In the beginning, there was oppression. And it wasn't good. Black people were enslaved and segregated and killed for being in the wrong town. Gay people were jailed and chemically castrated and killed for falling in love with the “wrong” person
So well written. I bow to your optimism: 'Most people don't want to see anybody suffer. Most people will do what they can to make others happy. And while almost all of us have blind spots about other people's struggles, most of us are willing to learn if we’re allowed a conversation instead of a sermon.'
"I want to tell you that the windshield is bigger than the rearview mirror for a reason. What's in front of you is so much more important than what's behind you." -Jelly Roll
Thanks for this dose of sanity in this frustratingly insane world. It's bizarre that ten years ago we were at the highest pinnacle of human interrelation and cooperation than we've ever been in the history of the Earth, and it seemed like overnight people decided that they preferred things the old way, and spawned the grievance industries we see today.
Your "equal access to divorce" made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that too :)
Grievance, in the form of "theory" had been percolating in academia since the 60s and was fermenting prior to that throughout the 20th century in the form of postmodernism. It metastatized shortly after the advent of social media in 2010 or so.
This really captured the essence of the problem, for me: "... the only reason some people accept these bizarre contradictions and insane double standards, is that they’ve mistaken a ranking on the victimhood tree for a character test."
This should be on every editorial page and in every magazine accross this country. I'm looking forward to reading the thoughtless and bigoted responses you get. They should be lulus.
"... there's a strange idea that oppression is a feature of group identities."
Thank you again Steve QJ.
In order to have intelligent conversations about the world, humans invented metalanguage which deals in abstractions. So saying that Group X did something or feels something is really just shorthand for saying many individuals who belong to Group X feel or did this or that. Groups don't actually do or feel anything because they are abstractions and only the individuals within them feel or do anything. One may think this is merely semantics but somewhere along the way Sociologists (Robin DiAngelo case in point) and some others decided that Groups actually did feel and do things, they forgot that the metalanguage was only applicable in the abstract. This delusion is most pronounced in individuals who have studied social sciences, and exists to a certain extent in those who spend most of their lives working with ideas ("virtuals"), but is not found at all amongst those who spend their lives working with physical things ("physicals"). University (and higher level secondary) teaches one to think in abstract terms which is one reason these ideas are prevalent on campus. So if you want to understand the divide currently shaking America here is the core call it bad software or mind virus.
You cannot right a past wrong by privileging an individual from the same group who was not wronged. And you should not punish someone for offenses committed by a different member of their group. People are being asked to believe otherwise.
I seriously wonder when it's going to become 'acceptable' to attack white people for being white--without even requiring any Jewishness. I don't know that that'll happen here in Canada, but I'm expecting it eventually in the US if people don't put the brakes on wanton violence. Problem is, too many on both sides will want to preserve their own current 'right' to violence.
“I seriously wonder when it's going to become 'acceptable' to attack white people for being white--without even requiring any Jewishness”
Kind of depends what you mean by “attack.”
It’s been acceptable to verbally attack and collectivise white men for quite a long time. White-ness is an attempt to broaden that to all white people.
But I don’t think it’s widely considered acceptable to physically attack anybody, including Jewish people, in the physical sense.
I don't know what the ratio of 'violent' (physical contact) to non-violent 'hate crimes' there are, but antisemitic crimes have definitely risen. There have been some people here and there in North America physically assaulted and sometimes killed (along with anti-Muslim same, etc. although AFAIK the anti-semitic attacks outpace anti-Muslim attacks just about everywhere. My Jewish friends are definitely nervous, and I don't like the rhetoric associated with the 'pro-Palestinian' movement - sorry, 'from the river to the sea' means free of Jews, although as I understand it some Jews are beginning to adopt that and I don't think they mean free of Jews ;( Goddess knows the attack on Gaza, many times the number of people who died on October 7, is beginning to look an awful lot like the g-word.
I think it's become a *little* more acceptable, and some of the rhetoric is ramping up. I'm frankly waiting for a race war to break out if Trump gets re-elected...I hope i'm wrong and just suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome about that...
