After the party, sober observations

Standard

So, it’s been two years since Trump was elected president and that marks approximately three years that my views have be come more right leaning.

In that time, I have positively inhaled countless hours of more right leaning political media – ranging from books, podcasts and YouTube videos. The opinions, humor and content was so new and interesting to me, that I was positively giddy with excitement to behold it all.

But as with anything when time passes, the initial excitement wears thin and the ensuing sobriety allows you to take a closer look at the actual ‘content’ versus the emotions it elicits.

Here’s the biggest takeaway (currently) that I have in the harsh daylight – just because you think that someone is right about one area doesn’t mean that they will be right – in other areas. or all humans – regardless of their political leanings – are flawed.

A vague and even too on the nose observation, yes? Here’s what I mean.

From about 2015 until sometime in 2018, I watched a  ton of right leaning political commentary videos. A very popular target of their content was anti-SJW, anti-feminism and anti-BLM topics. But it didn’t stop there. In addition to critiquing their opposition’s arguments – these content creators also state – subtly or overtly – that the commentator themselves are not as honest, principled, funny, smart or down right virtuous as the Right.

A couple of examples include Milo Yiannopolus, Matt Jarbo and Dave Ramsey.

It’s easy to see the hypocrisies of Milo and Matt, I was inspired to write this post because of Dave. The jolt to write came after listening to yet another spiel of Dave repeating how reasonable, willing to argue and virtuous the Right is. It’s pretty much his brand’s tagline at this point.

No, the Right isn’t more virtuous. It’s using the stratetigic tactics of the underdog. Kind of when they go low then we go high type of thinking.

So, the Liberal strongholds include academia, legacy media companies and even the general zeitgeist. In addition to attempting to replicate these institutions but from a Right point of view, the alternative side also to make a variation of the appeal to emotion. That is to say, the Right is arguing that not is their cause just (their arguments are logically correct) but the people making the arguments also are imbued with just so many more virtuous qualities than the Left.

Back to Dave Rubin and his repeptive spiel about being willing to have a conservation.

He doesn’t.

The supermajority of Rubin’s guests are right lite, moderate right leaning poltical views. But, thanks to You Tube’s algorithim that makes sure to recommend more and more extreme Right leaning views, I am well aware that his guests’ views are down right tepid by comparison.

So, Rubin, despite all proclamations to the contrary, doesn’t speak to everyone. He has a line, a limit to what he’s willing to tolerate or even what he considers to be serious.

Good grief, what is the point of pointing out that mundane fact.

Not much. Just to note that everyone – on the right or left – has their limits and boundaries that they are willing to set for themselves. The so-called Right proposes that their boundaries are more elastic than the Left, but I think this is only because they are trying to deliberately contrast themselves to a generalized uptight non talkative Left.

Take away: we’re more alike than we would like to admit. The best way to prove this assertion is to look at how more Right leaning regimes behave when they are in power.

 

 

Advertisements

Standard

MY FEMINISM COULDN’T SAVE ME FROM LOVING A VIOLENT MAN

The article above details how the author was involved with an abusive (emotionally and verbal) relationship. But in particular the author was baffled as to how she in particular got involved because she was a feminist and an anti domestic violence advocate.

Reading the story, I kept having the same thought, ‘but how was this suppose to prevent you from being in an abusive relationship**?

Feminism, as has been repeated ad nauseam, is the belief that men and women are equals. THAT’S IT.

But in addition to it’s professed definition, there are apparently several underlying assumptions. One of these assumptions is that by adhering to the ideology of feminism women will be protected from gendered harm.

But as the author discovered, it doesn’t.

I wandered if the author dedicated herself to feminism not just to help women but to help herself. Several times throughout the article, the author confessed to her own weaknesses and foibles. Did she cling to feminism because she thought that she had found sometime to make her whole, to keep her safe?

Will the author or should I say will feminism address this deficit in their ideology?

I have my doubts that it will. So far, the feminist movement has been immune to correcting itself.

**The author characterized her relationship as ‘abusive’ in today’s parlance but really she was involved with a guy who cheated on her, who was a drifter and he was someone who another person told her was ‘manipulative.’ I’m just saying the title was a bit overstated for my tastes.**

kdrama love

Standard

I’m still brainstorming about how I got bit by the kdrama bug.

My previous foreign media of choice was anime – all day, every day.

