In regards of Seattle
So, I've seen a video recently that gave me a little bit to think about. It was made by someone who I would regard
as on the fringes of that whole Dipshit parade, with someone whom that description would also fit on - but that the
thing is that between the things I agree with on both sides of that particular 'Drama' - I'm more so on the side of
the pushback that those "radical leftists" impose.
Now, that whole topic - say, Seattle at large - is possibly somewhat controversial. Some see it as a clear sign that
liberal/leftie politics failed - and others just yet another huge pile of incompetence upon incompetence that is more
so owed to the right than those shitheads would like to admit or accept.
Probably. Maybe they might come around to it.
Let me start with a rather simple comparison. A thought experiment if you so will. Think of a person that is decently
drunk - but is still going to be, well, at least mostly fine the next day. Now imagine, if there were a way to extract
all the alcohol from that person's body at once - and think of yourself for comparison: Would you ... take all that
alcohol that would get you decently hammered, and inject it straight into your heart? We can here talk of a different
situation - as opposed to simply drinking it. I mean, the same is already true between "diluted" and pure ethanol.
Though at the bottom of it we simply take a volume of alcohol and somehow get it into a body, the effects I presume
would vary. And you'd probably be smart for assuming so too.
Now, what this simple example means for the USA in particular, at large, is ... a little bit more complex. And before
I get into it - I want to stress: Solving a problem, properly, would require one to understand it. And in a situation
where there are multiple different takes on what the problem is - the issue might just be that there is more than just
one problem at play. This is why on and off problem solving takes more than knowing one causality chain. Let alone
merely comparing it to something possibly totally else entirely - and thinking to fix the problem by actually solving
that other one. It's like in that scene in Monthy Python's Quest for the Holy Grail where they try to figure out
whether the accused woman is a Witch or not.
And I don't want to pride myself of mistaking apples for pears, as it were.
So, conservatism - at this point in time - prides itself of being the opposition to liberalism having gone too far.
Within it then slumbers a vehemence on returning back to when things were still OK or good somehow - and a lot of
toxic material aligns then with that sentiment. One - I would say: clear sign - of how that would end can be seen
in the things that they proclaim to be OK still. That in general would be 'libertarianism' - but my understanding
is that this is the source of all those problems that the conservative camps like to push onto the liberal ones.
While for once it exalts money, the possession and accumulation of it, above all else, one thing that I think is
thoroughly forgotten thereby, is the life one is to live with it. In the meantime there are furthermore dipshits that
argue - effectively - that gay marriage is bad because the government ought to only sanctify the type of relationship
that produces babies. That kind of rhetoric is as a front for this apparent hatred on life - to hold on to something
that might get people to feel a bit fuzzy about having good ethics or whatever. But still is it, painfully obvious,
a very pragmatic - we might almost say: Bizzarely utilitarian - position in which the concept of ethics and morality
is bent around ... well ... our capacity to make the rich even richer, possibly while driven by this dream that we
might become rich ourselves. What we would do with that wealth ... we might not even know. Other than being glad that
we're not poor of course. That however also only works, if poverty is a legitimate threat. But maybe that was a bit
too quick and a bit too far. So ...
What I described there, could be compared to one of those mechanisms that will allow a thing to go one way, but not
the other - often used to more effectively tighten things up. So - in trying not to be poor - one would pursue wealth.
In pursuing wealth, the mechanisms of wealth accumulation are prioritized - which inevitably creates poverty which in
turn is sought to be avoided. So, if only there were a counter mechanism of sorts; But ... as it appears to me, there
are more than just one of those deadlocks in place.
One has been somehow - apparently - produced in Seattle. So would people speak of drugs, criminality and liberal
politics to be the problem - and in my opinion: Everyone who tends to see it that way, is bent on getting it wrong.
For, these people may in their well intended naivity conjure up ways to help these people out - to then learn that
some of them are quite contempt there. And that ought to pop a bubble. Once that bubble popped - what's left then?
With well enough intention one might be capable of distinguishing between these and those - and focus their efforts
on helping those that can be helped. Being however confused about the rest.
To mend this shattering somewhat, before moving on, here's a word to "digest": Culture. And what manifests there at
the bottom - of it - does already start further up - and I argue that the places it comes from, bathe in wealth.
Or: are bathed in. However you wanna put it.
The mindset of accumulating wealth - applied onto all of a society that must, by virtue of the circumstances, be locked
in a state of inequality - means that some people ought to struggle to accumulate it, well beyond their scope of
... at first: legal opportunity. If then a person is - however straight and personally responsible that person may
be - in a bad spot, as in: About to become homeless, there is one last instance that might prevent that: Culture. Or
society. Family and Friends perhaps - but whatever. It matters not. If that is missing, for whatever reason, a simple
enough verdict is, that this person is alone. And being alone - and homeless - are two problems that open a person
up for a whole new dimension of existence. Forcing them, in a sense, to become part of a culture that managed to somehow
make a life out of that.
