This is a touchy word over the more recent years, tolerance. What does it mean and what are it's limits? As of late the mindset of "Intolerance Will Not Be Tolerated" has reared it's ugly and ignorant head. Bill Maher once quipped, "Why do we tolerate intolerance?". He missed the point, like many occupying the same ideological position.
We tolerate intolerance because that is what it means to be tolerant.
Straight from Merriam-Webster:
Tolerance - willingness to accept feelings, habits, or beliefs that are different from your own. (Please read the full entry.)
Intolerance - not willing to allow or accept something; not willing to allow some people to have equality, freedom, or other social rights. (Please read the full entry to this as well.)
Quite simply Bill, "we" tolerate intolerance because that's what tolerance means, to accept that which we cannot control.
South Park even brings their intellectual skills to the task of pointing how horrible the idea is of not tolerating intolerance.
There is a distorted conversation about what tolerance means these days. It is trending towards a "Be nice to minorities, whitey deserves to be hated" attitude. "Privileged" is now a significant code word meaning, "White". Just like "Thug" is a new code word for "Black". What strikes me is that I have been looking for a word that is offensive to White People.
"Cracker" just doesn't do it. There really just hasn't been one. "Privileged" is it. And it is cast by intolerant individuals in the name of tolerance. Too many examples exist for me to care enough to get deep into it all.
Wednesday, March 12, 2014
Monday, December 9, 2013
Empathy
I have been enjoying the Twitter as of late and got into a chit chat session. @hager_badger was talking about pop music (adjusted for non-Twitter reading), "I don't care how talented a professional is, if their moral compass doesn't encompass empathy, I won't support them...". We got into a little back and forth about how she views empathy. I did this because I found myself thinking that morality and empathy were essentially the same thing. I posed the question, "Would you agree that the more empathetic a person is, the more moral they are". That's where the wheels came off. What is moral and right
Without too much thought I remembered the character Peter Petrelli from the now defunct t.v. show Heroes. I will use this show, and several of its characters, as a backdrop to analyze this word, Empathy.
Peter Petrelli was an Empath. All he would need to do to acquire another person's ability was to be in their vicinity. Peter struggled learning how to access these individual powers, which lays the foundation of the Season 1 plot. When Peter does figure out how to use his powers on purpose, he simply had to remember how the individuals (from whom he acquired said power) made him feel. Essentially, Peter, the Empath, only had to harmonize with others to acquire, and use, the powers of others.
Another person who could acquire powers was Sylar. The crucial difference is that Sylar is not empathic, his power was knowing how things work. He would have to kill a person, cut their head open and study their brain in order to learn their ability. Sylar did eventually learn how to obtain another person's ability, without killing them, by accessing his empathy. He only acquired a single power in this manner. Sylar could make the choice and be empathetic, but it was not to be.
The individual who taught Sylar to use his empathy was Arthur Petrelli, Peter's Father. The only important characteristic of Arthur, at this point, is that while he could take the power's of others, the power would leave the person. Arthur was an ability thief. His ability to obtain power was from a total lack of empathy.
Now onto the boring dictionary definition of Empathy : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.
I cannot help but think Empathy means being able to harmonize with another person's experience, to feel it one's self. In this sense, I believe an empathetic person would never knowingly harm another as they empathetic person would directly experience that harm. Along these lines, Peter Petrelli is truly empathic, Sylar is capable of it, but choses not to use it, & Arthur is not.
To be continued...
Without too much thought I remembered the character Peter Petrelli from the now defunct t.v. show Heroes. I will use this show, and several of its characters, as a backdrop to analyze this word, Empathy.
Peter Petrelli was an Empath. All he would need to do to acquire another person's ability was to be in their vicinity. Peter struggled learning how to access these individual powers, which lays the foundation of the Season 1 plot. When Peter does figure out how to use his powers on purpose, he simply had to remember how the individuals (from whom he acquired said power) made him feel. Essentially, Peter, the Empath, only had to harmonize with others to acquire, and use, the powers of others.
