Well it finally happened, the far right got frightened enough it organised. The unite the right rally shouldn't be a surprise to anyone, there's a growing anti-white sentiment on the internet which gets reflected in real life and a number of threats from the far left to those who oppose their views. This has led to the less secure finding comfort with right wing radicals in white supremacist movements offering safety and a return to greatness. Taking advantage of the classic nostalgia for an age that never existed.
The biggest fan to the flame seems to be violence something we're seeing predominantly from Antifa giving punches and labelling anyone left of Marx a Nazi. Some of those fools call themselves anarchists, simple rule of thumb for noticing anarchists, nice people until you are a serious risk of causing them physical harm. "Buh mah emotions" aren't a reason to attack people, your cognitive dissonance won't kill you, it'll teach you and make you stronger when you learn to read it. We saw similar from BLM last year with some members hunting white people in
Socialism A versus socialism B, globalist socialism versus nationalist socialism. Either way it's 2 same think groups labelling anyone who thinks different as the enemy. Not realising they are so damn alike. Whether it be calling for racial segregation or racial safe spaces or historical revisionism, their similarities outweigh their differences.
I'm not going to touch much on the death of Heather Heyers, her life was tragically cut short when a car driven by someone attending the unite the right rally hit a group of protesters. Everything other than that is speculation at best, at worst attempts to generate more violence. This is what socialist extremists thrive on, confusion and random violence.
Let's take a step back from what we're seeing. There's 2 staunchly opposed sides good versus evil, justifying the use of violence and ostracism. Taoism teaches that good and evil are just subjective terms people use to justify their actions and that's what we're seeing strongly here. Division has been made now who steps in to conquer? It's useful for getting people to want laws surpressing their free expression, invasion of privacy and stricter financial regulation. Ultimately we're all easier to control if we think the same, are afraid to hold seditious materials and those in opposition can't get funding to spread their message. While that seems great now to fight people who's aim is to spread needless hate, down the line it limits individual rights. When dissent becomes illegal the authoritarian establishment will run unchecked. Who benefits? Cynically I'll look at the usual large corporations who need government to regulate them in to existence as the ones to benefit. It will be easier to quell people from challenging you if they think they want your product, can't speak out and generate funds to compete against you.
Lets break down the socialist threat, fascists and communists are 2 sides of the authoritarian coin, both offer unity and the foolish idea that a small number of people are capable of deciding what a large group unable to give their own lives need. Both enforce same think and will quickly label anyone who questions them the enemy, so who do they really threaten? The people these groups really threaten aren't each other but free thinking individuals wanting less authoritarian governance. If previous fascist and communist regimes have demonstrated anything it's the anarchists they get killed first. Anyone who can question motives and stimulate independent thought are a threat, we will be second against the wall after the leaders of the opposition are killed. The sheep underneath clearly want to follow any authoritarian government as long as they get their free stuff, as long as they don't have to think for themselves.
At the end of it all Charlottesville will serve as an effective battle cry to encourage more people into violence and restricting free expression to their own detriment. All we can do is remain calm, fight for free expression, logical reasoning and compassion for others. Never forget if violence begets violence, discourse begets understanding.
I'll wrap this up with a great video from https://fee.org/ .
https://youtu.be/rGFwPGNzQJM
20170819
20170725
Freedom of Expression Under Attack (Again)
Before I start this ramble, let me state I am prochoice. This comes from a place of freedom and liberty, from that place comes my outrage at the following. I've been smacked in the face by prolife placards while the Gardaí (Irish police) do nothing but I'll still defend their right to carry those placards.
At the weekend we saw triumphantalism from progressives over prolife campaigners having their posters confiscated by the Gardaí. These were the usual fare of images of a healthy child, blastocysts, fetuses and the after results of an abortion. This was done on the basis of obscenity laws, in the name of protecting children, ironic, no? This was supported by a few political parties. Whilst they were allowed to continue canvassing they couldn't display images of a medical procedure. When I confronted people on this I got a fairly harsh "learn the law" reply. Another irony people campaigning against an injust law, encouraging people to break the law by going abroad to have an abortion insisting laws should be followed without question. Further irony that the prochoice campaign needed the right to free expression in its early days. Other arguments included "they did it first", "wait until you have kids then you'll see my point of view" and "free expression doesn't extend to imagery".
