Quote:
|
Originally Posted by roachboy
well, i am not sure how you would position arguments along the line of:
the problems the states are experiencing follow in significant measure from the rationality of capitalism itself.
the problems the states are experiencing follows from the tendency to collapse politics into the arrangement of objects in the world, to assume that political arrangements are given in the way a naive epistemology take objects to be. you can see how this claim operates by watching the way in which political frame-assumptions and visual infotainment are combined in television "news" footage. watch them from a naive perspective. it should be obvious.
these two claims operate in tandem, with the first being a condition of possibility for the second.
it either is true, then it would follow that significant change at the political level should follow from a quite radical reassessment of how politics is understood. this reassessment may or may not end up being functional within this particular socio-economic system---following out its logic may end up with a quite radical transformation of the existing state of affairs as a whole.
i say this stuff because i suspect you, pan, would lump it all together under these rather problematic categories of "hate" and "negativity"--when it is neither. you act as though the existing state of affairs is a necessary horizon for all political thinking. i find that assumption to be useless. for me, at least, it is useless. it begs the questions that interest me. and that's all there is to it.
-------------
aside:
at bottom, pan, the problem that arises for me from your particular approach to debate is that i am not sure if you can or are willing to distinguish a radical critique--that is a critique that tries to point to fundamental underlying problems---from what you call "hate" and "negativity"--sometimes i dont think your recognize any distinction between them at all. whence the differends that arise. whence to some extent at least my sense of the community as placing artificial limitations on what can and cannot be said here. this is not a claim to censorship---rather it is a problem that at certain moments i find interesting to engage with and at other moments i dont.
almost inevitably, when period of interpersonal board snarkiness happen between you and i--for example--at its origin is what i take to be your refusal to recognize a difference between types of argument---"hate and negativity" as over against critiques oriented around fundamental or structural problems--the problem is: to deal with structural problems, you have to change the structure itself. it is not a matter of making adjustments within a structure that is itself fucked up. i dont find anything "negative" about saying as much--and i think that you do.
|
It is ok to question the other side and to point out weaknesses and debate, I just feel that there is too much attack and no one offering up any solutions.
If both sides truly want what is best for the country then why doesn't either put forth a viable platform instead of running on "GOP is all Right winged Christian pro big corporate, evil old white men who hate the poor."
or
"The Dems are whacked out wanting to take away all your guns, let drug addicts roam free, tax and spend, they hate the rich and will do all they can to tax business and the rich into bankruptcy."
Or similar such hate.
But look deeply and neither side truly runs on ANYTHING of substance. It's time to push our politicians and ourselves to do better.
Why does one have to take a side? Why cannot one work to find middle ground that all can live with, without having people question his stances or motives?
Therein lies the biggest problem and why we don't see good people get elected. People are so used to the negativity and hate mongering they either don't care anymore or they vote for the person who convinces them that the other guy will do more harm. Is that what we truly want from government and in control of our future?
My belief is you show people positive outlooks and hope and it will spread. Clinton offered that hope. The Contract with America (even though it was discarded and forgotten about and was a PR move) offered a taste of that hope. People voted for that hope. It was crushed because it was for the wrong reasons and because hate mongering continued to saturate politics. Thus people who voted for that hope were disenfranchised and their voices silenced.
It is time for someone, some group, some entity to bring that hope back and prove it can exist and work.
How is this done? Keep plugging along spreading the messages you believe in. Offer debates, if your opponent makes a good point admit it. Keep your positive position and message no matter what happens or who you piss on and eventually people will gravitate toward the positive message and those who are negative will lose. When it is negative vs. negative... all that wins is negative and everyone loses.
To you it maybe useless, but that is you. For the majority it maybe what they want. Politicians that put forth the best most positive plans and not hate. Maybe I am wrong. Maybe people prefer to live in negativity and watch our country be destroyed by parasitic politicians who don't give a damn, by corporate entities that worry only about money, by people who only worry about themselves and not what is best for the future, and what their kids and grandkids will inherit.
I'm sorry, I don't want future Pans cursing me because I left them a bankrupt decrepit country that holds no hope. I want future Pans to know that whether I succeeded or not, whether I was accused of being a radical insane optimist with no grasp on reality, I tried and did what I felt and believed was best for them.
I honestly do not believe there are many politicians that can say that and there are few who post here in Politics that I believe can honestly say that and truly believe it.
It's time we find it in ourselves to do that and to expect our politicians more than any one to strive for, work hard and not back down from it.
In the end, what we do in this lifetime, how we vote, who we elect and the laws they write and get away with.... may not truly be felt by us, but our children, grandchildren and so on will feel it and pay for our mistakes.
Is it not time we do as our grandparents, great-grandparents and so on did for us and build a better country that moves forward and takes positive steps even if at the time they may require some sacrifice and compromise?
Yes Supple, I agree one does need to work on one's self but as you do so, you can find others of the same mindset to help and work with.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Supple Cow
Because the "collective" is nothing more than a mob. A mob doesn't think or care. An individual can. (Whether one does or not is another issue.) I am optimistic, too. I just happen to believe that efforts to control or educate collectives are wasted. I would rather use my energy and time to effect change among individuals. It is not that I have no desire to improve things beyond the scope of my selfish benefit.
Do you personally feel more motivated when an appeal to action comes to you as an individual or as some anonymous member of a collective?
|
I don't see the community as a mob. I see it as individuals each wanting what is best for society as a whole: but lost in the confusion, hatred, selfishness that is brought about by negativity.
If you keep hearing bad news every day, whether true or not you will believe it, prepare for it and adjust your life and attitude so that you can handle it. When filled with negativity, health suffers, mentally you are drained, you can't focus and you fill up with negative energy and emotions.
That is what is happening in this country today.
It's time to change that. We can do it. Like I said I can affect my little world only to a degree. But if someone hears me and is influenced then they affect their own little world and make it better and perhaps we join together and affect others who affect others and so on.
I've said this before and if nothing else I say makes any sense to you think long and hard about this and try it in your own life to see how true it is. (Hopefully you try it on something small.)
Negative energy flows downhill... so it covers everything in it's path exerting a minimal amount of energy. So it is very weak. Everyone can see how weak it is.... but it is easy. The majority of politicians, corporations and media use this to their advantage.
Positive energy flows uphill and starts weakly and has to fight to survive. But as it fights to survive it gains strength and presses forward and upward. Each step it gains more and more strength and more and more powerful, so that when it meets negativity there are only 2 possible outcomes. It's strength, might and the belief in it overcomes the negativity and becomes stronger gaining more strength and belief each battle it has as it moves upward.
You don't truly defeat negativity, as you win a battle it just pulls back, condenses and waits for the next battle.
OR
The belief in it is bogged down and the easy way is chosen and negativity didn't have to do anything but wait for the positive influences to get tired and decide to give up.
The option lies within each of us. Recognizing we own that option and we can make the choice and not have the choice made for us can make a difference.... but again it lies solely in how much energy and belief each person wants to put into it.
(I also use that with my clients describing recovery.)