Another person who could acquire powers was Sylar. The crucial difference is that Sylar is not empathic, his power was knowing how things work. He would have to kill a person, cut their head open and study their brain in order to learn their ability. Sylar did eventually learn how to obtain another person's ability, without killing them, by accessing his empathy. He only acquired a single power in this manner. Sylar could make the choice and be empathetic, but it was not to be.
The individual who taught Sylar to use his empathy was Arthur Petrelli, Peter's Father. The only important characteristic of Arthur, at this point, is that while he could take the power's of others, the power would leave the person. Arthur was an ability thief. His ability to obtain power was from a total lack of empathy.
Now onto the boring dictionary definition of Empathy : the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another of either the past or present without having the feelings, thoughts, and experience fully communicated in an objectively explicit manner.
I cannot help but think Empathy means being able to harmonize with another person's experience, to feel it one's self. In this sense, I believe an empathetic person would never knowingly harm another as they empathetic person would directly experience that harm. Along these lines, Peter Petrelli is truly empathic, Sylar is capable of it, but choses not to use it, & Arthur is not.
To be continued...
Thursday, October 17, 2013
Lies and Dishonesty versus Honesty and Truth
A lie is the intentional act of denying a truth the liar knows to be true, whereas dishonesty can occur without lying. One can also be honest without being able to tell the truth. One can also lie while being honest and telling the truth. This is a fun discussion for me.
All language, at its most fundamental level, is a lie. If I use the word Elephant, a particularly large, four legged African, sometimes Asian, animal comes to mind. However, an Elephant is not an Elephant. Elephant is a word one group of people use as a verbally symbolic reference to this creature. Since all words are inherently engaged in the act of dying a known truth, that the word is not the thing, everyone is a liar.
The line between a lie and being dishonest is very, very fine. I'm not sure how to approach these differences at this time, but I'll get around to it.
From my little spot on this planet, all I can say about Truth is that it is beyond words and that Truth exists as a place of knowing. The Truth is felt through and through and impossible to articulate.
All language, at its most fundamental level, is a lie. If I use the word Elephant, a particularly large, four legged African, sometimes Asian, animal comes to mind. However, an Elephant is not an Elephant. Elephant is a word one group of people use as a verbally symbolic reference to this creature. Since all words are inherently engaged in the act of dying a known truth, that the word is not the thing, everyone is a liar.
The line between a lie and being dishonest is very, very fine. I'm not sure how to approach these differences at this time, but I'll get around to it.
From my little spot on this planet, all I can say about Truth is that it is beyond words and that Truth exists as a place of knowing. The Truth is felt through and through and impossible to articulate.
Tuesday, September 10, 2013
Like - Now, the Most Useless Word in the English Language
The word Like used to be quite useful. It has the general meaning of similarity, or approximation, and also used in a simile.
They are like minded. - Similarity / Approximation.
It smells like roses. - Simile.
Nowadays, the word Like denotes stupidity in the speaker. Like has become a space holder in a spoken sentence, taking the place of 'Uhm'. Like is also a spoken coma, or mental break in the sentence.
While I complain about the vast incorrect overuse of this word, it is so pervasive I find myself guilty of using it incorrectly as well. Those who put it to use too frequently, and incorrectly, sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FSQYBjkGq4
I find myself unable to listen past the 10 second mark.
They are like minded. - Similarity / Approximation.
It smells like roses. - Simile.
Nowadays, the word Like denotes stupidity in the speaker. Like has become a space holder in a spoken sentence, taking the place of 'Uhm'. Like is also a spoken coma, or mental break in the sentence.
While I complain about the vast incorrect overuse of this word, it is so pervasive I find myself guilty of using it incorrectly as well. Those who put it to use too frequently, and incorrectly, sound like this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FSQYBjkGq4
I find myself unable to listen past the 10 second mark.
Thursday, September 5, 2013
Parasites & Taxes
Parasite is almost always used in a derogatory manner. We refer to individuals as 'Parasites', sometimes even government. The definition below is a slightly tweaked version of what I pulled off Wiktionary:
2. (biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the exertion of energy by that other organism.
In my mind, everything is an exchange of energy. To function at the human level in today's society, we have mechanisms in place for that energetic exchange, money. You exchange your energy, time, skills, and labor, for money. The most obvious parasite is Government.