Just started reading you. I like that I both agree and disagree with you. I am someone who mostly sees both sides of an issue and spends a lot of time reading both sides.
I'm not aware of any Israeli politician referring to women and children in Gaza as "human animals" that need to be "erased." If so, I find it hard to believe that this would be more than a fringe, inflammatory, stupid statement. Truly, most people, including Israelis, are not in favor of erasing women, children, and innocent, peaceful people.
As far as criticism of Israel being antisemitic, I always ask if Israel is the only one being held to a standard that others are not. This is frequently the case.
Thank you for the clarification on the "refuted his Jewishness" nonsense. I have a life, and so did not watch the Oscars, and enough outlandish things are said that that I just believed it.
So how about being just as precise about the Three Fifths Compromise, instead of making a joke that reinforces the most widespread nonreligious myth I can think of. (Yes, I KNOW you hyperlinked to the real story.) But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.
“ But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.”
Have we spoken about this before? I make this joke occasionally and every time I do I feel like somebody thinks they’re making a point by missing the punchline.
Firstly, it’s just a joke. Literally a throwaway line in an article that isn’t about slavery or political representation.
But secondly, no, the anti-slavery position would be to FREE THE SLAVES!! Or at least to give them the right to vote. The three-fifths compromise was necessary because this idea was unthinkable to the people of the time. Yes, it could have been worse. But it could also have been much better.
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
“ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human”
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????
So well written. I bow to your optimism: 'Most people don't want to see anybody suffer. Most people will do what they can to make others happy. And while almost all of us have blind spots about other people's struggles, most of us are willing to learn if we’re allowed a conversation instead of a sermon.'
Another excellent piece Steve.
"I want to tell you that the windshield is bigger than the rearview mirror for a reason. What's in front of you is so much more important than what's behind you." -Jelly Roll
Thanks for this dose of sanity in this frustratingly insane world. It's bizarre that ten years ago we were at the highest pinnacle of human interrelation and cooperation than we've ever been in the history of the Earth, and it seemed like overnight people decided that they preferred things the old way, and spawned the grievance industries we see today.
Your "equal access to divorce" made me laugh out loud. Thanks for that too :)
Grievance, in the form of "theory" had been percolating in academia since the 60s and was fermenting prior to that throughout the 20th century in the form of postmodernism. It metastatized shortly after the advent of social media in 2010 or so.
This really captured the essence of the problem, for me: "... the only reason some people accept these bizarre contradictions and insane double standards, is that they’ve mistaken a ranking on the victimhood tree for a character test."
This should be on every editorial page and in every magazine accross this country. I'm looking forward to reading the thoughtless and bigoted responses you get. They should be lulus.
"... there's a strange idea that oppression is a feature of group identities."
Thank you again Steve QJ.
In order to have intelligent conversations about the world, humans invented metalanguage which deals in abstractions. So saying that Group X did something or feels something is really just shorthand for saying many individuals who belong to Group X feel or did this or that. Groups don't actually do or feel anything because they are abstractions and only the individuals within them feel or do anything. One may think this is merely semantics but somewhere along the way Sociologists (Robin DiAngelo case in point) and some others decided that Groups actually did feel and do things, they forgot that the metalanguage was only applicable in the abstract. This delusion is most pronounced in individuals who have studied social sciences, and exists to a certain extent in those who spend most of their lives working with ideas ("virtuals"), but is not found at all amongst those who spend their lives working with physical things ("physicals"). University (and higher level secondary) teaches one to think in abstract terms which is one reason these ideas are prevalent on campus. So if you want to understand the divide currently shaking America here is the core call it bad software or mind virus.
You cannot right a past wrong by privileging an individual from the same group who was not wronged. And you should not punish someone for offenses committed by a different member of their group. People are being asked to believe otherwise.
I seriously wonder when it's going to become 'acceptable' to attack white people for being white--without even requiring any Jewishness. I don't know that that'll happen here in Canada, but I'm expecting it eventually in the US if people don't put the brakes on wanton violence. Problem is, too many on both sides will want to preserve their own current 'right' to violence.
