A curious assesment on Trump and political polarization
Nov 16, 2017 22:46:34 GMT
mikediastavrone96 likes this
Post by tobias on Nov 16, 2017 22:46:34 GMT
I curiously just stumbled on Elizabeth Haysom's Tumblr-Blog and I have to say that people who have been locked up in prison for 30 years having a better understanding of Trump than the majority of your politicians (and especially the actual opposing candidate to Trump) is society reaching a new level of surreality (and look at the date people, this really was remarkably early for such an insight). For some background: Haysom is convicted of orchestrating the double murder of her parents (in the '85 when she was 20) for 90 years of prison. I am genuinly a little shocked that she was able to pick this up while being so isolated from the outside world for so long and yet people like Hillary who were right in the middle of it 24/7 for 1,5 years were so entirely unable (or unwilling?) to see it comming. Suffice to say, if it were between Hillary & her, I knew who I'd be voting for. You should btw also revise your criminal justice system as after a certain point if you're no danger to society, there is no reason for people sitting around in your prisons (even costs you money). And I say this even in her case which is even worse than it already sounds because it appears not unlikely (though it is also not certain) that she framed her then boyfriend (who faces a life-sentence which would have been capital punishment if not for the EU) to take the blame despite being innocent (and if this is true she could at any point have just told the truth, though then she would likely never be paroled, wheareas now she should be out when she is 68 at the latest). Though as far as I have gathered he too would actually be in favour of paroling both of them.
Anyway here her text:
Anyway here her text:
April 01, 2016 - In the April 1, 2016 edition of The Week, there is a great cartoon by Ramirez (twitter @ramireztoons). Two guys are standing: one is holding up a large PROTEST sign and is wearing a Professional Protestor Inc. T shirt. The other guy asks: What are you protesting? The protestor responds: Free Speech.
How does one hear the voice of the silenced? Very often too these are the voices that make us uncomfortable; they are voices we don’t particularly want to hear, which is why they are silenced. But if we profess to adore the principle of freedom, we must uphold the right of all to speak. We cannot have a debate and expand our understanding of the world if we silence those with whom we dislike and disagree. Unless of course we just want to be right. Or the only voice. That is a neat and tidy approach to life. Dissent and variety creates confusion and messiness; it is the maelstrom of democracy.
Inexplicably the internet seems to be creating societies of rigidity. I would have imagined that being exposed to the global community, discovering other cultures and rediscovering one’s own when seen through foreign eyes, that the internet would have created a flexible open-minded, independent thinking, curious world. I once imagined fascinating conversations and a renewed sense of both our common humanity and our striking individuality. But my imaginings of the internet world are completely off-base.
Of course, since the beginnings of civilization, people have used propaganda to manipulate those around them. Whether it be the song of the huntsmen, the cave painting of the artist, a stele regaling the exploits of the victorious, books, articles, films, advertising, booming megaphones - we have always used the tools of communication to sway others to our viewpoint. This is the way of things. But the audience should remember, as every school child knows, there’s more than one side to every story. Nothing is black and white, not even racism. And while a closed mind is a terrible thing to tamper with and it is most certainly easier to be mentally lazy and refuse to think, to ask questions - if this, why that? if that, why not this? - the ability to ask good questions and to tease out a thorough understanding of a problem, situation, culture, complaint seems like a vital skill for proponents of freedom, especially leaders of freedom and the free thinking.
But silencing and bullying tactics, the tools of absolutests is a symptom of both a weak argument and insecurity about one’s views. When one is confidant and unafraid, there is no need to restrain others. I disagree frequently with my friends on political, economic, philosophical, and even religious issues. Sometimes they make excellent points that I must consider and digest; I have to rethink my position. Sometimes they must concede to my valid points. We hold our opinions passionately but not rigidly. If I wanted to talk to people who only think as I do, I would talk to the mirror. But I want a lively exchange of ideas, to broaden my knowledge and perspective and that is only possible by listening to others, especially others who differ.
But if the others are silenced how do we hear them?
I have great empathy for the silenced. Using one’s voice, speaking up, takes practice and courage. Those who relentlessly talk – shout – push themselves forward – those who mug the dialogue – who hog the limelight – are skilled at working the crowd. I’m always leery of the eloquent; the glib and oily are slickly artful. It takes practice and commitment to the principles of freedom to listen to the silenced. They may be dull or ridiculous or repugnant. And in the vast landfills of verbiage, who has the time or energy to sift through and discern those without a voice?
Anyone with a modicum of sophistication knows that raw data, information can be interpreted and shaded to provide the concrete “proof” for any story without making it true. Context, history, the weights and shades, even the things unsaid all combine to create a full and accurate picture. Over simplification may make satisfying memes but it is mental junkfood and does not feed our minds or engage our intellects.
