Other fun things - caught literally minutes of something with Whoopi Goldberg on CNN.
Other fun things - caught literally minutes of something with Whoopi Goldberg on CNN. She said something about talking with women at the women's march who had voted for Trump. Roughly, they voted for $reasons and when he immediately started doing stuff they didn't agree with, they wanted to let him know.++
Still want to punch things when I hear this kind of stuff. Voting on issues is what we should be able to do. However, if you make one issue overridingly important (like homosexuals, like abortion, etc. - just picking a few from the list that is evidence based for some population segments), you are choosing to take what you get on the other issues.
That doesn't mean you aren't prepared to challenge those positions. I mean, seriously, nobody finds a candidate that's 100% on everything. But own that you made that choice. If you are choosing many issues, or a general philosophy, again, know what you are choosing.
Further, know that you are affecting many other people, as well. I think in a civil society that's a legitimate thing to consider. What impact will my choices have on other people? Is it ok, for example, to vote on the economy while threatening to drag all women into the dark ages for their medical care while threatening to criminalize their caregivers for providing appropriate, accurate, modern care?
I don't know how to address this last thing, but we've all continued to talk about the issues of race, religion, bigotry. Slamming inner city crime waves is almost always code for something negative about black people, and maybe other people of color. Does that mean there's no crime? No, but if we can't change our assumptions and the actions that proceed therefrom, we are not so much addressing the crime as perpetuating the stereotypes and racism.
Having Muslim registries screams Japanese internment and Nuremberg laws. Which should NOT be a reasonable compromise for unspecified economic security that will happen magically with some unclear plan. That's a faulty reasoning process.
Empowering active proponents and supporters of the current iteration of white supremacists and racial purists and eugenicists is NOT a reasonable compromise for unspecified economic security. All this will do is spur more racially and religiously motivated attacks. And with people who tacitly agree with the attackers in power, the agencies that should prevent or prosecute this may choose not to or be prevented from doing so.
By all means, vote on the economy. I get that. I am not one of the people benefiting from the economy right now so that's extremely important to me. But I am not willing to trade my rights over my body, my health, my heritage, or anyone else's for a maybe guaranteed shining city on a hill where neither I nor most other people will ultimately be welcome.
So yes, you better march, but hopefully during all the little elections before the next Presidential one you will consider what your choices have wrought, and if perhaps there are other choices that might work better for both you and everyone else.
++ (This is fun to think about, since this suggests some of them, I don't know, didn't like the executive orders he signed Friday and immediately traveled in less than 24 hours to DC? Really want to be rational, but what the hell were these people thinking for two years?)
Still want to punch things when I hear this kind of stuff. Voting on issues is what we should be able to do. However, if you make one issue overridingly important (like homosexuals, like abortion, etc. - just picking a few from the list that is evidence based for some population segments), you are choosing to take what you get on the other issues.
That doesn't mean you aren't prepared to challenge those positions. I mean, seriously, nobody finds a candidate that's 100% on everything. But own that you made that choice. If you are choosing many issues, or a general philosophy, again, know what you are choosing.
Further, know that you are affecting many other people, as well. I think in a civil society that's a legitimate thing to consider. What impact will my choices have on other people? Is it ok, for example, to vote on the economy while threatening to drag all women into the dark ages for their medical care while threatening to criminalize their caregivers for providing appropriate, accurate, modern care?
I don't know how to address this last thing, but we've all continued to talk about the issues of race, religion, bigotry. Slamming inner city crime waves is almost always code for something negative about black people, and maybe other people of color. Does that mean there's no crime? No, but if we can't change our assumptions and the actions that proceed therefrom, we are not so much addressing the crime as perpetuating the stereotypes and racism.
Having Muslim registries screams Japanese internment and Nuremberg laws. Which should NOT be a reasonable compromise for unspecified economic security that will happen magically with some unclear plan. That's a faulty reasoning process.
Empowering active proponents and supporters of the current iteration of white supremacists and racial purists and eugenicists is NOT a reasonable compromise for unspecified economic security. All this will do is spur more racially and religiously motivated attacks. And with people who tacitly agree with the attackers in power, the agencies that should prevent or prosecute this may choose not to or be prevented from doing so.
By all means, vote on the economy. I get that. I am not one of the people benefiting from the economy right now so that's extremely important to me. But I am not willing to trade my rights over my body, my health, my heritage, or anyone else's for a maybe guaranteed shining city on a hill where neither I nor most other people will ultimately be welcome.
So yes, you better march, but hopefully during all the little elections before the next Presidential one you will consider what your choices have wrought, and if perhaps there are other choices that might work better for both you and everyone else.
++ (This is fun to think about, since this suggests some of them, I don't know, didn't like the executive orders he signed Friday and immediately traveled in less than 24 hours to DC? Really want to be rational, but what the hell were these people thinking for two years?)
Comments
Post a Comment