Don't worry, even my kids correct me. Every night the news is the same thing, people doing horrible things and other people saying until you go through what they went through. She ain't got nothing but those kids. Well then if you had nothing but those kids why did you leave them home alone to do god knows what?
How does one make the statement, you can't judge until you have walked a mile, knowing damn well given the same set of circumstances most would not have made the same decision. That the vile person you are defended put themselves first and really when it comes to the life of your children most moms will not put themselves first.
I wonder, a lot, whether the problem is not the people "judging" not walking a mile but the people with no regard for human life not walking a mile. I sat here watching the sister of a mom who left her 3 kids under the age of 5 home alone, to die, saying we shouldn't judge because we just don't understand.
What is this nonsense? We understand, we understand just fine. There is just a growing part of our communities who do not understand. They were never loved the way a mom should love them. They do not love their kids the way a mom should love them. Then we are all supposed to be shocked when innocent lives are lost. If these kids even make it to adulthood they have no idea the value of their own lives. I mean no matter what the excuse, and we know it wasn't going to work, in the end this mom did not value her children's lives. It is sad, and it needs to stop.
Monday, October 21, 2019
Sunday, October 20, 2019
Tribalism
I keep seeing people speak of tribes or tribalism. Thing is for tribes to survive you have to be, like minded. So how can conservative or liberal be a tribe? How can skin color be a tribe? How can your religion be a tribe?
It seems to me that tribe is stereotyping. Like you don't want to say I stereotyped someone, I didn't diminish everything that is unique about them, nope, they are this tribe.
One of the things that is so cool about being American is we were kicked out of some of the best countries of the world. We got here in odd ways. What makes us the same is we want to make the best of is. What is wrong with being part of the American tribe.
Instead of finding ways we are different, a different tribe, why can't we try to see how we are the same tribe. We are the same tribe so support the other members of our tribe. That doesn't mean enabling when they fail, it is giving them what they need even if that isn't what the want to hear. We need to remember what it is to love and support. It isn't saying people need to see what is on our plate, it is seeing what is on the plates of others and figuring out if their plate is full.
It seems to me that tribe is stereotyping. Like you don't want to say I stereotyped someone, I didn't diminish everything that is unique about them, nope, they are this tribe.
One of the things that is so cool about being American is we were kicked out of some of the best countries of the world. We got here in odd ways. What makes us the same is we want to make the best of is. What is wrong with being part of the American tribe.
Instead of finding ways we are different, a different tribe, why can't we try to see how we are the same tribe. We are the same tribe so support the other members of our tribe. That doesn't mean enabling when they fail, it is giving them what they need even if that isn't what the want to hear. We need to remember what it is to love and support. It isn't saying people need to see what is on our plate, it is seeing what is on the plates of others and figuring out if their plate is full.
Greetings From Facebook Jail
I have a dear friend who became so frustrated with the vitriol on Facebook they decided to focus on their blog. She is a much, much, better writer than I am so don't considered this an attempt to replicate her process. This is more of a good idea so here we go.
What is obvious to nearly all is something has gone horribly wrong on the interwebs. I am fairly sure if I had the time I could gather 100 people put them on Facebook and have them comment on a specific hot topic for an hour and watch them attack people with opposing opinions. Then take the same group and break them into pods with people from each side of the topic. Of course these pods would be in person. Suddenly the people who said awful things about each other would start talking. So why do people say such things online that they wouldn't think to say in person. I don't know, that is why I am asking. I feel like it has something to do with the hate filled prostests we have seen lately.
I really do not think that if you were sitting at a bar with an alt right or antifa member they would suddenly attack you for what you look like or think. You might talk about the weather. You may even talk about hot topics. A few of your friends show up, a few of their friends, nothing changes. So where does the hate come from? You can have 20 people from each side standing in the street yelling at each other but the same 40 people randomly meeting at a bar, nothing.
I am pondering this because I got placed in FB jail for responding to a post that said to me the same as I dished back. The person then reported my post as bullying and FB dutifully removed it and put me in FB jail. They look only at that one post, the person claiming to be a victim, and no context.
My point is the context is the difference. It seems like the most important thing yet most ignored. It is the context that explains the anger, the hate. This is what I want to discuss, with no one apparently since I have no followers or whatever they call them these days. Why do we ignore the context when it seems to be the most important thing? In my example I believe the side effects are minor compared to the benefits of vaccination, another group believes everyone dies from vaccines and they are more dangerous than nitro. The context is an article that said we are talking about vaccines, now fight. This is no different than these alt right people are going to be here, now fight. The antifa people were be here, now fight. We don't like this statue, now fight. Maybe that isn't context, I really do suck at writing and the English language. I guess I am saying if we aren't looking at why each group is fighting how can we decide who is a victim. I would argue in my case there were no victims. We were both there arguing for our side, nothing more, nothing less.
Alright the yard is calling me to work.
What is obvious to nearly all is something has gone horribly wrong on the interwebs. I am fairly sure if I had the time I could gather 100 people put them on Facebook and have them comment on a specific hot topic for an hour and watch them attack people with opposing opinions. Then take the same group and break them into pods with people from each side of the topic. Of course these pods would be in person. Suddenly the people who said awful things about each other would start talking. So why do people say such things online that they wouldn't think to say in person. I don't know, that is why I am asking. I feel like it has something to do with the hate filled prostests we have seen lately.
I really do not think that if you were sitting at a bar with an alt right or antifa member they would suddenly attack you for what you look like or think. You might talk about the weather. You may even talk about hot topics. A few of your friends show up, a few of their friends, nothing changes. So where does the hate come from? You can have 20 people from each side standing in the street yelling at each other but the same 40 people randomly meeting at a bar, nothing.
I am pondering this because I got placed in FB jail for responding to a post that said to me the same as I dished back. The person then reported my post as bullying and FB dutifully removed it and put me in FB jail. They look only at that one post, the person claiming to be a victim, and no context.
My point is the context is the difference. It seems like the most important thing yet most ignored. It is the context that explains the anger, the hate. This is what I want to discuss, with no one apparently since I have no followers or whatever they call them these days. Why do we ignore the context when it seems to be the most important thing? In my example I believe the side effects are minor compared to the benefits of vaccination, another group believes everyone dies from vaccines and they are more dangerous than nitro. The context is an article that said we are talking about vaccines, now fight. This is no different than these alt right people are going to be here, now fight. The antifa people were be here, now fight. We don't like this statue, now fight. Maybe that isn't context, I really do suck at writing and the English language. I guess I am saying if we aren't looking at why each group is fighting how can we decide who is a victim. I would argue in my case there were no victims. We were both there arguing for our side, nothing more, nothing less.
Alright the yard is calling me to work.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)