Very well said, brother.
A world where we can treat each other with the simple assumption of âhuman-nessâ as we do our loved ones is a beautiful idea.
Best we can do is cultivate that universal love and compassion within ourselves and bring it into the world through our daily interactions.
(Lol because âSee, itâs simple - just find enlightenment!â is kind of what Iâm saying đ)
The first step before anything in that regard can be achieved is to stop using the mental frame that arbitrary physical traits define who a person is.
I donât think thatâs the first step. The first step is honest acknowledgment of where things are at. âTaking inventoryâ as some might say.
I hear you that more âseparationâ is unlikely to lead to genuine interpersonal compassion and connection, and itâs true that wokeism has evolved into something gross, because corrupt incentives and institutions use culture war tactics to divide us. However, the real point of acknowledging privilege (whether physical, cultural, or financial) as I did in my OP is not to sew further division. The intent is to recognize the (obvious and indisputable) fact that looking a certain way (white/male/ânormalâ in the USA) inevitably confers on an individual the freedom and safety to avoid those unique flavors of repression, violence, and marginalization that people in minority groups have repeatedly experienced, at a much higher rate than anyone else, over the course of this nationâs existence.
I disagree. Imo, thats analogous to the first step to getting rid of fiat is printing just a little bit to help the poor. Itâs axiomatically losing the fight before even beginning.
Minority groups have been negatively affected explicitly by the thinking that has been targeted to *help* them. The govt âassistedâ communities have been utterly decimated by a bunch of people stuck in a racist mindset with the âgood intentionsâ of helping them. But failing to separate race from condition.
Literally, the problem would fix itself if we stopped making it the most important part of dealing with each other. But we canât, so it wonât.
And it doesnât matter if you want to sow division or not, when you say âas a straight, white maleâ to preface your position, you sow it regardless. Because you literally establish the mental framing that this is a critical part of your argument, and the next time the reader listens to someone else, they immediately think âI wonder if this is a straight white male?â Because you taught them to.
How you think about the problem precedes the solution. EVERY time
I appreciate this nuance. In fact, I can agree that itâs probably not helpful to lead with that, the way I did. (I do think it was unnecessary for my original discussion partner to get so triggered by it that he left,, and I appreciate your ongoing engagement and thoughtful approach to joint truth-seeking even more than I might normally, by contrast).
You may be right, in that it would have been a far more powerful answer to the original question of âhow did trump take away freedomsâ to simply recount his many policies and orders that explicitly or implicitly limited the rights of specific groups of people, and authorized forms of repression against individuals who historically and statistically/invariably already face a dramatically higher share of âpoor treatmentâ by those in our society who hold power than others.
Not sure if I recommended The Color of Law in a previous reply, or if I just thought of it. But it felt very bitcoiner-y to read and I would recommend. Itâs decidedly not a woke culture piece⌠I would zap the fuck out of a Guy Swann audiobook, just sayinâŚ
Thereâs another piece to this that Iâm thinking about.
If the only point in question is whether leading with the point about differences is beneficial or not, the discussion is pretty straightforward.
Where it gets tricky and toxic, though, is the part where many people continue to willingly ignore or deny the existence of âprivilegeâ (defined as the fact that people in the racial/religious majority experience a significant type of ease or freedom in society thatâs frequently defined to minority groups for no reason other than their physical traits). The term âignorantâ (another word thatâs been corrupted by woke institutional incentives) actually comes from âignoreâ. It doesnât mean âstupidâ or âuninformedâ, but rather, âintentionally disregarding the truthâ (generally because the truth is painful or uncomfortable).
So yes, beginning the discussion with âmy life is easier because Iâm whiteâ may be counterproductive (and Iâm not so sure that it is, but I get your point), the flip-side is a common cultural knee-jerk reaction to deny or debate the existence of racial privilege (or institutional racism, systemic injustice/imbalance, etc., call it what you will) and get lost in the weeds there, instead of acknowledging the significant and real impacts of existing cultural dynamics, and then being free to proceed with honesty, compassion, and a goal of increasing every individualâs freedom to maximize their own potential in the world, the market, and within themselves.
I do agree that breaking down false barriers between individuals is necessary, by the way. But to do so without acknowledgment of the real differences in lived experience that relate to different appearances would be inauthentic, incomplete, and undermining of the beautiful and *very real* opportunity to deeply recognize and honor the humanity in each person. My two sats.
honoring the humanity is each person is the exact opposite of equating their situation, their skills, their beliefs, or their opportunity with their race or sex.
it depends who the audience is. one way of speaking doesnât fit all.
and mentioning stuff in one context & particular audience situation is not the same as equating the whole being of someone to those things mentioned.
imho, youâre right too that in many scenarios, talking about race, gender, or whatever is counterproductive.
totally true that in many cases itâs gone way too far with classifying peopleâs âtraitsâ or âcharacteristicsâ or whatever.
itâs like, âser, this is a wendyâs.â
I agree with you entirely, and Iâm decidedly *not* equating onâs character with oneâs physical body.
What Iâm saying is, people in certain bodies experience significantly more abuse and marginalization in a society than people in other bodies. That doesnât define who they are, or what theyâre like or are capable of. Full stop.
It is a fact of this world that an inordinately outsized share of the total discrimination and violence is shouldered by specific minority groups. Recognizing this truth, and by extension recognizing that I have absolutely no real idea what it would be like to experience life through that lens, because my physical incarnation simply isnât one of the usual recipients of racism. Thatâs the simple meaning of racial privilege, and itâs purpose is not to shame or put down someone who experiences that privilege/freedom from oppression. Recognizing it just means that I can honor the truth of my own and othersâ experience, and live with more truth and love as a result. Not turn away from it because some things are hard, and not try to explain it away for fear of how one will be received.
In my experience, itâs only when our movement comes from a place of truth and honesty, can we actually honor and love one another.
Acknowledging difficult truths doesnât mean placing circumstances and physical traits above or before interpersonal communion; rather it creates the space and freedom to move into deeper states of relation, connection, presence, understanding, compassion, and joy.
Itâs sort of like how, if you âpush awayâ or repress a painful experience, it doesnât actually go away, and will actually continue to be a part of your consciousness - but it controls you. Itâs only when you acknowledge, feel, and honor that pain do you become bigger than it, and free from the suffering associated to it.
love is patient. love is kind.
đââď¸â¨đđ
