Is it possible to be white, conservative and not be racist?To Be White and Conservative Is To Be Racist
Roe v. Wade has been sent to the states, I guess. And will be up for vote in the ballots later this year, I guess.
These debates over abortion, I feel, are about religious belief. The arguments that are being made about women’s health are really taking shape around the battle of religious belief, rather than about governance.
First off, the very idea of “inalienable rights” is it self a legal position. There is no such thing as in an alienable right that people are born with essentially; An inalienable right is a right that our government afford citizen people under the law.
It could be that people think an inalienable right is actually something we are born with as human beings regardless of governance, and that could be why no one wants to call out The fact that people are taking the religious position under the guise of science in women’s health — because then that might open up the inevitable insecurity about those people who believe that inalienable rights are not something that government gives us.
Question for those people: What good is an inalienable right if you don’t have the power to keep people from killing you over it?
It’s the inherent irony of religious belief.
However, if we keep governance about trying to keep the peace, and not about the religious questions of what life is or when it begins, then the decision becomes clear: Life is what we do when we’re living with other people.
The problem is that people are arguing about what is life, and not debating about whether or not people will kill each other over this. No one wants to talk about how we are killing people by making them have babies that they don’t wanna have. Because that would have to require of American citizens a little bit too much reflection upon their own ideas of belief and the ramifications of it in real world.
I feel like it’s an elephant in the room that no one wants to talk about. I don’t hear it anywhere. The discussion is about science, or about life. I’m not sure whether these things have anything to do with governance or law in the United States.
I think it’s obvious that people who are pro life are trying to push through a religious agenda because they feel that the United States is a Christian country, or at least a 10 Commandments fairing country.
Perhaps that is an overgeneralization, but it seems all this bickering over Roe versus Wade and women’s rights is really missing the issue of abortion and government in the United States.
The role of government is to mediate between Parties so we don’t kill each other.
Aside from that argument, though, I think the pro-life position really is one which says that all human life is valuable, and so as soon as a fetus is conceived in the womb, it is a human life, and so is valuable, and so is protected under the United States government.
To me, pro-life movement seems like a pipe dream that doesn’t want to face the reality of the situation. They take their religious ideals and then find “science“ which appears to agree with it and support it under the notions of women’s health and etc…
It’s as if they wear blinders to the truth of the reality of the situation of pregnancy. It really is like saying that if someone ended up pregnant then it’s because God deemed that this human being should be allowed to continue to live, and that human beings shouldn’t interfere with that life or else it is murder.
…it’s utterly a religious issue in that respect.
For sure, though, I feel that there should be more resources, mental health, physical health, financial, education, etc. for people in general, let alone would be mothers. Yes, that’s true. Yes we should.
But to make people who end up pregnant continue with their pregnancy by virtue of the fact that they got pregnant, is really just saying that they got pregnant because they are immoral or irresponsible. And in this country, don’t you know, we think that people should be responsible for their actions.
Again, that’s an ethical question, that’s a religious question, because it doesn’t deal with the reality that more people are getting pregnant every day than any pro lifer advocate would want to admit, And getting pregnant more often than any sort of mental health or social system could help to absorb.
I agree, actually, that the question should be put to the states. I think that is the issue of the law, beyond the “inalienable rights” to health issue. The law was not written in such a way to be full-proof, and I think that’s what the Supreme Court is making notice of. So they are returning it to the states, basically, telling everyone that they need to write a better law if we are going to make this right of citizens in the United States to control their own bodies.
That’s my two cents
Thursday night’s first hearing will feature firsthand witnesses to the violence at the U.S. Capitol as well as video clips of testimony from top Trump aides.
— Read on www.huffpost.com/entry/jan-6-committee-first-hearing-capitol-riot_n_62a10863e4b06169ca862faf
—— We get to make our own realities.
This is the basis through which all current political worlds can be found to be reducible to the explanatory of mental health.
That is a very common phrase that has become so ubiquitous to our modern reality, we forget it is a post-modern ideal. From a counseling and mental health standpoint yes, we make our own realities through making meaning.
However, a very simple and basic truth of it is, sure, we get to make our own worlds, but at some point the truth of the universe, big-R, REALITY is coming in and you are going to have to deal with it.
The way that mental health becomes explanatory is happens next.
Those who stick to the total idealism of semantic reality-making get defensive, and double down on the world they have made. This leads to one or both of two things:
- Mental break down, or what we like to call an existential crisis. This is where ultimately the person is faced with the truth of their situation and has to deal with it.
This is mental health, not an existential issue. An existential issue has to with with item #1. The true issue has to do with both items.
That is to say, how do we ethically reconcile our want to enact violence for the righteousness our ethical worlds?