Now I'll break those down a bit.
They did it first:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a valid point you don't need to lower yourself to your opponents dirty tactics to defend yourself. Perpetuating those tactics damages society as a whole, you can't progress doing the same things over and over again. Gaining one advancement to lose another gains nothing, in this case gaining bodily integrity to lose free expression is not worth it because bodily integrity will be the last thing that will be won.
Logical fallacy:
If you ever need to resort to "when you have kids", "your to young to know", "if you had my experience" and similar to end a debate, you've failed to win a debate. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you, if someone needs a qualifier to see your point of view you haven't explained it properly. Avoiding logical fallacies will help you debate better or help you change your mind, if your argument requires prerequisites that are limited to a subset of people then it's invalid and needs to be redeveloped until you're capable of expressing it.
The law:
"The law is an ass" Charles Dickens. As I said there's a laughable irony in people campaigning against a law, complaining when they perceive a breach of the law. Obscenity laws should only prevent perverts flashing people on the street. Not campaigners using medical imagery or pictures of children crawling around fully clothed. When obscenity laws extend to the removal of medical imagery things are going wrong. Other than the implication of the happy baby crawling is the result of every birth the imagery removed was fact based or the idea that all abortions can lead to infertility, what they use is reasonably science based. Let's play this out, in this brave new world of identity politics we're expected to be sensitive of everyone's God damn foibles all fact based reasoning could be offencive to someone. We've seen this starting in the states with things like "prove gender without using science". If Trump politics will lead the world to Idiocracy, progressivism will lead somewhere much worse.
Offence: (this will be short)
Offence, the inability to control emotional response to a situation. The simple version of offence, "fuck you" can be responded to two ways, "whaa I offended" or "welp that guys a jerk". The more complicated version of offence isn't offence, it's cognitive dissonance, the uneasy feeling someone gets when presented with evidence challenging their views.
Won't somebody please think of the children!:
Don't expect the world to look after your children they're your responsibility. You can't expect the world to stifle itself to make your life easier. Yes raising children is difficult but you can't do it by lying to them pretending the world is wonderful, otherwise your child will grow up to be emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with the world as an adult. There's nasty things out there and you need to teach them how to deal with them.
Free expression is only speech:
No, then it would be free speech. Our thoughts do not only take place as only words therefore the way we convey information from one to another cannot either. If we allow progressivism to flail wildly down this path we'll end up pre-renaissance, in other words the dark ages. Not just called that due to a lack of adequate lighting but due to the lack of enlightened thought. Quite the dichotomy if progressive thinking leads to a lack of enlightenment. Imagery is an essential part of communication, can you explain a complex hydrocarbon without imagery? Can you express the loneliness of Picassos blue nude in words alone? Can you play a video game without pictures? How many people even use MUDs anymore? All these expressions need more than mere words but if progressivism runs rampant nothing will be safe.
Party support:
Given politicians and aspiring politicians seemed ok using an obscenity law to stop their opponents what will they use in a position of power? How can they represent all people when they find the views of some of them obscene? These lead me to the point that the less power a government has the safer people are.
Ultimately freedom of expression is key to a free society. The ability to freely debate produces new ideas. When subjects become taboo we block an avenue of learning. In this case not knowing the potential dangers of abortion could lead people to believe it is completely safe rather than having inherent risks that come with any medical procedure, unlike what prolife campaigners claim that it's always dangerous, between the 2 sides lies the truth. It reaches further than that the more taboo subjects, the more approved speech, the less we can watch and the less we can read, the less we can think, it doesn't matter if we're thinking progressive or conservative as long as we are all thinking the same, the easier we are to manipulate and control. How can you know you're thinking for yourself if you're not allowed to view all sides of a debate? Question everything, believe nothing without investigating it yourself and don't back down until you are satisfied.
