would try to wish people "Happy Holidays", because I don't want people feeling excluded like that. (Even though I sometimes forget.)
The people who vehemently, almost violently, insist that it has to be "Merry Christmas" come across as- well, as some variation of mean, spiteful, or disrespectful. Really, the exact opposite of the Christmas spirit. Because God forbid you be forced to wish someone a "Happy Holidays" instead, as if the good will behind it is somehow different when you change the words. (I know, I know. They're really more offended at having to take the 'Christ' out of Christmas. Except their very insistence seems to take the 'Christ' out more than any 'Happy Holidays' would.)
Anyways. I value free speech, I think we need to shine light on some of the nastier views rather than drive them underground.
And yet I also value respecting others, no matter what their shape, color, religion, sexual identity, etc. You say you don't want to be called something, or do want to be called something else, and I'll make a good faith effort to do so.
When you add in the issues we've been having in social media, and their role in influence campaigns, and it adds yet another layer of complexity.
Should social media ban accounts that are offensive? Is that censoring them, infringing on free speech? Or saving our discourse? Helping stop the internet from degenerating into trolls and the like?
It's so easy for a troll to spew their hate online, and they can have a large impact on the people they target. Can we address that without banning such speech?
I suppose that's part of why I always like the articles showing someone engaging a troll respectfully, doing a sort of mental jutsu that winds up permanently improving things. It happens, though rarely. I actually have trouble finding one of the examples I'm thinking of, because there's so much advice there on dealing with trolls and articles showing responses to trolls, and none of them was quite what I was looking for.
I suppose that says something about us all, though. That the ones who know how to engage in ways that make a true difference are so rare.
Engagement, true engagement. Why is that so hard to find?
Wednesday, October 31, 2018
Brainstorming
What a crazy time to be alive.
Making sense of things is almost impossible, and I'm not really sure what I'm going to type here. I just felt the need to sort of brainstorm it out.
There are a couple of underlying... assumptions? heuristics? worldviews?
Whatever it is, it tends to shape my perspective on a lot of things. Some of it's pretty basic - like the concept of a 'social contract', and the importance of people feeling like they have some sort of say in their governance. (It's part of why gerrymandering is such a threat to our system. More, I would say, then whatever fears or worries the people instating it have about what would happen if they didn't have power. Undermining the social contract, undermining the connection between the will of the people and their government, is far more of a threat to America than bloated government, high taxes, etc.)
Free speech is good, protecting minority opinions is good. (The problem with lack of gatekeepers to filter out the crap is part of what I wanted to brainstorm here. Protecting minority opinions has similar complications - does it include protecting racists, for example? Otherwise someone is still deciding what is 'acceptable' and what isn't, in which case free speech and protection of minority opinions is really just protection for the ones we agree with. The underlying issues, though... the problems with censoring speech, the ills that occur when minorities are not protected, well... these are values we - the West - have come to over a long period of time. And, unfortunately, they are values that somehow wind up getting challenged. Again and again. It's sad when people who claim to be all about America are somehow the very same people pushing for things that go against the values we fought for and stood for. But that's a really long topic to get on, and I'm not sure I want to do it right now.)
Fear is almost always a bad sign. Fear, the actions/plans/strategies based on fear, and the results of fear-based strategies are almost always bad. To do a mish/mash of two quotes that I saw on a computer screensaver once "Fear is the mindkiller. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I remember reading about the Civil War, decades ago, and thinking 'the fear that the North would outlaw slavery led to the attempted secession of the South, which wound up making their fears realized... and probably even faster than they would have been otherwise.' That is, when we act on fear, we can often lead to the very thing we are afraid of. (So, for white supremacists, letting fear that we will eventually be a minority in America lead to violent actions and upheavals could actually hasten a time when we are, in fact, a minority. But then, idiots like that probably assume - since they're foolish enough to think the color of the skin somehow makes them superior - that they're going to win any coming showdown. Considering how many wars had unpredictable results, I think that's a remarkably foolish gamble. But hey, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.)
So anyways, on to the rambling.
Over a decade ago (how weird, to talk in terms of decades now!) my boyfriend at the time commented on his Toyota truck and the concept of 'buy American'. I am absolutely horrible at quotes, so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning -
He bought the best truck on the market. If they want him to buy American, then America needs to step up and be that best truck on the market.
I know there's a whole bunch of underlying things not addressed here - disparities in the economy that allows certain goods to be manufactured more cheaply for one reason or another, tariffs, transportation, etc. - but I think he brought up a rather good point.