“I seriously wonder when it's going to become 'acceptable' to attack white people for being white--without even requiring any Jewishness”
Kind of depends what you mean by “attack.”
It’s been acceptable to verbally attack and collectivise white men for quite a long time. White-ness is an attempt to broaden that to all white people.
But I don’t think it’s widely considered acceptable to physically attack anybody, including Jewish people, in the physical sense.
I don't know what the ratio of 'violent' (physical contact) to non-violent 'hate crimes' there are, but antisemitic crimes have definitely risen. There have been some people here and there in North America physically assaulted and sometimes killed (along with anti-Muslim same, etc. although AFAIK the anti-semitic attacks outpace anti-Muslim attacks just about everywhere. My Jewish friends are definitely nervous, and I don't like the rhetoric associated with the 'pro-Palestinian' movement - sorry, 'from the river to the sea' means free of Jews, although as I understand it some Jews are beginning to adopt that and I don't think they mean free of Jews ;( Goddess knows the attack on Gaza, many times the number of people who died on October 7, is beginning to look an awful lot like the g-word.
I think it's become a *little* more acceptable, and some of the rhetoric is ramping up. I'm frankly waiting for a race war to break out if Trump gets re-elected...I hope i'm wrong and just suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome about that...
Well said. Dehumanization is the gateway to oppression and annihilation.
Just started reading you. I like that I both agree and disagree with you. I am someone who mostly sees both sides of an issue and spends a lot of time reading both sides.
I'm not aware of any Israeli politician referring to women and children in Gaza as "human animals" that need to be "erased." If so, I find it hard to believe that this would be more than a fringe, inflammatory, stupid statement. Truly, most people, including Israelis, are not in favor of erasing women, children, and innocent, peaceful people.
As far as criticism of Israel being antisemitic, I always ask if Israel is the only one being held to a standard that others are not. This is frequently the case.
Thank you for the clarification on the "refuted his Jewishness" nonsense. I have a life, and so did not watch the Oscars, and enough outlandish things are said that that I just believed it.
So how about being just as precise about the Three Fifths Compromise, instead of making a joke that reinforces the most widespread nonreligious myth I can think of. (Yes, I KNOW you hyperlinked to the real story.) But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.
“ But not counting at ALL would have been the anti-slavery position. Counting as five fifths would have given more power to the slavers. So cut it out.”
Have we spoken about this before? I make this joke occasionally and every time I do I feel like somebody thinks they’re making a point by missing the punchline.
Firstly, it’s just a joke. Literally a throwaway line in an article that isn’t about slavery or political representation.
But secondly, no, the anti-slavery position would be to FREE THE SLAVES!! Or at least to give them the right to vote. The three-fifths compromise was necessary because this idea was unthinkable to the people of the time. Yes, it could have been worse. But it could also have been much better.
Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787. It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human, which is probably a majority held fallacy by now.
“ Universal suffrage for ANYONE was unthinkable in 1787”
And no, this is obviously untrue. You know this.
Name a place where it was.
In America for white, landowning men. Land ownership, at that time, being something that was at least possible if you were a white man. Certainly not unthinkable, as it was for pretty much any other grouping of people.
The franchise in early America was neither as open nor closed as many suppose. Before the early 1700s, if you came to America, the odds you came in chains were about 75% Of ANY class or color. The British exported the working poor because they didn't have enough "work houses" or "poor houses" to deal with them all. Australia gets all the smack for this, but American colonies were more Jamestown, which was hell on earth for most, and less Plymouth. The point is that participation was land ownership, not white land ownership. And covenants forbidden the sale of land to anyone but whites was a much later thing.
“ It's still a "joke" that furthers the stupid notion that people were declared 3/5 of human”
Wait, do you seriously think the notion that slaves were 3/5 of a human is WORSE than the notion that they were property in perpetuity? Do you think the 3/5 compromise is somehow MORE debasing????