day made! thank you and big hugs from the ever so fiery near east vortex (same love and same fear though! choosing wisely every moment that i can) #grandpamadeanoopsie
No Mans Land turns into a killing field once the shooting starts! I was aware that the tone on this piece might’ve sounded like a 100% endorsement of current progressive politics. It wasn’t I was focusing on one particular side of tribalism that poses the greatest current risk to the Infinite Game. But when you have folks openly endorsing and planning for a theocratic Christian national state and willing to use violence to achieve it, neutrality is a self satisfied pose, not a higher ethical position. Just ask Swiss bankers and art dealers
You are completely on-point in this cultural observation, and the follows ups in the comment section here. People are always going to try to discourage critically-minded truth-seeking when it doesn't come with a branded endorsement behind it. You are doing great and I just want to be a voice of encouragement to keep going despite the critics telling you some variation of 'writing like this makes things worse'. Your coherence in this space is a stabilizing force. Thank you
thanks for the vote of sanity! honestly just thought that the 3%-3.5% was an interesting symmetry worth writing about and that Pro Publica piece was solid journalism about a concerning backdrop to next election. I can write the craziest stuff about the most outlandish topics and get nothing but positive responses, but go anywhere NEAR an existing culture war shitshow and it's Trigger the Trolls (virtually none of whom, I'd wager, even. bothered reading that ProPublica piece before responding!)
Rather than just living and being a good human, you have to make boxes of people and judge them and put them against each other. That's what most do. Doesn't make for the best outcomes.
yeah, i spend 99% of my time writing being massively impartial, to the point that it can frustrate readers who want me to go beyond framing of all sides of everything. My point here is that militant fundamentalists are a real a direct threat to the democratic experience and neutrality on that point is no longer a virtue. If SJWs were engaging in Marxist struggle sessions and shutting down free speech and autonomy (as they were winding up to a few years ago when things were borderline hysterical) I would be pointing out that danger. I am 100% in favor of strong traditional conservative values. I am not in favor of deranged armed fanatics with a fiery accelerationist vision for our shared future. That's all!
I think I remember you using something like the 3.5% concept in Recapture the Rapture. And it was a good reminder that we don’t 51% to make progress for the average American. That’s hopeful!
But I kind of forgot that perhaps White Nationalists could also attain that percentage.
Jamie, you say, "We’re bitterly debating whether our efforts to find a more perfect union drive us forwards to a more sustainable and inclusive vision of this nation, or backwards to a more ethno-nationalist one." Simply put, I see one political side advocating for the collective good as defined by their side, and I see one political side advocating for the individual rights as enumerated by the Bill of Rights.
Generally speaking, this is a polarity that will never be one sided for long. Dancing with both the individual and the collective is required. Humanity will see growth and thriving potential when we discover how to create social cohesion without violating the individual. My thoughts.
100% for any and all stripes of the political persuasion, PROVIDED the world view they're working towards allows for the autonomous existence of alternate positions! Fundamentalists of any stripe, are lethal (as we've seen in the M. East and elsewhere). The point of that Pro Public article on the 3% militia was documenting their extrajudicial bent that asserts power over others. It's the preservation of our right to keep playing the Infinite Game, where everyone gets a part, that I value and take a stand for. Infinity diversity of opinion, provided none seek to oppress the other. That's the Game that seems like our best collective effort to keep figuring this life thing out together. Fundamentalism (whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Communists or Fascist) seeks to dominate with one true view, vs. creating space in a contested democratic system for all of them. It's more active in the US than anytime in the past century. That was the point of this piece. Not anything resembling a blanket endorsement of Dem policies or Far Left missteps.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm with you in the infinite game and preserving our right to keep playing! Yes, power over and fundamentalism on either side are problems. I guess I see the idea of a militia as a positive when it defends what is theirs. Granted, we see extremes in every camp. The Second Amendment highlighted a well-regulated militia, not a standing army.
day made! thank you and big hugs from the ever so fiery near east vortex (same love and same fear though! choosing wisely every moment that i can) #grandpamadeanoopsie
I'm on neither side. Why pick sides in a hypothetical war?