Namely that, when threatened, challenged, and afraid, there are two ways of dealing with it. Step up to the challenge and get even better (in which case, the issues with, say, competition being able to pay lower wages, just becomes a driver for getting even better. A challenge that makes your eventual triumph even more meaningful, since you had a handicap the entire time)... or let fear drive you into trying to protect your position by eliminating the competition somehow. Tariffs, 'buy American' drives, things that allow your existing business to continue to compete even when other businesses might actually be providing a better product at a lower cost. (Again, note that this is a complex topic, especially when you get into what countries like China have been doing to help develop their own domestic businesses. The people pushing for these policies often justify them by saying 'this is what they're doing, so we have to do it as well in order to keep up.)
The underlying reasoning, for all of that, is fear. And as I said above, that's sort of one of the things I consider noteworthy.
In political science, they've noted that previous presidential candidates often spoke positively. Uplifting. We want leaders who challenge us to rise to the occasion. To shoot for the moon. To stand up to the Soviet Union.
Trump. Well. Even though he had some of the typical markers ('Make America Great Again' talks about how great America is) the underlying structure is entirely fear based. We have to 'Make America Great Again', because we no longer think we are. We're somehow losing our greatness, according to some people at least. (And just as Jim Collins described in 'How the Mighty Fall', that fear can make us susceptible to anyone who promises to save us. And so we get some outsider riding in on a white horse to save the day, even though they very often are actually the ones who wind up delivering the final, fatal blow.)
Great presidents encourages us to stand tall and rise to the occasion. Trump, on the other hand, feeds our fears and brings out the worst in everyone. Aside from politics, aside from anything else, seeing the sheer level of pettiness he brings to our political system is horrifying.
And I am disturbed, perturbed, and disappointed in all the various people who allow him to have what influence he has. Because nobody can be a leader when others refuse to follow.
The Republicans in particular have been awfully horrifying with how often they wind up justifying supporting Trump even when it goes against things they used to stand for. Christian conservatives as well, who laud someone who seems like the epitome of everything Jesus stood against.
But hey, that's politics, right? Should I really be surprised at how much people are willing to compromise themselves, at how nicely they can come up with something to justify doing whatever it is that is in their self-interest? Whether that's supporting Trump, or doing shenanigans to try and shape the upcoming midterms in their favor (even when it means closing polling sites and/or moving them to hard-to-reach places, because apparently they'd rather undermine the social contract and disenfranchise US citizens than lose an election.)
And that, right there, is how you know someone's political judgement has been compromised. That the wisdom of our founding fathers, who understood the risks of power and put all sorts of careful checks in place, has been lost by near-sighted people more concerned with staying in power than maintaining the legitimacy of our system.
When did we become so afraid? Why are we so afraid? We're in one of the best positions, as a nation, possible. We're capable of being so much better than this.
Making sense of things is almost impossible, and I'm not really sure what I'm going to type here. I just felt the need to sort of brainstorm it out.
There are a couple of underlying... assumptions? heuristics? worldviews?
Whatever it is, it tends to shape my perspective on a lot of things. Some of it's pretty basic - like the concept of a 'social contract', and the importance of people feeling like they have some sort of say in their governance. (It's part of why gerrymandering is such a threat to our system. More, I would say, then whatever fears or worries the people instating it have about what would happen if they didn't have power. Undermining the social contract, undermining the connection between the will of the people and their government, is far more of a threat to America than bloated government, high taxes, etc.)
Free speech is good, protecting minority opinions is good. (The problem with lack of gatekeepers to filter out the crap is part of what I wanted to brainstorm here. Protecting minority opinions has similar complications - does it include protecting racists, for example? Otherwise someone is still deciding what is 'acceptable' and what isn't, in which case free speech and protection of minority opinions is really just protection for the ones we agree with. The underlying issues, though... the problems with censoring speech, the ills that occur when minorities are not protected, well... these are values we - the West - have come to over a long period of time. And, unfortunately, they are values that somehow wind up getting challenged. Again and again. It's sad when people who claim to be all about America are somehow the very same people pushing for things that go against the values we fought for and stood for. But that's a really long topic to get on, and I'm not sure I want to do it right now.)
Fear is almost always a bad sign. Fear, the actions/plans/strategies based on fear, and the results of fear-based strategies are almost always bad. To do a mish/mash of two quotes that I saw on a computer screensaver once "Fear is the mindkiller. The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." I remember reading about the Civil War, decades ago, and thinking 'the fear that the North would outlaw slavery led to the attempted secession of the South, which wound up making their fears realized... and probably even faster than they would have been otherwise.' That is, when we act on fear, we can often lead to the very thing we are afraid of. (So, for white supremacists, letting fear that we will eventually be a minority in America lead to violent actions and upheavals could actually hasten a time when we are, in fact, a minority. But then, idiots like that probably assume - since they're foolish enough to think the color of the skin somehow makes them superior - that they're going to win any coming showdown. Considering how many wars had unpredictable results, I think that's a remarkably foolish gamble. But hey, nobody has a monopoly on stupidity.)
