"I am still trying to understand how Trump was elected"
Hi Roland. From the outset, Trump supporters stated that they wanted someone to stand up to the decades of denigration that’s been heaped upon them by certain elements of the Democrat Party.
I don’t what it’s like with your circle of friends, but around here there are people who are addicted to putting down anything Republican, calling them morons, stupid, stupid dip shits, etc. It’s like it’s they only thing they can talk about, and it’s something I started to notice for myself beginning in 1996. And of course, the same thing occurs on the Republican side of things, where everything Democrat is inherently evil.
I don’t know if we should group them as liberals or “progressives,” but one thing for sure, they’re a bunch of pseudo intellectual snobs. The concept of “Tolerance” is totally absent. We used to drive abound with bumper stickers that read, “Hate Is Not A Family Value.” The people I’m referring to, it seems like all they can do, is hate anything that doesn’t fit into their view of how the world should be.
They go around accusing Trump and his supporters as being “fascists,” but their expecting everyone to think and behave the same way they do, is about as fascist as one can get. I’m not saying that Trump and his followers shouldn’t be criticized, but those I’m talking about are fascists too, guilty of the same offense.
As Orwell wrote, “All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy." - George Orwell (Rudyard Kipling, 1942). In this case, it’s fascism.
A few months ago, a person I know posted that those who voted for Trump were “Stupid White People.” I responded saying that her statement was racist. After all, were the blacks who supported Trump, “Stupid Black People”? - and that this was no different from portraying blacks in segregationist America as being lazy, or of Jews in 1930s Germany as being sub-human. After all, no matter the guise, hate is hate.
She didn’t see it that way, saying that they needed to be “educated.” Well damn, that’s pure Communist philosophy. Before the “people” can be accepted into society, they must be “reeducated.” As one whose parents fled Castro, I don’t need to explain what that entails.
Besides, who appointed her God? In a truly democratic society, there are potentially as many opinions as there are people. That’s where the socialist concept of (genuine) tolerances comes in. Though people may disagree on issues, they’re still respected as fellow human beings. Rather then fighting against other as we see in today’s political climate, tolerance opens the door to people getting together to work on the problems we all.
The point of all this is, if we want a society that is truly progressive, we as individuals need to take a stand against all forms of intolerance whenever it occurs, and not just when it seems a political need.
It’s not an easy thing. On occasion I work on getting individuals to be more accepting of those with different opinions. The vast majority of the time, they won’t budge, even when I point out that their behavior falls in line with the definition of extremism. They always justify their need to hate others. Worse is when I’m condemned as one of the “enemy.”
It just goes to show the daunting task that lies before those who wish a better, more peaceful world. If getting people to change was all that easy, there’d be no need for psychologists :) Thankfully, change does occur. 100 years ago, woman still didn’t have the right to vote. While still a problem racism is nowhere as bad as it was when I was growing up in the 1950s. So there is hope. If only we could somehow accelerate it.
It’s beyond my capacity to visualize how to make this happen, though I do know that violent demonstrations, denigration, and insults only serve to fan the flames of animosity.
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Madela all showed how positive change can be enacted. Their basic philosophy was Satyagraha, i.e., “Firmness In Truth.” Rather then being pacifistic, it’s a determined way of waging war without arousing hatred in the enemy. If any hatred does arise, it’s clear that it’s not coming from those who are seeking to change society for the better.
This stands in stark contrast to way calls for change are enacted in current society.
In closing, here’s an excerpt about intolerance from Orwell’s essay, “Notes On Nationalism.” It’s a good summary of what traits to look for in determining just how tolerant someone truly is.
George
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism." - George Orwell (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
6/30/2017
I don’t what it’s like with your circle of friends, but around here there are people who are addicted to putting down anything Republican, calling them morons, stupid, stupid dip shits, etc. It’s like it’s they only thing they can talk about, and it’s something I started to notice for myself beginning in 1996. And of course, the same thing occurs on the Republican side of things, where everything Democrat is inherently evil.
I don’t know if we should group them as liberals or “progressives,” but one thing for sure, they’re a bunch of pseudo intellectual snobs. The concept of “Tolerance” is totally absent. We used to drive abound with bumper stickers that read, “Hate Is Not A Family Value.” The people I’m referring to, it seems like all they can do, is hate anything that doesn’t fit into their view of how the world should be.
They go around accusing Trump and his supporters as being “fascists,” but their expecting everyone to think and behave the same way they do, is about as fascist as one can get. I’m not saying that Trump and his followers shouldn’t be criticized, but those I’m talking about are fascists too, guilty of the same offense.
As Orwell wrote, “All left-wing parties in the highly industrialized countries are at bottom a sham, because they make it their business to fight against something which they do not really wish to destroy." - George Orwell (Rudyard Kipling, 1942). In this case, it’s fascism.
A few months ago, a person I know posted that those who voted for Trump were “Stupid White People.” I responded saying that her statement was racist. After all, were the blacks who supported Trump, “Stupid Black People”? - and that this was no different from portraying blacks in segregationist America as being lazy, or of Jews in 1930s Germany as being sub-human. After all, no matter the guise, hate is hate.
She didn’t see it that way, saying that they needed to be “educated.” Well damn, that’s pure Communist philosophy. Before the “people” can be accepted into society, they must be “reeducated.” As one whose parents fled Castro, I don’t need to explain what that entails.
Besides, who appointed her God? In a truly democratic society, there are potentially as many opinions as there are people. That’s where the socialist concept of (genuine) tolerances comes in. Though people may disagree on issues, they’re still respected as fellow human beings. Rather then fighting against other as we see in today’s political climate, tolerance opens the door to people getting together to work on the problems we all.
The point of all this is, if we want a society that is truly progressive, we as individuals need to take a stand against all forms of intolerance whenever it occurs, and not just when it seems a political need.
It’s not an easy thing. On occasion I work on getting individuals to be more accepting of those with different opinions. The vast majority of the time, they won’t budge, even when I point out that their behavior falls in line with the definition of extremism. They always justify their need to hate others. Worse is when I’m condemned as one of the “enemy.”
It just goes to show the daunting task that lies before those who wish a better, more peaceful world. If getting people to change was all that easy, there’d be no need for psychologists :) Thankfully, change does occur. 100 years ago, woman still didn’t have the right to vote. While still a problem racism is nowhere as bad as it was when I was growing up in the 1950s. So there is hope. If only we could somehow accelerate it.
It’s beyond my capacity to visualize how to make this happen, though I do know that violent demonstrations, denigration, and insults only serve to fan the flames of animosity.
Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Jr., and Nelson Madela all showed how positive change can be enacted. Their basic philosophy was Satyagraha, i.e., “Firmness In Truth.” Rather then being pacifistic, it’s a determined way of waging war without arousing hatred in the enemy. If any hatred does arise, it’s clear that it’s not coming from those who are seeking to change society for the better.
This stands in stark contrast to way calls for change are enacted in current society.
In closing, here’s an excerpt about intolerance from Orwell’s essay, “Notes On Nationalism.” It’s a good summary of what traits to look for in determining just how tolerant someone truly is.
George
"By ‘nationalism’ I mean first of all the habit of assuming that human beings can be classified like insects and that whole blocks of millions or tens of millions of people can be confidently labelled ‘good’ or ‘bad’(1). But secondly — and this is much more important — I mean the habit of identifying oneself with a single nation or other unit, placing it beyond good and evil and recognising no other duty than that of advancing its interests. Nationalism is not to be confused with patriotism." - George Orwell (Notes on Nationalism, 1945)
6/30/2017