No Mans Land turns into a killing field once the shooting starts! I was aware that the tone on this piece might’ve sounded like a 100% endorsement of current progressive politics. It wasn’t I was focusing on one particular side of tribalism that poses the greatest current risk to the Infinite Game. But when you have folks openly endorsing and planning for a theocratic Christian national state and willing to use violence to achieve it, neutrality is a self satisfied pose, not a higher ethical position. Just ask Swiss bankers and art dealers
I agree! I'm not sure I would define the two sides the same way Jamie does. It seems this is explained by a liberal side.
You are completely on-point in this cultural observation, and the follows ups in the comment section here. People are always going to try to discourage critically-minded truth-seeking when it doesn't come with a branded endorsement behind it. You are doing great and I just want to be a voice of encouragement to keep going despite the critics telling you some variation of 'writing like this makes things worse'. Your coherence in this space is a stabilizing force. Thank you
thanks for the vote of sanity! honestly just thought that the 3%-3.5% was an interesting symmetry worth writing about and that Pro Publica piece was solid journalism about a concerning backdrop to next election. I can write the craziest stuff about the most outlandish topics and get nothing but positive responses, but go anywhere NEAR an existing culture war shitshow and it's Trigger the Trolls (virtually none of whom, I'd wager, even. bothered reading that ProPublica piece before responding!)
It's writing like this that makes things worse.
You too Jamie are sucked into the fray.
Rather than just living and being a good human, you have to make boxes of people and judge them and put them against each other. That's what most do. Doesn't make for the best outcomes.
yeah, i spend 99% of my time writing being massively impartial, to the point that it can frustrate readers who want me to go beyond framing of all sides of everything. My point here is that militant fundamentalists are a real a direct threat to the democratic experience and neutrality on that point is no longer a virtue. If SJWs were engaging in Marxist struggle sessions and shutting down free speech and autonomy (as they were winding up to a few years ago when things were borderline hysterical) I would be pointing out that danger. I am 100% in favor of strong traditional conservative values. I am not in favor of deranged armed fanatics with a fiery accelerationist vision for our shared future. That's all!
I think I remember you using something like the 3.5% concept in Recapture the Rapture. And it was a good reminder that we don’t 51% to make progress for the average American. That’s hopeful!
But I kind of forgot that perhaps White Nationalists could also attain that percentage.
Let’s beat them to 3.5% at least!
Agreed. And, it seems easier for people to gather the torches and hoods rather than offer a hand across the divide.
Jamie, you say, "We’re bitterly debating whether our efforts to find a more perfect union drive us forwards to a more sustainable and inclusive vision of this nation, or backwards to a more ethno-nationalist one." Simply put, I see one political side advocating for the collective good as defined by their side, and I see one political side advocating for the individual rights as enumerated by the Bill of Rights.
Generally speaking, this is a polarity that will never be one sided for long. Dancing with both the individual and the collective is required. Humanity will see growth and thriving potential when we discover how to create social cohesion without violating the individual. My thoughts.
100% for any and all stripes of the political persuasion, PROVIDED the world view they're working towards allows for the autonomous existence of alternate positions! Fundamentalists of any stripe, are lethal (as we've seen in the M. East and elsewhere). The point of that Pro Public article on the 3% militia was documenting their extrajudicial bent that asserts power over others. It's the preservation of our right to keep playing the Infinite Game, where everyone gets a part, that I value and take a stand for. Infinity diversity of opinion, provided none seek to oppress the other. That's the Game that seems like our best collective effort to keep figuring this life thing out together. Fundamentalism (whether Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Muslim, Communists or Fascist) seeks to dominate with one true view, vs. creating space in a contested democratic system for all of them. It's more active in the US than anytime in the past century. That was the point of this piece. Not anything resembling a blanket endorsement of Dem policies or Far Left missteps.
Thanks for your thoughts. I'm with you in the infinite game and preserving our right to keep playing! Yes, power over and fundamentalism on either side are problems. I guess I see the idea of a militia as a positive when it defends what is theirs. Granted, we see extremes in every camp. The Second Amendment highlighted a well-regulated militia, not a standing army.