At the weekend we saw triumphantalism from progressives over prolife campaigners having their posters confiscated by the Gardaí. These were the usual fare of images of a healthy child, blastocysts, fetuses and the after results of an abortion. This was done on the basis of obscenity laws, in the name of protecting children, ironic, no? This was supported by a few political parties. Whilst they were allowed to continue canvassing they couldn't display images of a medical procedure. When I confronted people on this I got a fairly harsh "learn the law" reply. Another irony people campaigning against an injust law, encouraging people to break the law by going abroad to have an abortion insisting laws should be followed without question. Further irony that the prochoice campaign needed the right to free expression in its early days. Other arguments included "they did it first", "wait until you have kids then you'll see my point of view" and "free expression doesn't extend to imagery".
Now I'll break those down a bit.
They did it first:
Two wrongs don't make a right. If you have a valid point you don't need to lower yourself to your opponents dirty tactics to defend yourself. Perpetuating those tactics damages society as a whole, you can't progress doing the same things over and over again. Gaining one advancement to lose another gains nothing, in this case gaining bodily integrity to lose free expression is not worth it because bodily integrity will be the last thing that will be won.
Logical fallacy:
If you ever need to resort to "when you have kids", "your to young to know", "if you had my experience" and similar to end a debate, you've failed to win a debate. When you make a statement the burden of proof is on you, if someone needs a qualifier to see your point of view you haven't explained it properly. Avoiding logical fallacies will help you debate better or help you change your mind, if your argument requires prerequisites that are limited to a subset of people then it's invalid and needs to be redeveloped until you're capable of expressing it.
The law:
"The law is an ass" Charles Dickens. As I said there's a laughable irony in people campaigning against a law, complaining when they perceive a breach of the law. Obscenity laws should only prevent perverts flashing people on the street. Not campaigners using medical imagery or pictures of children crawling around fully clothed. When obscenity laws extend to the removal of medical imagery things are going wrong. Other than the implication of the happy baby crawling is the result of every birth the imagery removed was fact based or the idea that all abortions can lead to infertility, what they use is reasonably science based. Let's play this out, in this brave new world of identity politics we're expected to be sensitive of everyone's God damn foibles all fact based reasoning could be offencive to someone. We've seen this starting in the states with things like "prove gender without using science". If Trump politics will lead the world to Idiocracy, progressivism will lead somewhere much worse.
Offence: (this will be short)
Offence, the inability to control emotional response to a situation. The simple version of offence, "fuck you" can be responded to two ways, "whaa I offended" or "welp that guys a jerk". The more complicated version of offence isn't offence, it's cognitive dissonance, the uneasy feeling someone gets when presented with evidence challenging their views.
Won't somebody please think of the children!:
Don't expect the world to look after your children they're your responsibility. You can't expect the world to stifle itself to make your life easier. Yes raising children is difficult but you can't do it by lying to them pretending the world is wonderful, otherwise your child will grow up to be emotionally stunted and incapable of dealing with the world as an adult. There's nasty things out there and you need to teach them how to deal with them.
Free expression is only speech:
No, then it would be free speech. Our thoughts do not only take place as only words therefore the way we convey information from one to another cannot either. If we allow progressivism to flail wildly down this path we'll end up pre-renaissance, in other words the dark ages. Not just called that due to a lack of adequate lighting but due to the lack of enlightened thought. Quite the dichotomy if progressive thinking leads to a lack of enlightenment. Imagery is an essential part of communication, can you explain a complex hydrocarbon without imagery? Can you express the loneliness of Picassos blue nude in words alone? Can you play a video game without pictures? How many people even use MUDs anymore? All these expressions need more than mere words but if progressivism runs rampant nothing will be safe.
Party support:
Given politicians and aspiring politicians seemed ok using an obscenity law to stop their opponents what will they use in a position of power? How can they represent all people when they find the views of some of them obscene? These lead me to the point that the less power a government has the safer people are.