The paradox of modern ontological reckoning is always constitutive. The activity of modern academic theory is a reification that such constitution can be overcome or changed, despite its argumentative semantic content (see. Lyotard as well as Haroway and Barad). X
—-referring to the previous linked essay by Thomas-Pellicer, Ruth, De Lucia, Vito (2016)
This rhetoric describes (it has no agency to inscribe) the inherent offense which thereby we are able to understand modern cosmology as a religious order. In this sense, “ideology” is a theological tenet that shift’s responsibility to Other, away from the horizon of discourse onto an essential spirit, if you will, that is neatly avoided by the religious act itself.
Religion, in the sense, is defined by a categorical offense. A contradiction, but more so, any motional rejection which lay at the core of all identity for modern being.
New materialisms have identified this basic offense as body. …The problem with the academic methodological core is that Word PressBlocks are shite.
Now Stepping back into this post from the basic annoyance of the platform that I have to use in order to post a simple idea (WordPress Blocks)…
The way, process, anti-ontological route, by which the new materialists attempt to overcome the modern faults uses the method in the attempt to overcome it, and thereby denies by its very act the meaning that it proposes.
I’m reading this essay about “re-embodiments“. the basic force of the paper and the ideas there of I generally agree with. However, at the same time, the fact that they have to situate their meaning within traditional discourse is —
as though the argument might be able to dispel the modern categories, the modern polemics, the either/or political foundation through which we find social identity,
—merely shows that they have to rely upon the problem itself in order to give us any sort of idea of overcoming the problem. Basically, they have to tell us that the problem is inherent their solution. And this method, this giving and taking away that we notice of the post modern theorists in general from the 20th century, shows that we are really not getting anywhere but more problem.
The problem is this constituent of being, again, as I agree with the general force of the argument itself, ironically.
Where I differ is in so much as they attempt, often, to do away with certain terms by inventing new terms. Basically, they see that the old terms are embedded in a political discourse of history, so many of the new materialists feel, it seems, that they need to come up with new terms that somehow get beyond or disrupt the old terms. So, instead of using “body“, which, some authors say merely reify the mind-body distinction, they talk about “re-embodiment”.
I say that the use of the word “body” does not necessarily imply mind as a counterpart, and that to think that it does merely shows an orientation in the modern way of being, the modern way of understanding where by everything is political, and discursive at that.
I say that my cup of coffee is a body. The body that is the cup. The body that is the coffee. The body of work that may be any discussion about that cup of coffee. There is no difference in this sense between the body that is the computer monitor in space in front of me, and the body that I inhabit as myself in the universe, and the bodies of knowledge that likewise arise in the universe as such, as a body.
The body of knowledge about myself is of no different quality in itself than the body the computer monitor embraces, constitutes, and embodies in itself. The body of knowledge is no different as a thing that arises in the universe, the body of the universe, than the celestial bodies themselves, the planets as well as the body of forces between them, nor the bodies of knowledge that concern them and are involved with them.
Originally posted on PA Pundits – International: By Alexander Hall ~ Twitter is unleashing a new program to proactively protect the left’s climate …
—-…and my comment:
Here is another example of The Two Routes in practical effect.
The fact of the climate changing is true.
Climate Change is real.
The truth of the climate changing is something human beings must deal with — and will deal with — despite politcal argument about what is real.
To say that Twitter is not being politically neutral in thier allowance of news, as this repost suggest, is to say that what is real is always politically negotiated.
However, to promote this negotiation as though the climate is not involved with human activity is still politically real, and harms humanity by attempting to avoid the truth.
This is the basic issue at hand in our real political world at this point: That what is true takes a while to get an effective foot hold into the political discussion. The debate shows that the truth is not being discussed, but only reality. Over time, the truth of our relationship with the climate will be beyond effective dispute, and reality will have likewise changed.
The overall issue of Climate Change is that we have named the problem, but we have not realized that we are in a relationship with it, with Climate Change, as so have not been able to imagine ourselves in a different situation. In other words, we are in a dysfunctional relationship and we continue to try and fix the relationship, but the “partner” is not having it.
As she does every Saturday, our friend TokyoSand has scoured the ‘Net for the best political cartoons of the week. There are a couple of really …
I’m starting a new political party.
It’s called the Tinkle Boom Boom party.
We are not liberal nor conservative. But we tinkle and we go boom boom into those parties overt agendas.
With the liberals, we tinkle into thier open minded and socially conscious margaritas by pointing out that such open mindedness often really comes off as another conservatism, really a closed mindedness idealism under the guise of being able to hear and appreciate everyone’s views.
And for the conservatives, we go boom boom in their trough of religious glory by dirtying up the water of their crystal clear idealism.
This new party seems most appropriate to our modern times. We have a tinkle boom boom party!
“The true substance of things lay in the depths, while the dramatic power of material churns and crashes like waves on the surface.”
A paraphrase of Graham Harman, I commandeer his polemic to notice a felicity to the actuality of the situation.
