Months ago, I watched a video of Jordan
Peterson explaining 12 rules for a new conservative movement. I don't recall most of them,
but his explanation of borders stuck with me. Borders distinguish.
You don't need to have a negative opinion of refugees or be racist
and afraid of being “taken over” by migrant workers to want to
respect what the things around a border you've drawn represent. In as
many years as I've been hearing about “sides” regarding politics,
a “principle” of the conservative side was never been explained
to me like that.
For the longest time, I've never felt particularly aligned with any camp, let alone the implications of being forced to pick between the democratic or republican ones. I think I know what they used to stand for. I know what they campaign on. And I know that all evidence points to the only real party being that which money dictates. Those with the resources create the conditions to protect or expand their influence. Whatever else may be said of greed and the stark ignorance and disconnect policy makers have with regard to the poor, the powers of wealth merely described can remain independently true.
I've seen a theme across a number of different thinkers lately. It's a call to be more specific. The campaign slogans promising “hope” or “greatness” are designed specifically against this. The person who gives themselves over to the narrative subjected to arbitrary ways in which it unfolds. People still love Obama not because they have a position on drone strikes and wiretapping, but the short-hand representative intelligent black man substitutes for their own responsibility to adopt similar qualifiers.
You can try and zero in at different levels of distinction. A border is a familiar and easily rooted for idea. You push or defend borders. You get to make claims about what happens in your backyard. This distinction is lost on some extreme leftist groups who think there are no implications to putting pockets of ethnically minority people in an area. Many European neighbors can attest to what happens, as well act as a lesson if you attempt to do it half-assed. The distinction of course isn't “that” they're different, or there's some inherent evil or malicious intent to them, it's “but they are” different. To the extent you want to weaponize those differences is a measure of your personal folly.
The picture grows more complicated when you consider potential ideological possession. You don't want clusters of Nazi's anymore than you want actual believers in Sharia. First, I'd challenge you to accurately define what it is you think you're afraid of, tellingly when you can't, you've got your first clue that you're ideologically possessed. It would still remain foolish to pretend there is no difference between demanding women cover up their bodies or resorting to stone-age punishments for improprieties as “no different” than differing opinions on what it means to live well. And hey, maybe take a plate to the Pence's of the world.
I think it becomes increasingly hard to make distinctions when you're unwilling or unable to grant yourself any. I think this speaks to my frustrated and perhaps hatred with “meme speak.” A disarming chuckle shared 50 thousand times isn't any one of those individuals being funny. The ability of the meme to become infections speaks in no way to its truth or its audience's ability to understand it. You didn't create the meme, hoping to arrange your individuated thoughts in an interesting or intelligent way. It's a way to try and take credit for a joke just because you found yourself laughing.
Small recap. You can distinguish at the level of normative tangible examples, like a border. You can distinguish at the level of too-compelling words as they pertain to your personality. Or, you can forgo the exercise of distinguishing, and be a go-between for every incidentally infectious idea that scares you or makes you smile. We're in the throes of the second Women's March. Whatever individual reason each person is at their respective rallying point, the consequences of a larger generally malicious ideological position are being felt. To the extent you want to blame “patriarchy,” may suggest a measure of your own possession.
I try to do distinguishing things. I try to live my life in accordance with what I've come to relative conclusions about. I'm often at the mercy and whims of things like my car or job or depreciated social construct, but I nonetheless have a considerably more complicated answer as to what I'm doing, or where I think it's taking me, than “it pays the bills” or “that's just how it is.” I belabor examples of my past because I've found it incredibly hard to create the conditions of mutual safety and opportunity that a paid-off college environment provides. I no longer have the enthusiastic zest to exhaust myself at a job that doesn't appreciate me. I've allowed myself the leeway to learn how I can or can't rely on people.
As such, I've found myself growing more persuaded and comfortable with a kind of “conservative” posture. I really do want to protect what I have that, over so long of a middling existence struggling to achieve even a basic mutual acceptance of a shared goal or responsibility, the fight for it seems considerably more prolonged, dramatic, and important. I want a second front opened in service to things getting better, but the bit that has survived that's allowed me to even get this far feels as worthy of praise and protection. I struggle to demonize broad “capitalism” and don't think I'm a complicit cog in predatory patriarchy.
