Government isn't working for us, people are being taught it's the governments fault. It's the people in government that make government not work for us. Better candidates to choose from would help immensely, but, stop electing republicans is the real solution. Better government is attainable.
You’re correct — there may be agreement at the beginning of a discussion, but where it goes and any solutions offered may contradict the best course of action.
My immediate thoughts are, there's a level above these two directions towards solutions, in which people aren't speaking about the economy. and, what the heck, as an environmental science educator, there's a level above the economy-- the ecology which we almost never talk about properly -- and upon which all life on earth hangs in the balance.
Those who purport to believe in labor, housing, heathcare, human rights, bodily autonomy, and economic support for other people, rarely talk about where those funds will emerge from.
Occasionally they might mention that wars are expensive, the f@#$ing ballroom and other vanity projects are expensive (how many people could eat or get medical care, or be housed with the money tied up in lawsuits and paint around the kennedy center name battle?), but they don't necessarily mention how to reroute those funds, the political processes that need to be engaged to change those priorities, and what if any personal sacrifices might be necessary to create those shifts. (in the Haymarket protests for example, people died and were deported, to achieve the 8 hour workday and breaks we've been unable to retain against all of the union busting, union corruption and violence directed at workers' rights movements.)
Those who believe whole swathes of society are scapegoatable, believe they can retrieve extra funding from uh I don't know, I guess deporting, murdering, or otherwise stripping those other people of any chance to live or live well, and then taking the extra for themselves.
Again, the plan for how the theft and redistribution to the selfish people this appeals to -- from the other probably very hardworking populations -- is not outlined in the political rhetoric. How would that economic redistribution look? Who would enact it? Do these people just expect a violent colonial type settlement, in which they are handed the properties of the people they don't consider also human? Do they have stockpiles of weapons to defend that theft, to do the murdering themselves? Or do they hope it will just be done quietly where they can't see it, and they'll just be oops the beneficiaries of unintentional genocide?
I might know less about what this population is expecting or isn't asking, but I know that the plans to scapegoat might be intentionally vague on the part of the pundits who propose it, because -- and here's sort of the anchor to these thoughts for me -- I don't think those pundits stand to gain from disrupting the difficulties at hand, but just from sparking outrage so they can profit off of the frustrations of the people who can't survive. Which, if we're honest is the same situation for the pundits on the other side?
If people are really hoping to spark change, they would have to be offering more than talking points about what the needed changes are, and asking more questions about how an average person in the U.S. around their impossible work/life schedule has some time and effort to help organize and build movements to address their own concerns -- which if we'rebeing thoughtful about it, are not all of the same concerns. A farming community does not have the same concerns as a community built around a college, or a town with a chemical production facility. These communities might have overlapping, contradictory, or compatible concerns, but they aren't all the same, as is often implied by our dehumanizing political systems which attempt to flatten all of our identities and concerns into homogenized states.
The fact that voting rights are being taken away, and it isn't a bigger deal, seems to me to be happening in part because communities are so fractured and fearful, and don't know how to advocate for our rights other than through representatives. it seems pretty likely as well that some of the people who are going to be disenfranchised as voters are people on the right who hope to disenfranchise others, and will only find themselves less able to speak up for their own needs.
This is so long and rambling, but I believe that my main concern is how people became so passive and easy to manipulate and how to change that state for individuals and communities so that talking points are less of a big deal than community care.
I’ve often observed that in order for a “conspiracy theory” to gain a foothold, it begins with a kernel of truth to grow from. Legitimizing the theory has been accomplished (via the kernel) and expanded upon to satisfy the intended agenda no matter how twisted it can eventually morph into. (Sandy Hook is a perfect example of this warped sense of grievance.)
Government isn't working for us, people are being taught it's the governments fault. It's the people in government that make government not work for us. Better candidates to choose from would help immensely, but, stop electing republicans is the real solution. Better government is attainable.
You’re correct — there may be agreement at the beginning of a discussion, but where it goes and any solutions offered may contradict the best course of action.
My immediate thoughts are, there's a level above these two directions towards solutions, in which people aren't speaking about the economy. and, what the heck, as an environmental science educator, there's a level above the economy-- the ecology which we almost never talk about properly -- and upon which all life on earth hangs in the balance.
Those who purport to believe in labor, housing, heathcare, human rights, bodily autonomy, and economic support for other people, rarely talk about where those funds will emerge from.
Occasionally they might mention that wars are expensive, the f@#$ing ballroom and other vanity projects are expensive (how many people could eat or get medical care, or be housed with the money tied up in lawsuits and paint around the kennedy center name battle?), but they don't necessarily mention how to reroute those funds, the political processes that need to be engaged to change those priorities, and what if any personal sacrifices might be necessary to create those shifts. (in the Haymarket protests for example, people died and were deported, to achieve the 8 hour workday and breaks we've been unable to retain against all of the union busting, union corruption and violence directed at workers' rights movements.)
Those who believe whole swathes of society are scapegoatable, believe they can retrieve extra funding from uh I don't know, I guess deporting, murdering, or otherwise stripping those other people of any chance to live or live well, and then taking the extra for themselves.
Again, the plan for how the theft and redistribution to the selfish people this appeals to -- from the other probably very hardworking populations -- is not outlined in the political rhetoric. How would that economic redistribution look? Who would enact it? Do these people just expect a violent colonial type settlement, in which they are handed the properties of the people they don't consider also human? Do they have stockpiles of weapons to defend that theft, to do the murdering themselves? Or do they hope it will just be done quietly where they can't see it, and they'll just be oops the beneficiaries of unintentional genocide?
I might know less about what this population is expecting or isn't asking, but I know that the plans to scapegoat might be intentionally vague on the part of the pundits who propose it, because -- and here's sort of the anchor to these thoughts for me -- I don't think those pundits stand to gain from disrupting the difficulties at hand, but just from sparking outrage so they can profit off of the frustrations of the people who can't survive. Which, if we're honest is the same situation for the pundits on the other side?
If people are really hoping to spark change, they would have to be offering more than talking points about what the needed changes are, and asking more questions about how an average person in the U.S. around their impossible work/life schedule has some time and effort to help organize and build movements to address their own concerns -- which if we'rebeing thoughtful about it, are not all of the same concerns. A farming community does not have the same concerns as a community built around a college, or a town with a chemical production facility. These communities might have overlapping, contradictory, or compatible concerns, but they aren't all the same, as is often implied by our dehumanizing political systems which attempt to flatten all of our identities and concerns into homogenized states.
The fact that voting rights are being taken away, and it isn't a bigger deal, seems to me to be happening in part because communities are so fractured and fearful, and don't know how to advocate for our rights other than through representatives. it seems pretty likely as well that some of the people who are going to be disenfranchised as voters are people on the right who hope to disenfranchise others, and will only find themselves less able to speak up for their own needs.
This is so long and rambling, but I believe that my main concern is how people became so passive and easy to manipulate and how to change that state for individuals and communities so that talking points are less of a big deal than community care.
Lily, your commentary is on-point. Thanks for your shared thoughts!!
This kind of rhetoric could easily lead some people, down exactly the same rabbit hole that trump took maga down
I’ve often observed that in order for a “conspiracy theory” to gain a foothold, it begins with a kernel of truth to grow from. Legitimizing the theory has been accomplished (via the kernel) and expanded upon to satisfy the intended agenda no matter how twisted it can eventually morph into. (Sandy Hook is a perfect example of this warped sense of grievance.)
This. And it’s dangerous.
Very astute observations David. Thank you.
You’re so right. These people all have their own agendas