I agree with Chris Rock when he said, "You don't pay taxes, they take taxes". Every government reason for taxing the population is of a collectivist mindset, or "for the greater good".
By way of Merriam-Webster.Com are the multiple definitions for Tax:
Individuals on welfare and food stamps are derided as parasites, as are illegal immigrants. Government redirects the money you earned to people who didn't do anything to earn it. All in all, not a top priority in my mind. There exists a much larger parasite that goes unseen and the government is just a front for it.
The System itself is the largest parasite on the planet. The System includes:
The Banking Industry, which creates money through fractional-reserve lending & through the printing presses of any nation's Central Bank. Central Banks criminally engage in inflating currency, thereby stealing the value of what you earn.
The Military Industrial Complex, which steals your money to kill people you have no issue with. Then they want more money to fix the country they just destroyed.
Corporate Welfare, which is too huge to try and break down beyond pointing out that massive, multinational corporations pay no taxes, receive tax breaks, and bailouts paid for by tax payers.
To wrap this up, the biggest parasite of all is the one that owns virtually every government, every central bank, every military, every leader of every nation and uses those fronts to its own end, stealing energy from you every step of the way. The number of horrible things that happen in the world, in your name, are only possible because The Parasite, the system itself, has convinced you it is not a Parasite, and that you need it to exist. The exact opposite is true.
How much money would you actually HAVE if The System wasn't taking it?
The Parasite cannot live without the host. In 1984, George Orwell said, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the face of humanity - forever". The boot in this quote is The System. When an individual is being attacked, they are also being energetically drained. The individual must exert themselves, to some extent, in self-defense. They are being physically taxed, their energy is being stolen.
In Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, the phrase, "That government is best which governs least." To that I would add, "And when Mankind is ready, there will be no government."
I believe Mankind is ready to rid itself of its Parasite.
2. (biology) an organism that lives on or in another organism, deriving benefit from living on or in that other organism, while not contributing towards that other organism sufficiently to cover the exertion of energy by that other organism.
In my mind, everything is an exchange of energy. To function at the human level in today's society, we have mechanisms in place for that energetic exchange, money. You exchange your energy, time, skills, and labor, for money. The most obvious parasite is Government.
I agree with Chris Rock when he said, "You don't pay taxes, they take taxes". Every government reason for taxing the population is of a collectivist mindset, or "for the greater good".
By way of Merriam-Webster.Com are the multiple definitions for Tax:
1: to assess or determine judicially the amount of
5: to make onerous and rigorous demands on
A tax is a financial charge or other levy imposed upon a taxpayer (an individual or legal entity) by a state or the functional equivalent of a state such that failure to pay is punishable by law.
Instead of Tax, think Energy Syphon. In this context, the The Parasite "taxes" The Host.
Individuals on welfare and food stamps are derided as parasites, as are illegal immigrants. Government redirects the money you earned to people who didn't do anything to earn it. All in all, not a top priority in my mind. There exists a much larger parasite that goes unseen and the government is just a front for it.
The System itself is the largest parasite on the planet. The System includes:
The Banking Industry, which creates money through fractional-reserve lending & through the printing presses of any nation's Central Bank. Central Banks criminally engage in inflating currency, thereby stealing the value of what you earn.
The Military Industrial Complex, which steals your money to kill people you have no issue with. Then they want more money to fix the country they just destroyed.
Corporate Welfare, which is too huge to try and break down beyond pointing out that massive, multinational corporations pay no taxes, receive tax breaks, and bailouts paid for by tax payers.
To wrap this up, the biggest parasite of all is the one that owns virtually every government, every central bank, every military, every leader of every nation and uses those fronts to its own end, stealing energy from you every step of the way. The number of horrible things that happen in the world, in your name, are only possible because The Parasite, the system itself, has convinced you it is not a Parasite, and that you need it to exist. The exact opposite is true.
How much money would you actually HAVE if The System wasn't taking it?
The Parasite cannot live without the host. In 1984, George Orwell said, "If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on the face of humanity - forever". The boot in this quote is The System. When an individual is being attacked, they are also being energetically drained. The individual must exert themselves, to some extent, in self-defense. They are being physically taxed, their energy is being stolen.
