Recent events in the political realm have prompted me to want to put my ideas down on unpaper. These might not suit you, but I don't care. I'm writing them. You don't know my politics and that's intentional.
I'm going to start by commenting on a snippet of an interview I overheard last night. A woman (let's call her "Elizabeth" because that's what she called herself) from Knoxville, Tennessee was complaining that she was maced by security forces. When asked what she was doing, she answered "we're storming the Capitol -- it's a revolution." She said this without a trace of recognition of the irony. She wanted the right to perform a criminal act, unmolested. There is not a single level, including any claim to her humanity by dint of DNA, in which she represents me.
A person should choose to vote for a particular candidate because that candidate's positions on items which resonate with the personal agenda of the voter coordinate with the positions of the voter. The decision as a balance between that and any other (undesirable or non-correlating) position held by the candidate is a very personal decision and judging another person because I/we would have recomputed that balance and come to a different decision is hateful.
A person can declare himself a Democrat or a Republican because he believes in the approaches to the size of government and its role, the position of the US on the world stage or some other platform issues and still not be endorsing everything that politicians ostensibly representing that party say or do or even every platform position that the party as a whole lays claim to. Judging a person on a level other than his politics by relying on a political label is hateful. Judging a person's general politics by assuming that a label defines the totality of the person is likewise hateful.
A person is not implicated in the stupidity of others in a group simply by being affiliated with that group IF there are distinct definitional reasons for being part of the group which are not impacted by said stupidity (a person can be a member of BLM for certain reasons and not be tainted because some people who are in BLM do or say something stupid). But if that stupidity begins to hijack the mainstream definition of the group, it is incumbent on those who don't share those beliefs to say something.
A person's affiliation with a group does not mean that every action or word is a function of that affiliation. Even if the person claims the connection, others can say that the connection doesn't exist. Any Jew who says that his religion allows him to cheat the government is improperly hiding behind a perversion of the concept of Judaism.
A broken clock can be right any number of times per day (from zero on up) depending on exactly what the nature of its being broken is. The decision to replace it and exploit its wrong-ness and ignore when it is right, or keep it and exploit its being right and ignore when it is wrong is not automatic nor easy.
Good people can do bad things, bad people can do good things, bad people can do nothing and be bad, good people can do nothing and be good, bad people can do nothing and be good, good people can do nothing and be bad. All people can change and should be judged by their actions going forward, not (just) by the path that took them to a place from which chose to change.
Every single spot on any continuum of belief or action might be good and might be bad. Sometimes talking is right, sometimes acting. Sometimes knee jerk reactions are best and sometimes, listening and being overly diplomatic is most effective. If there was a single right combination, or universal best option then the world would be a different place.
A society full of humans thrives because of a diversity of opinions, views and behaviors. It also struggles for the same reason.
There is a veil of secrecy around political machinations on every level and there is a tension between tearing away that veil and not wanting to to know how the sausage gets made. Agreements made in smoke-filled back rooms are problematic mostly because of the smoke.
Our every action has an impact on others and we are responsible for that, so not every person is suited for every position, because some people don't recognize how they can have an impact. If you are a conspiracy theorist who doesn't believe in science, don't be a pharmacist handling vaccines. If you choose to forge ahead and take a job BECAUSE it allows you to have a negative impact, you are making others look bad and deserve a substantial, negative consequence.
There is a time and a place for action as opposed to conversation, but action should never obviate conversation. Action, additionally, is not the same as "violence." Therefore, action is less affecting of change than some would like in many cases. But violence breeds violence and hate. Reacting to action with violence, out of fear of violence, might be an instinctual response but we rise above instinct when we move from just being animals to being human.
Society depends on constant compromise and trust. When that social fabric is torn, it is really hard to repair. Even those who don't represent me, represent me. Sometimes things don't go my way. Sometimes they do. This is not indicative of anything other than that things happen -- deciding that everything not going my way is necessarily untrustworthy tears that fabric.
Sometimes, things don't go my way because of untrustworthy processes within a closed system. This does not invalidate the system, it just calls into question the closed nature of the system. Not all conspiracy theories are wrong and not all paranoid people are wrong. But their "rightness" is in the minority of situations so they shouldn't dictate the majority of situations.
Maybe I'll add more when I decide what else I believe.
