WorknMan's 7 Laws of Politics

[theaustinescorts]

Prejudice is a constant everywhere you go, wherever there are people. It's always been that way and always will be. The notion that it is a great evil is a myth, as is the idea that it is without merit and therefore must be transferred as learned behavior from others. Another myth is that it is a primitive form of thinking, as highly intelligent people also possess it. It is a form of inductive reasoning in which an individual takes specific observations and forms a general view. To condemn it is folly. In a tolerant society the state should not seek to govern what conclusions people draw about those around them. In a tolerant society people should associate with whom they wish, otherwise leave each other alone, and go about their business peaceably and orderly. They should not be forced to like each other as part of a politically-driven utopian ideal.

The reason why it is the focus of the left is because it strikes at the core of the left's most basic assumption - that all people are of equivalent value in every possible way.

This notion is so at odds with ordinary human experience that government efforts to support it inevitably become absurd.

The left has therefore never been satisfied to govern only with equal treatment - they have always been focused on equal results and status.

In order to achieve equal status and results the state must resort to levels of control which are offensive and tyrannical.

The remedies the left advances seek to criminalize individual choices about who one choses to do business with, associate with, and what one's motives were when they acted. It is so absurd that it is now a matter of Federal law that a minority's civil rights are defined as violated if they're assaulted or injured by someone BECAUSE the assailant's motives were malicious based on race, sexual preference, etc....i.e. the crime isn't the assault itself but the motive behind it...the thought which motivated it is the crime.

IMHO these absurdities only bring about more racial antipathy rather than less. All available studies show that race relations are getting worse in this country, not better, even as the media and state focuses ever more on condemning racial prejudice. It is counter-productive.

BTW - in my escort activities I welcome guys from every race and religion. We have customers who are black, latino, asian, south asian, native American, muslim, Jewish, etc. That's my choice. If someone choses otherwise I do not condemn them or criticize them for the choice they've made. That's my idea of tolerant living.

[F-Sharp]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The reason why it is the focus of the left is because it strikes at the core of the left's most basic assumption - that all people are of equivalent value in every possible way

With little exception, do you not also believe this to be true? Other than the obvious rapists, child molesters and various other criminal elements, which human beings do you consider to be of lesser value?

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

This notion is so at odds with ordinary human experience that government efforts to support it inevitably become absurd.

Please provide an example of what you would consider to be "absurd" efforts to support equality.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The left has therefore never been satisfied to govern only with equal treatment - they have always been focused on equal results and status.

Again, please provide an example of the left not being satisfied with equal treatment. This sounds far me to me like Karl Marx, how far left you are you actually reaching here Dude?

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

In order to achieve equal status and results the state must resort to levels of control which are offensive and tyrannical.

Again, how far left are you reaching? You MUST have spent time in a Soviet-era prison.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

The remedies the left advances seek to criminalize individual choices about who one choses to do business with, associate with, and what one's motives were when they acted. It is so absurd that it is now a matter of Federal law that a minority's civil rights are defined as violated if they're assaulted or injured by someone BECAUSE the assailant's motives were malicious based on race, sexual preference, etc....i.e. the crime isn't the assault itself but the motive behind it...the thought which motivated it is the crime.

I don't see this being absurd at all, and sounds like a case of selective memory. It was barely over 200 years ago that african americans were legally considered to only be 3/5 of a person, and just 100 years ago that slaves were still considered possessions, not people. It's only been 50 years since they've truly been integrated in to our society.

You also forget that 76% of this country is still made up of those of the Christian faith, whose principle guiding text advocates slavery and even provides clear instructions on their treatment and punishment for certain deeds. If not for a civil war and government legislation, this 76% would most certainly still be following the rules of their guiding text.

It's obvious you and I are not on the same page of history here.

[theaustinescorts]

We're not on the same page of history at all. You're raising new issues by bringing up the role of slavery, and we will have to argue about that on another occasion.

What I'm advocating for is a tolerant society in which conflict between groups is minimized.

You're advocating for a state-forced integrated society of equal OUTCOMES rather than TREATMENT.

IMHO you are exaggerating the ills of prejudice, and tossing away necessary personal liberties in order to achieve an impossible goal. These measures only lead to more and more conflict, not less.

p.s. When I lived in Africa I lived where slavery is still practiced. One thing I learned there is that it is possible for someone to be both someone's property as well as a person at the same time.