In Henry David Thoreau's Civil Disobedience, the phrase, "That government is best which governs least." To that I would add, "And when Mankind is ready, there will be no government."
I believe Mankind is ready to rid itself of its Parasite.
Tuesday, September 3, 2013
Pacifism and Pacifists
Unfortunately, the discussion of words does require definitions. This time around, I'm putting to use http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pacifism :
Pacifism - 1: opposition to war or violence as a means of settling disputes; specifically : refusal to bear arms on moral or religious grounds 2: an attitude or policy of nonresistance
The second definition is more accurate. A Pacifist is the individual who never engages in a physical confrontation, for any reason. The Pacifist could never employ a method of non-violence as this would allow for defense of the self and another. Nonresistance does not allow for self-defense, but it may allow for defense of another. The Pacifist opposes more than just violence.
In any physical confrontation one can imagine, The Pacifist will only use words and never engage in self-defense. The Pacifist will defend another using the method of nonresistance, giving up his body to prevent, or limit, damage done to another. The best example of this would be The Civil Rights Movement. The following is only 16 seconds long, but MLK Jr. wraps up The Pacifist and Nonresistance quite efficiently:
The Pacifist has a moral objection to the use of violence itself. This is why The Pacifist always opposes war. The Pacifist is no coward. The Pacifist of such a powerful nature that even Hermann Goering was forced to acknowledge them, and said at The Nuremburg Trials:
The people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country.
To bring a quote back:
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~ Chinese Proverb from http://www.quotegarden.com/violence.html
Monday, August 26, 2013
Nihilism - Nihilists vs Anarchy - Anarchists.
A Nihilist is someone who, according to The Big Lebowski, is an individual who cares about nothing. A Nihilist would argue that, "life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value" (thank you Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nihilism).
Anarchy is usually defined as objection to any form of government. An Anarchist would be an individual employing physical force as the statement of objection.
I have a different idea of what constitutes Anarchy and Nihilism.
Nihilism is the lack of concern about the consequence of the act. As there is no meaning, purpose, or value, then nothing has a point to it except the immediacy of the current act. Their exists no constraint within the Nihilist.
Anarchy is the objection to all methods of control, most specifically in regard to the imposition upon the individual by another, or group. This would include government, but it would also include things like clothing, peer pressure, medicine, food and, most certainly, the use of violence. As noted in the previous post, an act of violence is the imposition of will of one against another unwilling/unknowing individual.
I consider most anarchists to be nihilists. Look up 'black bloc anarchists" on YouTube and you'll get more hits than their guidelines seem to allow for. Most Anarchists that make it on film are not concerned beyond their immediate actions, they are acting without constraint.
An Anarchist understands violence is just another method of control, and would therefore not employ it for any reason. This is the point where a discussion on the difference between the ideology of Pacifism and Non-Violence becomes necessary, but that will be the purpose of the next post.
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb from http://www.quotegarden.com/violence.html.
Anarchy is usually defined as objection to any form of government. An Anarchist would be an individual employing physical force as the statement of objection.
I have a different idea of what constitutes Anarchy and Nihilism.
Nihilism is the lack of concern about the consequence of the act. As there is no meaning, purpose, or value, then nothing has a point to it except the immediacy of the current act. Their exists no constraint within the Nihilist.
Anarchy is the objection to all methods of control, most specifically in regard to the imposition upon the individual by another, or group. This would include government, but it would also include things like clothing, peer pressure, medicine, food and, most certainly, the use of violence. As noted in the previous post, an act of violence is the imposition of will of one against another unwilling/unknowing individual.
I consider most anarchists to be nihilists. Look up 'black bloc anarchists" on YouTube and you'll get more hits than their guidelines seem to allow for. Most Anarchists that make it on film are not concerned beyond their immediate actions, they are acting without constraint.
An Anarchist understands violence is just another method of control, and would therefore not employ it for any reason. This is the point where a discussion on the difference between the ideology of Pacifism and Non-Violence becomes necessary, but that will be the purpose of the next post.
"The man who strikes first admits that his ideas have given out." ~Chinese Proverb from http://www.quotegarden.com/violence.html.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)