Political correctness has created a false front of accepted polite thinking that has silenced how people actually think. And the refreshing attractiveness of Donald Trump for many is that he has bulldozed every false front. People are relieved to come out and say all the things they have really been thinking. This is appalling to those who cling to the social veneer of political correctness. What I find appalling is how liberal thinkers want to silence the Trump thinkers and how the Trump thinkers methodically squelch anyone who disagrees with them. I don’t agree with a single Trumpism but what I hear is that people are afraid and frustrated and those fears and frustrations have not been addressed but have been covered and silenced with the lid of political correctness. Instead of trying to silence these people, leaders should be addressing and answering their issues. Calling Trump and his followers “racists” or “bigots” does not solve the pervasive inequalities and injustices in this country. All it does is add to the climate of fear and alienation and estrangement. I am not surprised by the hate and ignorance of these people; I am surprised and horrified by the stupidity of trying to shut them up instead of listening and engaging in a dialogue to find solutions to the issues.
It now seems in the land of the free one can only express an opinion safely in the company of those who share that same opinion. There is no debate. Just agreement or silence. Can you hear it?
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
Noam Chomsky
The Atlantic.com
How does one hear the voice of the silenced? Very often too these are the voices that make us uncomfortable; they are voices we don’t particularly want to hear, which is why they are silenced. But if we profess to adore the principle of freedom, we must uphold the right of all to speak. We cannot have a debate and expand our understanding of the world if we silence those with whom we dislike and disagree. Unless of course we just want to be right. Or the only voice. That is a neat and tidy approach to life. Dissent and variety creates confusion and messiness; it is the maelstrom of democracy.
Inexplicably the internet seems to be creating societies of rigidity. I would have imagined that being exposed to the global community, discovering other cultures and rediscovering one’s own when seen through foreign eyes, that the internet would have created a flexible open-minded, independent thinking, curious world. I once imagined fascinating conversations and a renewed sense of both our common humanity and our striking individuality. But my imaginings of the internet world are completely off-base.
Of course, since the beginnings of civilization, people have used propaganda to manipulate those around them. Whether it be the song of the huntsmen, the cave painting of the artist, a stele regaling the exploits of the victorious, books, articles, films, advertising, booming megaphones - we have always used the tools of communication to sway others to our viewpoint. This is the way of things. But the audience should remember, as every school child knows, there’s more than one side to every story. Nothing is black and white, not even racism. And while a closed mind is a terrible thing to tamper with and it is most certainly easier to be mentally lazy and refuse to think, to ask questions - if this, why that? if that, why not this? - the ability to ask good questions and to tease out a thorough understanding of a problem, situation, culture, complaint seems like a vital skill for proponents of freedom, especially leaders of freedom and the free thinking.
But silencing and bullying tactics, the tools of absolutests is a symptom of both a weak argument and insecurity about one’s views. When one is confidant and unafraid, there is no need to restrain others. I disagree frequently with my friends on political, economic, philosophical, and even religious issues. Sometimes they make excellent points that I must consider and digest; I have to rethink my position. Sometimes they must concede to my valid points. We hold our opinions passionately but not rigidly. If I wanted to talk to people who only think as I do, I would talk to the mirror. But I want a lively exchange of ideas, to broaden my knowledge and perspective and that is only possible by listening to others, especially others who differ.
But if the others are silenced how do we hear them?
I have great empathy for the silenced. Using one’s voice, speaking up, takes practice and courage. Those who relentlessly talk – shout – push themselves forward – those who mug the dialogue – who hog the limelight – are skilled at working the crowd. I’m always leery of the eloquent; the glib and oily are slickly artful. It takes practice and commitment to the principles of freedom to listen to the silenced. They may be dull or ridiculous or repugnant. And in the vast landfills of verbiage, who has the time or energy to sift through and discern those without a voice?
Anyone with a modicum of sophistication knows that raw data, information can be interpreted and shaded to provide the concrete “proof” for any story without making it true. Context, history, the weights and shades, even the things unsaid all combine to create a full and accurate picture. Over simplification may make satisfying memes but it is mental junkfood and does not feed our minds or engage our intellects.
Political correctness has created a false front of accepted polite thinking that has silenced how people actually think. And the refreshing attractiveness of Donald Trump for many is that he has bulldozed every false front. People are relieved to come out and say all the things they have really been thinking. This is appalling to those who cling to the social veneer of political correctness. What I find appalling is how liberal thinkers want to silence the Trump thinkers and how the Trump thinkers methodically squelch anyone who disagrees with them. I don’t agree with a single Trumpism but what I hear is that people are afraid and frustrated and those fears and frustrations have not been addressed but have been covered and silenced with the lid of political correctness. Instead of trying to silence these people, leaders should be addressing and answering their issues. Calling Trump and his followers “racists” or “bigots” does not solve the pervasive inequalities and injustices in this country. All it does is add to the climate of fear and alienation and estrangement. I am not surprised by the hate and ignorance of these people; I am surprised and horrified by the stupidity of trying to shut them up instead of listening and engaging in a dialogue to find solutions to the issues.
It now seems in the land of the free one can only express an opinion safely in the company of those who share that same opinion. There is no debate. Just agreement or silence. Can you hear it?
“The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion but allow very lively debate within that spectrum.”
Noam Chomsky
The Atlantic.com