[discretionaryincome]

Originally Posted by F-Sharp

On the flipside, I am a firm believer in being intolerant of intolerance.

Being intolerant of intolerance is still intolerance. Which you don't tolerate.

[theaustinescorts]

No, really, this is a big difference between people.

A lot of well-meaning people believe that activism is the best way to improve the world. But to improve it how? The Nazis sincerely believed that they were leading the world to progress. So did the the Marxists, the Leninists, the Trotskyites, the Moaists, etc....

All with good intentions on the outside, but IMHO a sinister edge within.

I'm not equating the American left with these other groups, but the left's vision is of a country very different from the one it's founders intended, and the one I cherish.

My reading of history is that zeal usually leads to unnecessary violence. IMHO America's zealotry about forcing democracy overseas has been totally counter-productive. I'm not just referring to the present wars, but to all of America's wars - the war against Spain, the two World Wars, and the American Civil War for that matter. All these wars were unnecessary and extremely destructive. These wars brought about a lot more suffering than they prevented.

Peoples have to develop in their own time, and that takes many generations. Even the aliens know this about the universe. Progress cannot be forced.

Stay chill and try to keep your balance in life. Live and let live, and don't over-react.

[F-Sharp]

That's not what *I* am advocating at all. Nor, do any of the people I associate with that call themselves "left" or "liberal". What you're talking about is quite easily identified as Communism, and is well outside the boundries of calling one's self liberal. Just as conservativism is well outside the bounds of fascism. Like I said before, just how left (or right?) are we talking about here?

Equal treatment should be absolute, while outcome should be left to the individual, their abilities, and their desire to succeed at whatever they chose to pursue. We, as a nation currently provide neither equal treatment nor outcome. Ask any African-American, woman, or gay individual in the United States today if they feel they are treated "equally", much less provided an equal outcome.

Do you feel that by extending gay people the same rights and liberties as every other American invokes conflict? Of course it does! To me this issue has already been decided, and at this point we're just waiting for the courts to catch up. Yes, it's conflictual, as was the civil rights movement of the sixties. The folks today who insist on oppressing gay people are just as hateful and bigoted as those that oppressed blacks in the sixties. Unfortunately conflict is sometimes necessary in order to enforce equallity. History has shown that in the end, it's never bad thing. Believe me, no one chooses oppression to avoid conflict.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

You're advocating for a state-forced integrated society of equal OUTCOMES rather than TREATMENT.

[F-Sharp]

Progress perhaps, but we're talking equallity here right? The National Socialists made no apology about the disparity they felt existed between human beings naturally or otherwise. In fact, oppression existed in every example you make here. Quite the opposite of equallity. I might add that everyone of them failed in the end.

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

No, really, this is a big difference between people.

A lot of well-meaning people believe that activism is the best way to improve the world. But to improve it how? The Nazis sincerely believed that they were leading the world to progress. So did the the Marxists, the Leninists, the Trotskyites, the Moaists, etc....

[theaustinescorts]

Contrary to all the hoopla did the civil rights movements of the 1960s really accomplish anything positive for anyone? I'm not convinced.

I just can't agree that present law doesn't provide for equal treatment. I think it does. And clearly the left has been advocating for equal outcomes and results as their definition of the absence of inequality. The left's very definition of equality is identicality of social roles, NOT equality of treatment by the state. The most absurd in all of this is of course the hate crimes statutes, in which the crime is not the injury but the malicious thought that induced it. It is the definition of a thought-crime. And we all know why that is the goal - because the idea of individuals holding discriminatory views is HATEFUL to the left. It is hateful. They despise it. They don't want to reform the way people behave...they want to change the way they think and feel. They want to create a new man.

If some people don't like being around homosexuals then they should stay away from them and leave them alone. But how can they do that if they're forced by law to interact with them? According to the left homosexuals are entitled to be treated identically by everyone, and that means everyone must interact benignly with them whether they want to or not. Sorry but I just don't think that's realistic, and it disposes of anyone's choice of association [which I think is the left's very goal]. It's in fact the choice itself, and the discriminatory motive behind it, which the left is so offended by. It is the choice itself that is the target.

Similarly homosexuals are in error if they think they will reduce resentment of themselves by advocating for entry into the military, or for marriage to each other. These two things are roles which have been defined by thousands of years of human behavior in every single culture on this planet, and it is not malicious towards homosexuals to wish to retain those roles as they've always been.