Ultimately freedom of expression is key to a free society. The ability to freely debate produces new ideas. When subjects become taboo we block an avenue of learning. In this case not knowing the potential dangers of abortion could lead people to believe it is completely safe rather than having inherent risks that come with any medical procedure, unlike what prolife campaigners claim that it's always dangerous, between the 2 sides lies the truth. It reaches further than that the more taboo subjects, the more approved speech, the less we can watch and the less we can read, the less we can think, it doesn't matter if we're thinking progressive or conservative as long as we are all thinking the same, the easier we are to manipulate and control. How can you know you're thinking for yourself if you're not allowed to view all sides of a debate? Question everything, believe nothing without investigating it yourself and don't back down until you are satisfied.
20170719
Decriminalising Personal
In the wake of the collapse of the medical cannabis bill Catherine Byrne TD (Irish politician) has announced a proposed change to drug policy to change to a health based approach for possession of personal amounts of most drugs like cannabis, heroin and cocaine. I don't want to disrespect Catherine Byrne as she's one of the few politicians to respond to my email on the medical cannabis bill unlike anyone else in Fianna Gael, Labour, Sinn Fein or Fianna Fail. As my local TD this certainly carries favour with me come the next election and has made some great changes in the national drug strategy already, being able to approach it with more evidence based reasoning than most who deem themselves capable of ruling.
I'll briefly touch on the proposed change in policy but it's not the main point of this rant. I think Bill Hicks summed it up best with "sick people do not get better in jail". That is why we need a change in the way people in possession are handled. There's plenty out there about the societal benefits Portugal has experienced due to its change in policy and I recommend you research them yourself. Despite the gross misunderstanding of the benefits of rehabilitation over imprisonment by some at the Irish Times. This seems to be the 140 character attention span millenials are to be cursed with.
On to my main point, given the Oireachtas Health Committees 'it's too difficult' approach to the medical cannabis bill, what chance does a change to drug policy have? Logically no chance. If providing cannabis under a doctors directions under strict guidelines is too difficult how will our government committees cope with the complexities of figuring out personal use, adequate rehabilitation services and the risk of normalising drug use? Remember if you use drugs your of no use to society, regardless of your community work, income/employability or not causing harm to others, your presence is detestable and to quote a judge recently 'you should just leave the country'. Let us not forget the sacrosanct UN convention internationally banning drugs like cannabis, another blocker to the medical cannabis bill. According to our government this is adhered to by all countries, with the incredible blinkered approach ignoring the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Spain, Uruguay and the USA. All of which are not adhering to the aforementioned convention. Nah, those countries don't exist in the eyes of our government.
So there's two ways the changes will go, with the logic above it won't pass or by some amazing corkscrew politics it does pass, so what does that mean? I'm not foolish enough to believe that decriminalising personal amounts is better for people than not allowing medical cannabis and I hope you're not either, but I am paranoid enough to think there's a lot more politicing going on than we're allowed see. I think we will see a change in the drug policy but not for the right reasons. This policy is coming from an established member of Fianna Gael, one of the oldest parties in the country not from an upstart independent who doesn't know his place. Gino Kelly is just a nobody whinging about what people need, he's not their to tow the line and let the big boys play their game. He's even foolish enough to try represent the people who elected him. If we see this policy pass its a clear sign that the supporting bodies to our government are partisan against anyone who is not part of the political establishment. Reinforcing the strength of the established parties further adding to the idea that voting independent is a waste of time because they can't get anything done. The upside if it passes is the health committee will have less argument against any future attempt to implement a medical cannabis bill, as the ground work will already be laid out for people being in possession and going against the almighty UN convention. Maybe they'll even trust doctors to do a job they spent up to 7 years studying to do. Unlike politicians who seem to spend less than 7 minutes studying how to run a country.
I don't know about the rest of you but these sorts of antics seem another step closer to good aule rope day but given those supporting the TDs we'll need a lot more than 158 nooses. Free helicopter rides for communists afterwards too.
I'll briefly touch on the proposed change in policy but it's not the main point of this rant. I think Bill Hicks summed it up best with "sick people do not get better in jail". That is why we need a change in the way people in possession are handled. There's plenty out there about the societal benefits Portugal has experienced due to its change in policy and I recommend you research them yourself. Despite the gross misunderstanding of the benefits of rehabilitation over imprisonment by some at the Irish Times. This seems to be the 140 character attention span millenials are to be cursed with.