A lot of things still work. If you have too hard a time figuring out what they are, it suggests there's something more wrong with your broad skirting conception of your identity politics first. I no more bow to a man than I do his ideology. I think the work of critical thinking and collecting evidence are flirting with being relegated to a new dark age. I'm always going to blame the individual populist before I mindlessly swat at the air of ideas.
For the longest time, I've never felt particularly aligned with any camp, let alone the implications of being forced to pick between the democratic or republican ones. I think I know what they used to stand for. I know what they campaign on. And I know that all evidence points to the only real party being that which money dictates. Those with the resources create the conditions to protect or expand their influence. Whatever else may be said of greed and the stark ignorance and disconnect policy makers have with regard to the poor, the powers of wealth merely described can remain independently true.
I've seen a theme across a number of different thinkers lately. It's a call to be more specific. The campaign slogans promising “hope” or “greatness” are designed specifically against this. The person who gives themselves over to the narrative subjected to arbitrary ways in which it unfolds. People still love Obama not because they have a position on drone strikes and wiretapping, but the short-hand representative intelligent black man substitutes for their own responsibility to adopt similar qualifiers.
You can try and zero in at different levels of distinction. A border is a familiar and easily rooted for idea. You push or defend borders. You get to make claims about what happens in your backyard. This distinction is lost on some extreme leftist groups who think there are no implications to putting pockets of ethnically minority people in an area. Many European neighbors can attest to what happens, as well act as a lesson if you attempt to do it half-assed. The distinction of course isn't “that” they're different, or there's some inherent evil or malicious intent to them, it's “but they are” different. To the extent you want to weaponize those differences is a measure of your personal folly.
The picture grows more complicated when you consider potential ideological possession. You don't want clusters of Nazi's anymore than you want actual believers in Sharia. First, I'd challenge you to accurately define what it is you think you're afraid of, tellingly when you can't, you've got your first clue that you're ideologically possessed. It would still remain foolish to pretend there is no difference between demanding women cover up their bodies or resorting to stone-age punishments for improprieties as “no different” than differing opinions on what it means to live well. And hey, maybe take a plate to the Pence's of the world.
I think it becomes increasingly hard to make distinctions when you're unwilling or unable to grant yourself any. I think this speaks to my frustrated and perhaps hatred with “meme speak.” A disarming chuckle shared 50 thousand times isn't any one of those individuals being funny. The ability of the meme to become infections speaks in no way to its truth or its audience's ability to understand it. You didn't create the meme, hoping to arrange your individuated thoughts in an interesting or intelligent way. It's a way to try and take credit for a joke just because you found yourself laughing.
Small recap. You can distinguish at the level of normative tangible examples, like a border. You can distinguish at the level of too-compelling words as they pertain to your personality. Or, you can forgo the exercise of distinguishing, and be a go-between for every incidentally infectious idea that scares you or makes you smile. We're in the throes of the second Women's March. Whatever individual reason each person is at their respective rallying point, the consequences of a larger generally malicious ideological position are being felt. To the extent you want to blame “patriarchy,” may suggest a measure of your own possession.
I try to do distinguishing things. I try to live my life in accordance with what I've come to relative conclusions about. I'm often at the mercy and whims of things like my car or job or depreciated social construct, but I nonetheless have a considerably more complicated answer as to what I'm doing, or where I think it's taking me, than “it pays the bills” or “that's just how it is.” I belabor examples of my past because I've found it incredibly hard to create the conditions of mutual safety and opportunity that a paid-off college environment provides. I no longer have the enthusiastic zest to exhaust myself at a job that doesn't appreciate me. I've allowed myself the leeway to learn how I can or can't rely on people.
As such, I've found myself growing more persuaded and comfortable with a kind of “conservative” posture. I really do want to protect what I have that, over so long of a middling existence struggling to achieve even a basic mutual acceptance of a shared goal or responsibility, the fight for it seems considerably more prolonged, dramatic, and important. I want a second front opened in service to things getting better, but the bit that has survived that's allowed me to even get this far feels as worthy of praise and protection. I struggle to demonize broad “capitalism” and don't think I'm a complicit cog in predatory patriarchy.
A lot of things still work. If you have too hard a time figuring out what they are, it suggests there's something more wrong with your broad skirting conception of your identity politics first. I no more bow to a man than I do his ideology. I think the work of critical thinking and collecting evidence are flirting with being relegated to a new dark age. I'm always going to blame the individual populist before I mindlessly swat at the air of ideas.
