i’m probably at 6 and trying to find ways to move to 7.
4 Likes
I believe in nonlinear (actually simultaneous) multi-incarnation… So see you at dawn! 
I appreciate your post very much, thank you. And seriously, mea culpa on my being a bit of a dick with my phrasing earlier. As you’ve captured more eloquently than I probably could, I think we probably agree about these types of dynamics much more so than we disagree.
So getting to the root of the real point… why? Well, I think we both know – these types of social dynamics are often manipulated by a society’s prevailing power structure, for very specific reasons.
Right now, Earth 4D SpaceTime, 2018, we are at a VERY extreme point of societal evolution. We’re probably nearing something akin to a 21st-Century dystopian version of the Bronze Age Collapse. I hope not, but as I think you said yourself, it does seem like America at the very least may not have a terribly great shot at this point.
I tend to look at these types of things cyclically, and again, because I’m an oddball, karmically. I tend to believe that all actions create karma, it’s sort of how it works. There is personal karma, family karma, soul karma, societal karma – all sorts of karma! And I do honestly lean toward the idea that these patterns exist beyond 4D SpaceTime as we currently understand it.
I also think it’s all, on one level, exactly as it’s supposed to be. I think Earth and humanity, at least over the past X thousands of years, is supposed to be all about these types of patterns playing out. Why, you didn’t ask? Because Earth is a cross between a school, an art project, and an adventure tourism package, and we are here (or maybe better put, an aspect of our selves are here), now and through the ages, to experience just these types of conflict-oriented experiences. And also the awesome ones!
So again, thank you for being classy, as I have known you to be over a good number of years now on this board. I will try harder to do better on that front, myself.
1 Like
It’s probably better to think of it as a discussion tool rather than a level progression. Stuff is complex. 
We’re all a work in progress on this, and nobody has all the answers. The most important thing is to keep at it.
8 Likes
i understand what you mean.
those two points sitting side by side do seem to bleed back and forth into each other as much or more than any other part of that paradigm. as a schoolteacher i’ve had a chance to push the system of my school towards justice from within. sometimes i’ve been called out as showing favoritism to blacks over whites or to girls over boys when all i’ve ever done is to push talent and effort to what they deserve without regard for race or gender. but to those who perpetuate a system favoring white males such treatment looks like favoritism to the others. when i’ve been tasked with social studies the kids have been treated to a much more thoughtful and more radical view of the modern world than they would have gotten from the other two social studies teachers.
10 Likes
Yeah. It’s the mechanism which was/is used in this reality.
But much analysis suggests that some equivalent mechanism would have been required were it not available. Which means that if we counteract the mechanism, it could jam the gears of the whole thing.
2 Likes
Let’s have some classic American oratory:
Malcolm was one of the best. His loss was a historic tragedy.
—
Do y’all get how this analogises to the bigger picture?
House Negro : Field Negro
Middle Class : Working Class
Western Populations : Global South
9 Likes
It’s one thing to try to be a good person, it’s another thing to use the power of government to enforce it on others. We should endeavor to be good people and not willfully give offense to others, that is the ideal. But to maintain a free society, we must allow those who choose to give offense to do so, we do not need to like them, and we may criticize them.
No, I don't see a conflict.
A racist society would be one where one race is free to behave in a manner that another race is not allowed to, not one where respect is shown to all races.Did I bring officialdom into it? Did I say that someone cannot speak? Enforcing speech rules is one thing, suggesting that something is offensive is another. I never said someone could not say something, I suggested that it is not polite. That would be the difference.
This is the only history worth reading…
Just using this as an excuse to drop some random history…
Sixth century Iranian free-love proto-socialists. History is a lot weirder than folks realise.
10 Likes
It doesn’t matter what you brought up; you still don’t get to dictate how anyone else communicates, full stop. Complaining about it won’t make anyone change the way they speak.
Hint:
No one really cares if you personally think a commonly used term is “impolite”; the world, like this forum, doesn’t revolve around you.
10 Likes
Oh you, so willing to fling blanket racist terms at white folks.
Oops, I just did it too!
/s 
10 Likes
Struggle and win, struggle and lose.
1 Like
I’ve seen people become disproportionately offended at fairly innocuous terms before, but this is ridiculous…
13 Likes
Here’s the deal: we’re free to be you & me, until we harm others. One major role of government is to intercede when “free” people harm other “free” people. It’s not easy, but there is a distinction between offense and harm. Calling someone an asshole may offend them (probably) and that offense is usually intentional. However, it’s not harmful. Calling someone a racial slur is harmful. That action reinforces centuries of oppression, violence, and murder. It’s hate speech, and that’s why the government should get involved.
5 Likes
You could probably make a convincing case that calling someone a racial epithet to their face amounts to “fighting words” and is not protected speech. There are limits to free speech. But the government trying to define “hate speech” is a horrible idea. It immediately devolves into the nonsense we see around the world, where someone is arrested for denigrating someone else’s beliefs. If you want to ban hate speech, then most of the primary contributors at Boing Boing would be in jail. They tend to say mean things about people they don’t like.
If you start trying to carve out a protected status for some groups to be safe from hate speech you’ve totally missed the point. Its like George Jefferson referring to whites as “honkies” as a laugh line. Poor Willis was a nice guy who was obviously not a racist, yet he had to suffer that insult over and over for laughs. Either words hurt or they don’t.
I call BS – that slippery slope you’re standing on feels slippery to you, but not at all to me. It’s not that hard to figure out what’s really potentially injurious speech in specific social contexts and what isn’t. Germany, for instance, bans open advocacy of Nazi polices.
Oh please. It got laughs because it’s punching up, not down. Whatever “hurt” that word inflicts on white people is less than a mosquito bite compared to the snake bites of white supremacist terminology.
It’s like you don’t even realize that society in the U.S. is fundamentally grounded in an extant legacy of white supremacy.
12 Likes
8 Likes
I think history for the last few hundred years said that.
9 Likes
Uh oh, now you stepped in it!
Why you wanna be racist against wypipo!!!
/s
8 Likes