The thing is also this: What I think people may not be aware of is, that ... time exists. Well - there is what is called
Survivor's bias. This idea that if something worked out for you, it ought to work out for everyone. But if a person has
exhausted their options - be it to find work, or being capable to stay employed; Or even just finding a place to stay
despite having a job or two - there is no more "it" that they can do. And before some dipshit is to refer me to how
a millionaire can always make their way back out - well, there's know how. Skills. But, before I digress too far ... as
I'm already on a bit of a tangent ... the thing is that if you could say check in with someone once in a week - that can
already be great help. There is however also the entire rest of the week between. And while personal responsibility
matters - what also matters is the outlook. The reasonable, real perspective - as from "Bird View" - that person has
to 'get out'. And that's how we come to talk of "Socialism". Because if you can give a person safety regardless of their
material conditions, you already have that one problem taken care of. That might not rid them of a culture that would
nourish their bad habits - but it would give everyone a much better chance to motivate themselves away from it.
For as it is in the USA, there is no place, or organ or way 'in the Body' for those people to just mingle into the
rest of it. Where it might then get processed and stuff. No, instead: All they can do is try to move the homeless from
one place to another; And wherever they end up, they'd be perceived as some kind of a problem. And the sad thing about
Alcohol poisoning is, that although the body is technically capable of metabolizing the alcohol away, at some point
it's just too much.
And - I don't know if I have to further ... expand on this. The general gist and takeaway isn't going to change. For me
I mean, it's like: How conservatives are condition to be spiteful about the liberal's taken offense in how the police
ever so often conducts itself. So they'd do something like ... say, what has been done in CHAZ. Look at what is certainly
a cauldron of chaos exasperated by their vile behavior - and then just say "nope" to it, well knowing what ought to
happen: Counting on the inevitable. That has nothing to do with being sensible of the issues that are being protested -
it's yet another instance of the very same fucked up behavior.
But so, for further comparison we can look at Portugal. Why would liberal politics work over there - or over here -
but not there? Well, I suppose one argument can be made in favor of population density. I would further try to mention
things such as gentrification and social cohesion. I mean, the more a society is internally on equal footing - the
less rifts will exist within it secluding the ones from the others. And that is yet again something that matters over
here if we talk about migration issues.
Another, though somewhat removed issue is that of capital punishment. Or is it capitol punishment? I spent too much time
on reddit to be sure, I guess. The thing where one would try to 'beat sense' into someone - as, as a means of teaching them ...
responsibility or virtue or whatever. The thing is, I know that the threat of getting beaten never stopped me from
actually ... doing something that would then get me beaten. I at best developed strategies of not getting found out.
One of them entailed hiding under a bed hoping that my dad might forget that I exist.
I think what really made me come to my senses ... was bad conscience. As possibly from seeing my grandfather disappointed.
Or angry. So I tend to believe people when they say that most if not all studies show the same thing - that it doesn't
work. And at the end that might just be a matter of putting mind over body.
Some people then say an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. And ... while there might be merit to that, one fundamental
problem with it is the human factor. Our on and off ability to totally misread a situation. And to, perhaps in fear of
retaliation, not leave it at one eye for for not even an eye, or just one tooth for not even a tooth - maybe try to make
sure that no retaliation could happen. I mean, Israel for instance might defend themselves saying as much as an eye for
an eye and a tooth for a tooth. But - I don't see it. I don't see them listing off exactly how many Hamaz killed - and
detailing for everyone to see how they really just responded in Kind. Instead it's just "OOpps - I guess our missile ...
(mumbling) I mean ... what missile?".
That's not how that is supposed to go!
I mean, we might even say that Hamaz made it easy for them. But that might be ... somewhat tasteless. ...
And yet another view on the problem is seen in Putin. I mean, whatever the fuck he was or is trying to accomplish -
doesn't matter. The way he acts however ... is like just straight up Conservative. Naturally. That would be why all
of those shitheads celebrate him so much. The thing is that clearly his values aren't with the living. They're somewhere
... we might say: Way up his arse ... in the shape of some vision of Russia ... that is as meaningless as US conservative
Anyhow. I think ... I ought to call it a day here ... or maybe not.
I have some thoughts. Another Video I've seen recently - and I'm dismayed over the fruits of this, as tuning into
YouTube these days really just makes me feel miserable, mostly - was on Bill Maher versus Seth McFarla...ne ... the
Family Guy Guy - and while extrapolating in my mind from what I had seen there ... something dawned upon me. And it
fits in really well here. The conservative mindset - regardless of how much they want to portray it otherwise - is
one of "but"s. "But I want to do a genocide", "But I want to treat people like shit", "But I don't want to care about
what others think" - it's a very ... 'Fuck You' mentality - as that conversation there made me realize. So, the whole
"debate" around vaccines. I got to ask: What do 'you' propose we do? Like, as a society. Not take a pandemic seriously?
Not listen to what scientists have to say about it? Not heed the advise of experts? And why? With what degree of competence
can you tell us that you're right while they are not?
It is, as said, all very much "Fuck You".
I Investigated the City that Banned Police...
[Bleep] Confronted And Silenced In College Debate
Seth MacFarlane Rips Bill Maher's Antivax BS To Shreds