Is Trumps Boarder Wall Antithetical To Jedi Doctrine?

Wescli Wardest wrote: Good grief, are we still going on about this!?!?! :ohmy:

And I thought Congress was adept at wasting time... :huh: :pinch: :whistle:

It's possible that people who choose to keep talking about a particular subject do so because they continue to get something out their participation. Just because it's not your cup of tea doesn't mean it's not beneficial. How long have people been discussing Jesus? 2000 years? And many of them will continue because to them the job isn't finished until Jesus comes back. So excuse us, but can we let conversations continue until the people having them feel like stopping?

Adder: The implication being they start as the same group and its their definition of the struggle which creates the difference. A better term might be overcomers of sufferers and those who don't.

I'm not sure so I'm asking.

Are you assuming that people who complain about racism are "sufferers" and those who don't are "over comers"? (because I've heard this type of sentiment before) If so, I don't think this is a fair assumption because people can walk and chew gum at the same time. I can complain about racism while making almost six figures and know others who do the same. Because part of it is not just seeing and speaking on what happens to you as an individual but you as a "group". This comes with the understanding that you are seen as part of that group and therefore, no matter who you are or how much you enjoy jogging, you can still be viewed by others as a burglar suspect. And unfortunately I don't have to use my imagination for this. I'm talking about Ahmaud Arbery. Not only have there been no arrests, but the obvious thing to me is that no body saw Arbery committing a crime. And just like George Zimmerman, the actual danger isn't the black guy jogging or the black guy walking down an alley wearing a hoodie. The danger is the people who automatically suspect them of being criminals when they aren't even law enforcement. These would be the first people who would get agitated if they felt like they weren't living in a free country but they make it less free for other people.

In this scenario it doesn't matter ONE BIT whether the jogger, walker, etc. thinks they are an over comer or a sufferer. It would actually be to their benefit to think about the dangers they face so they have a better idea how to react and respond when this danger (typically from white Americans) actually comes. For instance, in one real life example, the black guy notified the officer that there was a gun present in the car and that he had a permit. Still he ended up shot with his girlfriend and her baby in the car. What did he do wrong?

In many scenarios racism is something that happens to the person because it's about how OTHER PEOPLE view you. It's not about how you view yourself. You are a victim simply by being victimized. And so the fact that this threat exists is not avoidable and something that every black person should be prepared for. In order to be prepared we cannot be ignorant to the problem. And when it keeps happening to us, ignorance becomes less and less possible. Parents are concerned about their sons, if nothing else, because even if a child isn't aware that they are hated and feared, their parents know. And they worry about what can happen to their INNOCENT child. Arbery was 100% innocent when he died; just as many black people are innocent when they don't get a job or they get passed over time and time again for a promotion. It happens. We know it happens. We know because we keep experiencing it and we share our experiences. It's simply more rare that we share those same experiences with white Americans.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2019/10/22/more-than-people-have-been-lynched-us-trump-isnt-one-them/

In the end, being the change I want means being successful while being able to spark and participate in more conversations about race to raise awareness and to share perspectives so that we can gradually shift the culture to one of more empathy (which benefits more than just victims of racism) in general. But to achieve empathy people have to be able to feel someone else's pain and imagine what it would be like to be in their shoes. What if that was their family. What if they themselves didn't feel safe just jogging, not because they were scared of criminals like what should be normal, but because they were scared of everyone else. One of the worst things about racism is that we don't know who is racist. We really don't. There's no face tattoo or mole in a certain place; not Hitler mustache we can all see. It could be anyone and therefore you don't know who might be the threat. It's like the woman in the red dress in the Matrix. You have to assume that everyone could be an agent the same way that so-called law abiding citizens assume that everyone (but for racists, especially black people) could be a criminal. And so when they should see something as normal behavior (someone running because they like to run and do it for exercise) they see something else. They project intent onto that otherwise innocent person because they imagine their guilt. It's not just terrible. It's terrorizing. And when Dylan Roof shot up the church that is exactly what he wanted to achieve. Terror. And it is a continuation of the same thing people wanted to achieve with confederate statues and flags. These things then become "Dog whistles". Non racists either don't know what they mean or allow themselves to think it means whatever they say it means. And it becomes "just history" or "just" whatever. And it's downplayed like it's not a problem at all.

Adder: one can afford to exert a level of interaction between someone 'closer' then someone 'removed' from the capability (to measure and adjust each others participation). The less control available the less capability can be applied (either way), but its a two way street and once one party indicates it's not willing to develop a strong relationship then it has to limit the capability offered to that connection.