On to my main point, given the Oireachtas Health Committees 'it's too difficult' approach to the medical cannabis bill, what chance does a change to drug policy have? Logically no chance. If providing cannabis under a doctors directions under strict guidelines is too difficult how will our government committees cope with the complexities of figuring out personal use, adequate rehabilitation services and the risk of normalising drug use? Remember if you use drugs your of no use to society, regardless of your community work, income/employability or not causing harm to others, your presence is detestable and to quote a judge recently 'you should just leave the country'. Let us not forget the sacrosanct UN convention internationally banning drugs like cannabis, another blocker to the medical cannabis bill. According to our government this is adhered to by all countries, with the incredible blinkered approach ignoring the Netherlands, Switzerland, Portugal, Germany, Finland, Spain, Uruguay and the USA. All of which are not adhering to the aforementioned convention. Nah, those countries don't exist in the eyes of our government.
So there's two ways the changes will go, with the logic above it won't pass or by some amazing corkscrew politics it does pass, so what does that mean? I'm not foolish enough to believe that decriminalising personal amounts is better for people than not allowing medical cannabis and I hope you're not either, but I am paranoid enough to think there's a lot more politicing going on than we're allowed see. I think we will see a change in the drug policy but not for the right reasons. This policy is coming from an established member of Fianna Gael, one of the oldest parties in the country not from an upstart independent who doesn't know his place. Gino Kelly is just a nobody whinging about what people need, he's not their to tow the line and let the big boys play their game. He's even foolish enough to try represent the people who elected him. If we see this policy pass its a clear sign that the supporting bodies to our government are partisan against anyone who is not part of the political establishment. Reinforcing the strength of the established parties further adding to the idea that voting independent is a waste of time because they can't get anything done. The upside if it passes is the health committee will have less argument against any future attempt to implement a medical cannabis bill, as the ground work will already be laid out for people being in possession and going against the almighty UN convention. Maybe they'll even trust doctors to do a job they spent up to 7 years studying to do. Unlike politicians who seem to spend less than 7 minutes studying how to run a country.
I don't know about the rest of you but these sorts of antics seem another step closer to good aule rope day but given those supporting the TDs we'll need a lot more than 158 nooses. Free helicopter rides for communists afterwards too.
20170710
No Reform
Today we got the news that the medical cannabis bill may not pass. One phrase that has been bugging me all day 'Fine Gael TD Kate O’Connell warned: “Convicted drug dealers could secure a licence to supply cannabis.”'. I'll be honest here I'm in that category so maybe I'm more emotional about it, but let's break it down a bit.
People with experience shouldn't use their experience to work a legitimate job. That goes against any concept of freedom of employment and also the common sense of someone working in a field they're good at. Looking at how the government in the states has grown some of the worst weed known to man as reported by Vox governments have no idea what they're doing. How would you like your medicine made by someone who has no idea what they're doing? "Hello pharmacist give me 24 of your finest 'maybe paracetamol' and a pack of 'pin holes passion condoms', please". No I don't think so.
Let's also look at our TDs (Irish politicians) approach to people previously found guilty of crimes. There appears to be an attitude that criminals shouldn't have legitimate business or be a benefit to their society. Our representatives pick and choose who they represent. Should our representatives cause an 'us vs them' attitude in our society? This may seem acceptable to you right now but what if things changed, are you a smoker, enjoy occasional game of poker, like pornography or maybe have a vehicle with after market parts? Because all those things will come into the line of fire in the near future and then you're on the other side, the side that is reprehensible, morally corrupt and do not deserve representation from the people who take a percentage of your wages by force (don't forget, taxation is theft). That's why you need to be outraged by a politicians exclusion of a member of society no matter who they are.
Lastly I'll raise this, this concept that someone with criminal record shouldn't be allowed the same opportunities as someone who doesn't have a criminal record? Does this politician not believe that our criminal justice system is capable of reforming criminals? It's reasonable for them to believe so, what's unreasonable is that they have gotten in to a role that allows them to instigate changes in that area but they don't. Did they end up in a role they didn't understand?