We are taught, both religiously and philosophically, that The truth of things lies in our subjectivity. We are taught that all the drama that’s occurring, all the argumentation￼, The passions, the perceptions And conceptions,￼￼ the interaction, is where we are to look for the truth.
We tend to ignore post-structuralism’s critique as merely another subjective argument. Namely, that post-structuralism as a philosophy appears to arise from nowhere, has no basis, ultimately having no substance that could’ve made the argument or pointed out the various things.
And everyone seems to just take that as a given. Indeed the whole comment of Post-structuralism is that subjectivity itself, while involved in these various negotiations of historical and discursive elements, is ultimately repressed by them, the truth of the very interaction repressed, is denied, is excluded from the negotiation itself￼￼ as subjectivity, the knowledge-power. The conclusion that we tend to rely on and work with is that, well, the truth of the matter must be that human beings and the world lie only in their subjectivity.￼
The radical truth which begins to describe the fallacy of orientating substance upon the exchange of materials concerns objects, and ultimately, the truth of the situation.
As this rephrase tells, true substance lay in the shadowy depths.
So ironically, it is a counseling, it is an anthropology, as I call it, which uncovers the true substance of what we’re dealing with between the Selfand the world, what true universal objects are in themselves.
Conventional Philosophy. becomes ultimately this place of politics, this place of “playing around”, at once comedic, at once tragic. We find d that a group of human beings which attempt to find itself and themselves in a substance of material negotiation – ultimately these human beings become fucked up. They don’t know how to behave. They begin to collapse in upon themselves, to create discord and problems everywhere because ultimately the source of “there being” it problematic in insubstantial￼.￼￼
The failure of the enlightenment is the victory of ideological power which subjugates human beings to its whim despite themselves.
It is not “we” that are subjects of ideological power. It is that we are involved with a faith that ideological power is synthetically a priori not only to our own very ontological substance￼￼…
….And the substance of everything in the universe￼
Maybe the political scientists can help us out in this area.
But in reading this story today, some thoughts came up.
In speaking with friends and coworkers and acquaintances, the word “socialism” seems to me just like a buzz word that has no real substance when it comes to what I see as actually occurring.
And with reference to the linked article, it seems that the idea of “dictator ship” has no necessary relation to any political system in the polemical scheme between socialism and democracy. It seems to me that either one of those polemical political situations could lead to a dictator ship. And by that it seems to me that a dictatorship is more of an opportunistic Disease then it is A form of government or governing in the same category as socialism or democracy.
It seems to me that these traditional categories which supposedly define and label systems of government really are more fluid than our traditional definitions would account for.
It seems more that people are drawing upon a traditional base of people, albeit hypothetical constituency of people, that associate themselves with words and definitions that have little basis in the actuality of our current situation.
I wonder if that is really the crisis of the present that we are within right now. Less “post truth”, and more that we are realizing what the human being actually does in history, in so far as we are not exempt from history regardless of any argument we want to make about synchronic Or diachronic situations.
It appears to be more that we have an opportunity to see what it is that human beings actually do. And this opportunity arises due to the saturation of an ability to record events, thoughts, situation’s, etc., due to our ability to have a record that becomes undeniable in its actual substance.
The argumentative positions only means some thing within a certain context, and I believe that we are seeing that this context does not fall into a ubiquitous multiplicity of use, but that the multiplicity of use is one context in which we are able to know things.
I think we are in transition paradigms. Not so much to where everything just falls apart into an atomization where we can’t know anything that is true or that everything is relative, rather, that such relativity indicates one particular orientation or one particular way to understand what is going on. This thing does not argue it away or say that it is invalid or that there’s something more true to be said about the situation, rather, it just says that such the situation needs to be accepted for what it is. And that there’s something to be said, something further to be known about the human being as well as the universe.
Sometimes I feel there are just too many people. And that numbers can amount to a sort of ignorance that the idea of intelligence just cannot account for or educate. Politics then falls outside of mere rationality.
These Trump supporters may be victims of merely being in an environment where they don’t see difference or encounter anyone who thinks differently than themselves. And have little ability to reflect on experience outside their own. Basically, blind and desperately seeking.
Can’t we just lose gracefully? When Trump won, did the other side claim voter fraud and March to Washington saying “it doesn’t add up”? We want honesty ? No. They said “well give him a chance Becuase that’s what America process decided.
I wonder if these people just feel excluded. Have little recourse to a true global identity and feel left out. ? They thus recourse to the only thing they know: Conspiracy and religious belief.
Hmm. It’s really is kind of sad. Somehow, We need to support these people in ther person, to feel empowered and not dumb or stupid.
Truth? Honesty? It appears the “post truth” President has a following of people who want honesty, but they are unable to have a criteria which meets those standards unless they win.
That seems dangerous..
We need to take care of our own, and these people are Americans.
Less a political crisis, and more a mental health crisis/ spiritual crisis:
They are scared.
Ignorance breeds hate.
….. OR… these people are just sore losers and whiners. ￼ 😜