I understand perfectly, but this is the problem. As I said in earlier posts, racism is like a virus that is concentrated in different more isolated communities. The more dense the white population is the less likely they are getting adequately exposed to black people and so their image of black people is often based on anecdotes and stereotypes and movies. Shows like Blackish are good as they bring up many of the same topics I do in approachable comical forms but racists don't necessarily watch these shows because they really don't want to have their views challenged or changed. They just assume they're right. And because they don't actually know black people, and therefore far removed, it is easier not to care and to treat them less than human. For the same reason they are probably not going to talk to me or have a real conversation with me about race; especially if they believe their race is superior. But their also far removed from you and others who I would say are more evolved in their thinking. It's like they have the disease and you have the antibodies. A lot of people have been under the assumption that if we don't talk about it, it will go away on its own. It hasn't. And that's because these isolated communities are echo chambers where the virus is constantly reinforced and jumping from person to person. These people often lead very different lives but sometimes those lives overlap and that's where racists are able to victimize minorities.

If these isolated communities had direct exposure to black people that would help. But they don't and typically what you said about being "removed" means that they don't care enough to empathize. But my thing is that if a BAD IDEA, like racism, can be spread virally then it makes sense, at least in my head, that a cure... a GOOD IDEA, can also be spread virally. And communities isolated from minorities may not get such a cure from minorities themselves, but could get that cure from other communities that think differently but share more of their culture and especially its corresponding historical identity as they are more likely to marry and have children with others of that same identity. There are other communities where there are a lot of interracial couples, and often that influence makes more room for interracial couples and pushes very hard against racist ideas. I've seen it. So to mean the removal thing you spoke about is 100% true; however, it can also be overcome. Just not by minorities directly.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VbDj8jaialk

For anyone who says "I don't see color" please start watching this video at the 26 min mark. This is not a judgment against you if you say this. Again, the point is so that you can have more productive conversations with people of color.

Nah she is incorrect to assert that is why people say it. Yes I'm sure it might be why 'some' say it, but for others they simply don't need to focus on one groups struggle to acknowledge and focus on the dynamics of dealing with it. At the level of interpersonal relations the application of equality not only does not need a focus on a groups individual struggle, it can be counter-productive to assume that is the only struggle or an accurate representation. Much better to view people as people, and approach things on an equal footing IMO.

But of course my answer might beg the point that things are never equal and not all people are going to be acting fairly, but that is not relevant to this point because I'm talking about the defensive of a point of view from mis-characterization like the lady in the video above.

I guess at a deeper level the problem with her point is, and perhaps your point, these concepts of race are not universal. If they are not, then why bother applying them as seeing people by them. It all comes off as a bit preachy to the choir, because if you tell a racist to see race then its not really helping. So it seems to be more about setting a narrative of emotion by race rather then any measure of anti-discrimination by any real measure.

PS: sorry I didn't see your earlier reply back in April.
From a super super quick look back at it, I'd say no, rather it's about change over time, such that both group were victims but only one retains the suffering as a paradigm to interpret reality such that things become defined as if they were a victim and as a result still are suffering - compared to those victims who overcame it and whilst still no doubt not entirely without suffering are distinct in that they are more able to be tied up in the counter-productive elements of suffering to act more effectively.

Although I admire Jane Elliot : I’ve never met physically the people she always speaks of.

For me - and just me - no one else has to vibe or bibe this way at all but I see a lot of arguments that are either some one else or something else - rarley first hand. Though a lot of what she says is first hand - that’s the part I appreciate and have trouble with. Just me. Sounds like a lot of projection, and that’s really my beef - that’s all. It may not be projection but from here - that’s what it looks like

I've always said, everyone doesn't necessarily mean the same thing when they say it. The point IS that these concepts of race are not universally understood. That, my brother, is why I was presenting a more universal statement of saying the same thing without offending anyone. And then ironically, some people seemed offended at my suggestion. Like I had broken through some kind of political correctness dimension that they didn't want to be limited by.

The point is how things are said vs how things are understood and this can be affected by region and culture. If you're a white person in the US you might hear this and say this and mean something different. If you're a white person in Australia you might say this, thinking it isn't at all controversial, and you can mean to be as least offensive as possible and literally be surprised when someone is offended. And therefore you might take their offense to be their problem. That's not an unlikely or unreasonable scenario.

But it's like asking them to not be offended to bend to your meaning because you're trying to say something positive instead of bending to their meaning and understanding why they are offended and seeing what you're saying as negative.




Jane Elliot, as she explains, is famous for providing "experiences" where people are able to confront their biases. She exposed how these biases can result in oppression. And she did this with classes of students and adults. The results have been consistent enough that she is famous for it. And so she's not simply speaking from her personal opinion but from an opinion academically educated and well reasoned from these group experiences. Her frustration started during the civil rights movement and hearing responses from the white community to Martin Luther King. That's what started her down this path. It really is fascinating, but she was able to confirm a lot of the feelings and suspicions black people have had because we've been quietly dealing with this for hundreds of years. It's so common place that many white people simply aren't conscious of it. And that's her point; that it's unconscious. You can be racist and really not even know it. I know that sounds impossible to a lot of people. But these biases don't always come out until they are tested. Do I think you are unconsciously racist? Probably not. It's really the product of nurture and societal norms. When a group decides that, for example, "brown eyes" are superior and then blue eyes become a lower class. Eventually, negative stereotypes get attached to having blue eyes.