I have plenty of friends who are homosexual, but I don't want to see them turn thousands of years of consistent, universal cross-cultural human institutions on their heads by entering into a marriage.

[WorknMan]

Originally Posted by theaustinescorts

I have plenty of friends who are homosexual, but I don't want to see them turn thousands of years of consistent, universal cross-cultural human institutions on their heads by entering into a marriage.

I'm going to have to agree with TAE on this, but maybe for different reasons. See, I don't give a rat's ass if gays marry each other, their doorknobs, their gerbils, or anything/anyone else. In fact, I find it rather pointless that we're even having this debate in 2010.

On the other hand, who's dumb idea was gay marriage anyway? You want civil unions? Fine. You certainly deserve to have all the legal rights that straight people have. But being able to marry does not make you equal, as that implies that you were not equal to begin with. You're just treading somewhere where you're clearly not wanted, kind of like if a guy wanted to get into the Miss America pageant, because he wants to feel as if he's equal with everybody else who got in. Sure, he might get in if he lobbies hard enough, but people are still going to hate him for it. I wouldn't oppose his wish to enter if asked, but would be like, "Dude, WTF are you doing? This institution was clearly not designed for you in mind." Therefore, gay marriage is really less about legal rights and more about a status symbol, but one that doesn't actually grant you higher status simply by performing the act. In fact, I'd say the exact opposite is the case. Again, I'm not opposed to it, but damn... there are far more important issues to be debated than whether Adam and Steve are allowed to get hitched.

How would I feel about it if I were gay? Well, I'm pretty open about my hobbying life to those who know me (including friends and family), so I sort of understand how it feels to have some people consider you as some sort of sexual deviant. However, I can't say that I care what other, shallow-minded people think. I think if I were gay, I'd probably consider straight people who don't want me to marry to be like those stuck up pricks down at the country club who don't want me to join their little clique; I doubt I'd want anything to do with it, even if I could get in. That in itself would probably piss them off even more Hell, I'm straight and I'm still not sure how I feel about marriage, especially since there are a lot of married guys on this board. What exactly is the point then?

If it came down to a vote, maybe we should say that the government has no business meddling in civil affairs to begin with, and make whatever financial/legal benefits that come with marriage null and void. Then, everybody who is bickering about this can take their toys and go home, and we could turn our attention to things that actually matter.

[theaustinescorts]

Let me try to get to the heart of the matter.

In nature there is variation. It's cool that nature has made humans as different as they are, and their cultures so diverse.

But differences also cause INCOMPATIBILITY. Because people are different, and their cultures have different values, some people are going to be incompatible. That leads to conflict. Like Hobbs said, "Man is inherently conflictual."

How should we deal with this incompatibility?

My kindergarten teacher used to tell us if we can't get along we should just stay away from each other and leave each other alone. That's how she kept the peace....order.

That is what I call a tolerant society.

Maybe a certain amount of violence is normal in life; I don't know. But I've seen war, read about and studied it all my life, and I really don't like the suffering that kind of violence brings about.

The problem I have with the left is that they're not content to let people who are incompatible just leave each other alone. They don't accept that people should be incompatible. They insist that we should all love each other, instead of hate, and that sounds like a noble goal. But it's just not the way we were designed to be, and so tolerance is to me the only way to go.

We are not angels. We are only human beings, so let's try to make the most of it without killing each other.

[WorknMan]

Yeah, it's kind of like if you own a cat, and you bring another cat into the home. Odds are that they're going to be at each other's throats for awhile. And even if they never become friends, eventually they'll usually learn to be civil and stay out of each other's way, even if they never grow to like each other. So, although you can force them to live together, you can't really force a friendship where none exists. And you can't pretend that we're all the same underneath, when we really aren't. Our cultures and values systems are as varied as the color of our skin, so even though you may wish it to be so, we're never going to see eye-to-eye on everything. At least, not in our lifetimes anyway.

[theaustinescorts]

It's the differences between peoples that adds to the richness of life. There's nothing wrong with people staying with their own kind and not integrating if they don't want to. People all over the world accept this, and it's only in this country where there's this pressure for integration. Leftist efforts for integration in countries like France, England and Italy have had horrible results, and have since been abandoned. Homogeneity should not be anyone's goal.