What conclusion can we draw from that? A few things I can speculate, sheer ignorance developed by a sense of superiority. The concept they're better than others, with the nativity that's there's good & evil, that they're the good and only they can defeat the evil. Ignoble glory, to be a leader is to be a great person, surely they wouldn't have won the great democratic popularity contest if they weren't a great person, right? Finally, divide and conquer, politicians like this have something to gain while we're suspicious of each other. So what does Kate O'Connell need to hide or who is she hiding it for?
People with experience shouldn't use their experience to work a legitimate job. That goes against any concept of freedom of employment and also the common sense of someone working in a field they're good at. Looking at how the government in the states has grown some of the worst weed known to man as reported by Vox governments have no idea what they're doing. How would you like your medicine made by someone who has no idea what they're doing? "Hello pharmacist give me 24 of your finest 'maybe paracetamol' and a pack of 'pin holes passion condoms', please". No I don't think so.
Let's also look at our TDs (Irish politicians) approach to people previously found guilty of crimes. There appears to be an attitude that criminals shouldn't have legitimate business or be a benefit to their society. Our representatives pick and choose who they represent. Should our representatives cause an 'us vs them' attitude in our society? This may seem acceptable to you right now but what if things changed, are you a smoker, enjoy occasional game of poker, like pornography or maybe have a vehicle with after market parts? Because all those things will come into the line of fire in the near future and then you're on the other side, the side that is reprehensible, morally corrupt and do not deserve representation from the people who take a percentage of your wages by force (don't forget, taxation is theft). That's why you need to be outraged by a politicians exclusion of a member of society no matter who they are.
Lastly I'll raise this, this concept that someone with criminal record shouldn't be allowed the same opportunities as someone who doesn't have a criminal record? Does this politician not believe that our criminal justice system is capable of reforming criminals? It's reasonable for them to believe so, what's unreasonable is that they have gotten in to a role that allows them to instigate changes in that area but they don't. Did they end up in a role they didn't understand?
What conclusion can we draw from that? A few things I can speculate, sheer ignorance developed by a sense of superiority. The concept they're better than others, with the nativity that's there's good & evil, that they're the good and only they can defeat the evil. Ignoble glory, to be a leader is to be a great person, surely they wouldn't have won the great democratic popularity contest if they weren't a great person, right? Finally, divide and conquer, politicians like this have something to gain while we're suspicious of each other. So what does Kate O'Connell need to hide or who is she hiding it for?
20170704
Progressivism versus Liberalism
If you're a regular reader you know I've posted a few pieces on co-opted movements and methods of control. If not, go back and read them you fuck! Honestly it's been a struggle not come across as a nut trying to convince people the illuminati are controlling us with gay frogs. I think I'm going to fail today.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
I used to consider myself a liberal until liberals started going in a very crazy direction, now we're seeing more and more liberals speaking up, but what are they speaking up against aaaand here's where I'll sound crazy. Liberalism is being co-opted by a controlled body of progressives.
First let me give you my own definition of liberals and progressives.
Liberal:
Person who strongly believes in individual rights but still wants a gummerment to look after and blame when shit goes wrong. Willing and able to debate. Truly open minded i.e. able to change their opinion based on new evidence. Understands that change comes slowly in increments (this point is essential).
Progressive:
Believes that change must happen drastically and immediately. Dogmatic in their beliefs. Believes beliefs are open minded rather than being ready and able to change them. Incapable of "giving a platform" to those who disagree, creating an echo chamber and lack of debate.
Let's look at the causes or should that be triggers? Progressives tend to be people wanting to be angry be it through their own lives not being fulfilling, personal trauma or just never learning to lose, a valuable lesson because sometimes life sucks. They're seeing little trinkets of windmills and tilting their jousts hard. Be it microaggressions, mansplanations or a perceived lack of diversity too name a few, they're ready to use these to attack people and gain a moral high ground. You're probably wanting a bit of an explanation on those and why they're little windmill trinkets, so I'll try.
