HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Waiting For Everyman » Journal
Page: 1

Waiting For Everyman

Profile Information

Gender: Do not display
Home country: USA
Member since: Mon Jun 23, 2008, 12:17 PM
Number of posts: 9,385

About Me

My namesake... http://youtu.be/GgXzWhexJh0 ... If I were asked to recommend only one political / history book it would be this one... http://www.amazon.com/Treason-America-Anton-Chaitkin/dp/0943235006 ... Treason in America: from Aaron Burr to Averell Harriman, by Anton Chaitkin. I do NOT endorse all of the views by Chaitkin external to this book, nor all of his actions, nor all of his associations, but I DO highly recommend this book. It is one every US citizen and everyone interested in its history should read. It it well written, meticulously sourced, and it is eye-opening -- even for those who consider themselves already knowledgeable. If you have not read it before, you need to read it, it is need-to-know information, and what it has to say is not going to be found in many places, if anywhere, else. That is my tip for whoever is passing by.

Journal Archives

You wrote what I was thinking

but didn't have the patience to post.

Judging content by its source is a very RW thing to do, anyway. They train themselves to think in terms of who said something, not whether it was true or valid. They look for people to "trust" and once trusted, then by definition, whatever that source tells them is true. It can be ludicrous nonsense, and they will still insist that it's true because it has been defined as true by their standards. This is why they don't have to care about facts or reality. They don't have to bother to think, and they like that.

I look at it this way: if the worst person in the world made a true statement, would it still be a true statement? And if that true statement is opposed and/or discarded because of who said it, then where does that leave us? It leaves us pretty much where the RW is, with truth by popularity or "trust rating" (based on nothing, usually a "feeling", where meaning has left the building.

I'm not suggesting that we should have a flood of crap sources here, I'm advocating for developing the judgment to evaluate content on its own. Even people who are good at that kind of judgment can always develop better. It's something that should be exercised, all the time. I thought that was a large part of the purpose of this site -- for people to consider things, and decide what they think. Yes, considering the source is one element in judging content, but it is only that -- one element, a beginning point.

People try to categorize other people, and they try to categorize facts/ideas the same way, and it just isn't applicable to either. It's lazy, and it isn't valid.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat May 31, 2014, 04:02 PM (0 replies)

Rights and privileges are two entirely different things.

Rights are the standard of treatment that must be given to everybody by law. It is not optional, it is required. It is illegal to discriminate against members of designated minority groups, or to deny them equal treatment under the law.

For the most part, what people refer to as white privilege or male privilege, is the standard of rights that all are entitled to. It is not something special, or extra. It is the way all are supposed to be treated.

Privilege (by this I mean social privilege, not legal privilege such as attorney client privilege etc.) is in addition to that. It is often arbitrary and subjective. Privileges are not something that can be demanded or enforced. They do not have to be fair, and in fact by definition, they never are fair. They are exceptions to the rules, not the rules themselves. Equal treatment is exactly what privileges are NOT. Today, privilege is largely based on wealth, rather than race or gender: things such as country clubs, private schools, VIP treatment of various kinds, even driving a car is a privilege, not a right. Privileges can also be based simply on preferences: such as who you choose to give a gift to. There's nothing wrong with that, and there's nothing that civil society can do about it.

Racism is the belief that a given race is superior or inferior to another, which I think is obvious nonsense. (At the bottom line of it, I think it comes from people being far too obsessed with comparing themselves to each other, which is a habit of mind that I have low regard for to begin with.)

But I acknowledge that racism exists and that the rights of PoC are violated on a routine basis, such as for instance, within the law enforcement and justice system. I am four-square against that, and support any efforts to end those practices. Ending institutional racism (and sexism, and other abuses of civil rights) is usually a matter of either enforcing the laws that already exist, or changing them. I'm all for helping to do that.

There are rights, and there are privileges, and the two do not overlap. Privilege has nothing to do with attaining equality or equal rights. It is an entirely different subject. That's why I completely reject the use of the term privilege in discussing minority issues. The term is both misleading (in confusing basic concepts) and counterproductive (it focuses attention away from corrective action), two very good reasons for rejecting it.

Where racism exists in society, there should be legal and/or political action to correct it; where racism exists on DU, it should be alerted on. There shouldn't be a big, nebulous, unaddressed racism (or minority rights) problem on DU. That's mostly what I see claimed, that I question.

What I do see, when these issues come up, is about 8 out of 10 people agreeing 100%, and maybe 1 or 2 out of 10 raising an indirect point such as I have here. That is not racism, or sexism, or whatever.

People can disagree with me, they can think I'm wrong about this or anything else of course, that's fine. But this is how I see it. And what I want them to understand is that I'm just as entitled to my opinion as they are. I am not going to change my mind because a couple of people on here don't like it and think they can throw their weight around.

Maligning people's character is something I see done every time one of these issues is brought up, and it is not a legitimate way to discuss anything. To those few who I'm sure will continue to do it anyway... attempting to smear others with intentional lies is just as abusive and just as wrong as being a racist or a sexist.
Posted by Waiting For Everyman | Sat May 10, 2014, 10:26 AM (45 replies)
Go to Page: 1