But I stumbled on a kdrama on Netflix – (“Protect the Boss”). And although, I am constantly looking back fondly on that day, I haven’t gone back. Now I only consistently watch western documentaries or reality tv shows.

Currently watching “Queen for Seven Days,” and I think that some of the strongest reasons I have for my continuing appreciation of kdrama – is the relationship between men and women -the tenderness and trust. Coming off of years of Scandal, How to Get Away with Murder to name a few, this remains a sweet respite.

(at least in the dramas that I have watched so far, I have deliberately stayed away from any battle-of-the-sexes show premises).

That is all.

Fair Housing for All?

Standard

I attended a panel examining Fair Housing in Atlanta 50+ years after the passage of the Civil Right Act.

Well, it was meant to be a panel examining the growth or lack there of fair, i.e. affordable, housing in the City of Atlanta. As someone who has a very shaky grasp of the history and current situation of housing availability in Atlanta, I couldn’t say that I walked away with much more information than what I began. Words spoken by the panelists acknowledged historical discrimination and current housing injustice, but specific details explaining these words were not given. Instead the panelists quickly moved on to describe how much the institutions they worked for were working hard to address the problem. The panelists included a representative for HUD, the Housing Authority (or soon to be Atlanta Housing, a good marketing move) and two others I cannot remember now.

But the evening wasn’t a waste because it did whet my appetite about learning more about housing in Atlanta. Embarrassingly enough, for several questions that were raised in my mind, I quickly wondered what Thomas Sowell, or Colin (of Colin’s Last Stand) thought. I wanted to be told the answer. But that would be too easy and just a tad pathetic since I knew that once I had their answer I would just parrot what they had to say.

So, I want to actually understand, not just repeat someone else’s conclusions.

Here are the handful of questions that I think are most important to me to begin with:

What is the Fair Housing Act and what part of the Civil Rights Act addresses housing (yes, Dr King hang your head in shame because I honestly don’t know – yet.)

What are the average prices of homes and apartments in City of Atlanta and why are they so expensive?

What happens to those who are displaced by gentrification?

Is it automatically discriminatory for landlords not to choose to accept housing vouchers? why do landlords choose not to accept housing vouchers?

Is an enforced fair housing law effective? (define effective. 😉

Questioning: Pan Africanism, Black Collectivism

Standard

In the past year, my political views have bent toward a more libertarian angle and have thus found a need to question a lot of my previous beliefs.

Currently on the chopping block: pan Africanism, black collectivism.

Pan Africanism – can I admit that I didn’t even consider it a political movement or political theory, it was just the way that people should think – Blacks -worldwide- should be sticking together. Ergo, the fact that this is NOT the reality is cause for a lot of alarm, shame and embarrassment.

But stepping back, gaining a different perspective, I am now able to ask some questions, most pertinent to me is what is the overall goal, what exactly is this global collective suppose to be striving for?

The same questions apply to Black collectivism. One of the most blatant answers I see is that this banding together is meant for protection, against white supremacy, Asian supremacy, Jewish supremacy, etc. Somehow this banding together will produce…some type of paradise on Earth. SOMEHOW. Yeah, that’s about the extent of the general knowledge I have obtained of these movements. Considering that these are movements meant for everyone of a certain skin color I don’t think that these answers should appear so esoteric.

so I’m going to have to dig deeper.

Let’s see what I come up with.

Shea moisture: When ‘buying black’ goes wrong

Standard

Hey, how about that Shea Moisture commercial that is bound to become a teachable moment in how NOT to properly court a new consumer market without angering your old market.

A lot of the anger is coming from a contingent of consumers who believe in the black centric principle of buying black.

Here’s four teachable lessons for consumers who want to practice the principle of buying black without being burned in the future.

 

  1. “Buying Black ensures that more Black people are employed,” is one of the reasons stated for why it’s important to support Black businesses.
    1. BUYER BEWARE: Do your homework and research the company’s hiring practices.
  2. Black owners may not share your values. (I.E. Blacks are REALLY not a monolith)
    1. BUYER BEWARE: You, dear consumer, may believe in black empowerment, collectivism, etc, but that does not mean that the business owner you are purchasing from believes in reinvestment in the community, hiring more people from the community, etc. As a “woke” consumer, it is your duty to do due diligence to discover where your dollars are likely to be used.