Microaggressions:
These are subtle mannerisms that people have that perceived as aggressive. This could be holding a door open for a woman "because they're too weak to do it themselves" which isn't the case, holding the door open for the person behind you is just good courtesy. If someone didn't hold the door as I was following and let it swing in my male face I'd give them an earful. Young/old or male/female hold the door for the person behind until they've got a hand on it, it's just decency dammit! The other common microaggression is gesticulating with your hands when talking, most linguists including the great Naom Chomski will agree up to 60% of communication is in body language. Ponder that for a moment, progressives want your communication to be limited by more than half. Liberals won't get angry at good maners, usually accepting they're an integral social glue that keeps us together.
Mansplanation:
This seems to be anytime a man patiently explains something with lots of detail, leaving the recipient feeling condescended in receiving the information. Now imagine the word mumsplanation, that definition would fit that word very well. That approach to explanation isn't gender specific and usually come from a place where an individual has attempted to explain something without success, usually through a lack of clarity without understanding where that lack of clarity comes from. In that case covering everything seems like the best place to work from. This is mere communication issues not male oppression. Though a liberal (or pretty much anyone who isn't a progressive) will accept that communication can fail.
Lack of diversity:
This is a tricky one because it does exist. The question is how to address it. The important thing to point out against positive discrimination is the observation of Thomas Sowell, (paraphrasing here) when an individual is singled out to "benefit" from positive discrimination they often end up in a position they can't handle. Forcing people into positions they're not capable for will also lower standards in any organisation that falls victim to it, in other words do you want the doctor best suited to giving you a colonosocopy or someone who failed their exams? With that what seems to be best for an individual of a minority to succeed is to get the same opportunity to learn and apply for college or work as any other individual. Otherwise we end up a in a situation similar to what we've seen in New York, where teachers no longer have to pass a literacy test, because the test was seen as stopping members of minorities weren't getting teaching jobs. That is a sign of multiple failures within the education system leading up to someone becoming a teacher. That is a can 'o' worms of failings both societal and systematic. Now here's the less comfortable facts to consider, let's look at the observations from the unpopular book 'The Bell Curve' by Charles A. Murray & Richard Herrnstein. This controversial piece on the statistical links between genetics and IQ has caused a lot of irrational explosions from the progressive community, a lot of curious questioning from liberals and outright misinterpretations from the right. Most of the questioning raised will range from does this mean IQ testing is flawed, what are the methods used to generate the averages and most importantly what needs to change in education to ensure everyone has an opportunity to learn in a manner best suited to them? I just need to drop in a brief interjection here, the authors always wanted it noted the outliers on either end of the averages are so far outside that generalising by race for educational methods will be just as damaging as the current educational models. This isn't an exhaustive study but does highlight the need to study it more, which we can see here, demonstrating its not exactly race based but strongly linked to genetics. Now if progressives or the far right get what they want in "protecting cultures" through segregated "safe spaces" (seriously how do they not realise what they're doing?!?) or straight up racial segregation, we won't get the essential mix of genetics that could level the leading field (Dammit people, when will you learn, people is people!). Further to this what if some groups are better in certain situations than others. Steve Bannon pointed out that a disproportionate number of Asians work in board positions in tech, about 16%, a group who make up a little under 7% of the American populace. Should these people lose their jobs in the name of social justice or should they be encouraged to get the best out of life? There is no clear answer to this like the other points I raised but I hope I've highlighted the madness prevalent in progressive ideals.
This causes ever growing divisions within the left and liberal populace, a very obvious divide and conquer move from somewhere. Leaving liberals lost and confused why the only people left to debate when are who they view in their opposition on the right, it's easy to say this is Trumps doing but it's not the left he needs to distract, it's the right and centrists he's let down that have been let down, meanwhile they're distracted by the crazy left. This trend has been happening since before his emergence. Who gains? The obvious enemy is the right, either attempting to get the next generation of voter or discredit their opponent, but most on the right seem more open to debate than ever before. There's not enough gain for them. This is divide and conquer, a group who have more to gain if people are not cohesive and able to recognise a greater threat to them as individuals. All I can do is speculate, shadow governments, globalists, international bankers or the egg Council?
As read back over this I do realise this is a meandering rant, I hope you enjoyed.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)