So anyways, on to the rambling.
Over a decade ago (how weird, to talk in terms of decades now!) my boyfriend at the time commented on his Toyota truck and the concept of 'buy American'. I am absolutely horrible at quotes, so I'll just paraphrase his reasoning -
He bought the best truck on the market. If they want him to buy American, then America needs to step up and be that best truck on the market.
I know there's a whole bunch of underlying things not addressed here - disparities in the economy that allows certain goods to be manufactured more cheaply for one reason or another, tariffs, transportation, etc. - but I think he brought up a rather good point.
Namely that, when threatened, challenged, and afraid, there are two ways of dealing with it. Step up to the challenge and get even better (in which case, the issues with, say, competition being able to pay lower wages, just becomes a driver for getting even better. A challenge that makes your eventual triumph even more meaningful, since you had a handicap the entire time)... or let fear drive you into trying to protect your position by eliminating the competition somehow. Tariffs, 'buy American' drives, things that allow your existing business to continue to compete even when other businesses might actually be providing a better product at a lower cost. (Again, note that this is a complex topic, especially when you get into what countries like China have been doing to help develop their own domestic businesses. The people pushing for these policies often justify them by saying 'this is what they're doing, so we have to do it as well in order to keep up.)
The underlying reasoning, for all of that, is fear. And as I said above, that's sort of one of the things I consider noteworthy.
In political science, they've noted that previous presidential candidates often spoke positively. Uplifting. We want leaders who challenge us to rise to the occasion. To shoot for the moon. To stand up to the Soviet Union.
Trump. Well. Even though he had some of the typical markers ('Make America Great Again' talks about how great America is) the underlying structure is entirely fear based. We have to 'Make America Great Again', because we no longer think we are. We're somehow losing our greatness, according to some people at least. (And just as Jim Collins described in 'How the Mighty Fall', that fear can make us susceptible to anyone who promises to save us. And so we get some outsider riding in on a white horse to save the day, even though they very often are actually the ones who wind up delivering the final, fatal blow.)
Great presidents encourages us to stand tall and rise to the occasion. Trump, on the other hand, feeds our fears and brings out the worst in everyone. Aside from politics, aside from anything else, seeing the sheer level of pettiness he brings to our political system is horrifying.
And I am disturbed, perturbed, and disappointed in all the various people who allow him to have what influence he has. Because nobody can be a leader when others refuse to follow.
The Republicans in particular have been awfully horrifying with how often they wind up justifying supporting Trump even when it goes against things they used to stand for. Christian conservatives as well, who laud someone who seems like the epitome of everything Jesus stood against.
But hey, that's politics, right? Should I really be surprised at how much people are willing to compromise themselves, at how nicely they can come up with something to justify doing whatever it is that is in their self-interest? Whether that's supporting Trump, or doing shenanigans to try and shape the upcoming midterms in their favor (even when it means closing polling sites and/or moving them to hard-to-reach places, because apparently they'd rather undermine the social contract and disenfranchise US citizens than lose an election.)
And that, right there, is how you know someone's political judgement has been compromised. That the wisdom of our founding fathers, who understood the risks of power and put all sorts of careful checks in place, has been lost by near-sighted people more concerned with staying in power than maintaining the legitimacy of our system.
When did we become so afraid? Why are we so afraid? We're in one of the best positions, as a nation, possible. We're capable of being so much better than this.
Interesting China Read
The Economist had an article discussing China's perspective/interpretation of current events in the West.
Monday, October 29, 2018
Pittsburgh Shooting, Trump, Hate
I remember my surprise when a Facebook friend pointed out that Trump's daughter was Jewish. She married a Jew.
Trump gets painted as such a racist piece of s*** that it surprised me to learn about his family. And, to be honest, it made me reconsider some of what I was seeing in the news.
So I didn't really weigh in on the most recent horrific tragedy, but I kind of wanted to highlight this story. Since it discusses precisely that (and the looks on Ivanka and her husband's faces as they watched Trump are truly something.)
I have been... disappointed in the current political environment for all sorts of reasons, and have sort of been taking a break from it. (Which, yes, I'm aware is a privilege... the fact that I can tune things out when it's too much.) Not that I plan on doing nothing, midterms are a week away after all.
But too much of my thoughts and feelings either fall under 'preaching to the choir and unlikely to reach anyone who doesn't already agree with me' or, well, it's been hard to feel like there was any point to writing it, anyway.