...or blond hair...

It doesn't matter what that physical difference is, it's simply the difference itself. That's why I don't like the statement, that a person doesn't see color because it's not literally true. Unless you're a K9 you do see color. But what you see should be that there is nothing wrong with that color or pigmentation or lack thereof. Saying I don't see color is like saying you don't hear words. Of course you hear words. Of course you receive stimuli. The problem isn't the stimuli but your reaction to it.

There's many things you can say. Jane Elliot likes to say there are many colors but there's only 1 race. That's totally true and acceptable and the only people who should be offended by that are racists who want there to be multiple "races". But are there different colors? Yes, of course there are. And color is beautiful. Who wants to see all flowers in black and white? So, when I hear that phrase, it, to me, sounds like the person wants to ignore something that to me is beautiful. I understand that may not be what you mean, but that was my point. That if you (people in general) want to be understood better and have more effective conversations on race it'd be better to stay away from certain rhetoric even though it seems to be okay by the amount of white people who use it.

I think what you posted here is a much more logical way than is presented to the average white person in the US. It makes it very reasonable to me, however leaves me with a question.

So both sides of the conversation, the rhetoric is causing an interference between the parties?

Rhetoric can be an issue of context, implied and literal meaning.

This causes both parties in the conversation to prejudge the other by a misunderstanding of what one means to the other?

How do we fix that? There has to be a point where we come together.


Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

Thank you.

I think it's simple. There are many scenarios in which one side of the table lacks the knowledge, insight, and experience, the other side of the table has on that subject. So the side that knows more should lead the subject. If we're talking about women's rights/equality you can't "mansplain" what women should know or think on that issue. It would be silly. But it doesn't stop men from doing it. Sarah Silverman made a video that comically talked about the gender cap specifically in terms of wages. Still, a lot of men feel that "male privilege" doesn't exist. Why? Because they're using their limited experiences and trying to impose their view of the world upon a woman who can literally look at the statistics and see that women are paid less. And this even accounts for maternity leave.

If we think about how we should treat women, and how sexism is still a thing, it would be silly to tell women that you don't see their gender. Do women seeking to be equal mean they don't want you to be a gentleman or that they don't want any compliments? Maybe there are people who say "I don't see your gender" but how does every woman react to this? Does it sound genuine? Or does it sound like something men made up to make themselves sound like they weren't sexist?

Ultimately, this needs to be more of a listening experience where we listen to the experiences of those who have a story to tell; whether its oppression in the form of sexism, racism, homophobia, molestation, etc. Listen so we can understand and ask questions here and there (Respectfully) when we don't.

The answer is in the understanding. Because if you understand 2+2=4 you wont be going around saying 2+2=5. And if your kids hear you say 2+2=4 then they wont be running around with the wrong answer too. And when their friend says 2+2=5 they can correct them (and trust me they will if children feel comfortable enough with the answer). So this works even with the definition of racism that we use. That too is part of the problem for us getting on the same page. But the biggest thing is to listen and try to understand. Don't try to mansplain gender or whitesplain race.

Because it is entirely possible that you don't know the whole story; that you don't know what you don't know. And that's okay.

I agree completely. Now one of the things I have to ask about is are or were we not making progress on those fronts at all? Things are drastically different than even 10 years ago.

I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds?

The last thing I have to ask is because we just had a good discussion here (at least a great start IMHO). So, I have been able to make sense as I am sure many here have. Now, how do we make that message one can understand with out this form of conversation (to appeal to more without making them feel threatened and guilty instead of truly enlightening them)?

Much Love, Respect and Peace,
Kobos

“
I would also like to ask, when listening who do we listen too? There are many experiences, how do we judge history against this as we shift a definition so deeply ingrained in society? Again do we see any progress? Do we trust everyone who responds? “


This is the biggest thing for me. I don’t trust just anyone. My fault. I’m working on it.

It’s - for me - ingrained in the “acceptance” rather than tolerant.

I like to validate. It’s the Jedi in me I guess or the soldier.

This is why Joseph C. is still hard for me to read all the way through - I have to find out what he’s talking about.

THESE type of ideas seem to merry go round untill you get off the idea or ride. That’s just for me personally.

Some days I just have to take peoples word for it.
Acceptance can be a distraction as well as frustrating but in the end it’s worth it for me.

Sad this day we live in - some experiences arnt real - some folk just want the attention - some are just bored... some need some want - what a mess to sift through - every time. .... every time .... every time ....

What a mess

My hope is that every modern day Jedi understand the need for personal balance. Ya gotta have it. You can have it -

I am a Jedi, an instrument of peace;

Where there is hatred I shall bring love;
Where there is injury, pardon;
Where there is doubt, faith;
Where there is despair, hope;
Where there is darkness, light;
And where there is sadness, joy.

But.... you gotta figure it out - on your own- for you-

Have


What a good word today





Have