Though I do think it's critical, in a time like this, to stand up and say "this isn't right." Whether it's shooting black people at a grocery store or Jews in Pittsburgh, it's not okay.
But... well. I recently took my little to her hometown football game, and it reminded me of how different the vast majority of Americans are from the crap we see on TV. My little, who is friends with a number of black girls (two of whom will be coming to my house tonight, since apparently all three of them are trying out for basketball. I get roped into dropping off or picking up her friends fairly regularly, but I don't mind too much.)
Anyways. A Friday night football game, and the players are white and black and mixed all over. Family members watching- black, white, hispanic, asian...
This is America. The America I saw at Six Flags the other day (my little's mother's birthday is in October, and we have season passes that get upgraded if we use them before the end of the year, so it's sort of become a tradition to go for Fright Fest.) is not what you see in the news. The three of us, with my little's friend (a black girl) drove three hours to Six Flags, where the lines were full of average Americans. Again - black, white, hispanic, asian. Tattooed, pierced, or none at all. People we saw in passing while waiting in line, talked to about various experiences (we got all the way to the front of one line, only for a technical difficulty to prevent us from riding at that time. And chatted with another lady at one point regarding whether or not she'd be able to fit in the seats.)
And it's hard to believe any of them would truly turn on each other.
And yet, there are these shootings. And the stories you hear in the news. And all I can think of is that we do have fringe elements, as there have always been fringe elements.
The problem, I think, with Trump is not necessarily that he himself is hateful. He might be, he might not, he's definitely more complicated than the buffoonish caricature he often comes across as. But he seems perfectly willing to tap into that hatred, and at the very least, to stand aside and say nothing when said 'fringe elements' act.
Since there are always people on the edge, crazies who will overreact, it's hard to say how much a public figure is responsible for other people's actions. But I do know that standard responses are to condemn any actions out of line, and to make it clear that you really don't support and encourage them.
From that perspective, Trump's actions are... underwhelming.
And very, very disturbing.
Trump gets painted as such a racist piece of s*** that it surprised me to learn about his family. And, to be honest, it made me reconsider some of what I was seeing in the news.
So I didn't really weigh in on the most recent horrific tragedy, but I kind of wanted to highlight this story. Since it discusses precisely that (and the looks on Ivanka and her husband's faces as they watched Trump are truly something.)
I have been... disappointed in the current political environment for all sorts of reasons, and have sort of been taking a break from it. (Which, yes, I'm aware is a privilege... the fact that I can tune things out when it's too much.) Not that I plan on doing nothing, midterms are a week away after all.
But too much of my thoughts and feelings either fall under 'preaching to the choir and unlikely to reach anyone who doesn't already agree with me' or, well, it's been hard to feel like there was any point to writing it, anyway.
Though I do think it's critical, in a time like this, to stand up and say "this isn't right." Whether it's shooting black people at a grocery store or Jews in Pittsburgh, it's not okay.
But... well. I recently took my little to her hometown football game, and it reminded me of how different the vast majority of Americans are from the crap we see on TV. My little, who is friends with a number of black girls (two of whom will be coming to my house tonight, since apparently all three of them are trying out for basketball. I get roped into dropping off or picking up her friends fairly regularly, but I don't mind too much.)
Anyways. A Friday night football game, and the players are white and black and mixed all over. Family members watching- black, white, hispanic, asian...
This is America. The America I saw at Six Flags the other day (my little's mother's birthday is in October, and we have season passes that get upgraded if we use them before the end of the year, so it's sort of become a tradition to go for Fright Fest.) is not what you see in the news. The three of us, with my little's friend (a black girl) drove three hours to Six Flags, where the lines were full of average Americans. Again - black, white, hispanic, asian. Tattooed, pierced, or none at all. People we saw in passing while waiting in line, talked to about various experiences (we got all the way to the front of one line, only for a technical difficulty to prevent us from riding at that time. And chatted with another lady at one point regarding whether or not she'd be able to fit in the seats.)
And it's hard to believe any of them would truly turn on each other.
And yet, there are these shootings. And the stories you hear in the news. And all I can think of is that we do have fringe elements, as there have always been fringe elements.
The problem, I think, with Trump is not necessarily that he himself is hateful. He might be, he might not, he's definitely more complicated than the buffoonish caricature he often comes across as. But he seems perfectly willing to tap into that hatred, and at the very least, to stand aside and say nothing when said 'fringe elements' act.
Since there are always people on the edge, crazies who will overreact, it's hard to say how much a public figure is responsible for other people's actions. But I do know that standard responses are to condemn any actions out of line, and to make it clear that you really don't support and encourage them.
From that perspective, Trump's actions are... underwhelming.
And very, very disturbing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)