Yorkshire(Brexit) & Orlando:Another tale of two cities.

The day before the murderous assault on a LBGT frequented bar in Orlando FL another murderous assault took place across the Pond.A 42 year old parliamentarian was shot and stabbed to death in a suburb of Yorkshire.Jo Cox was a stalwart campaigner for the little guy and battler against Brexit.The enormity of the murder of 49 or 50 people exceeds that of the death of one.But when you consider that guns are not widely owned in England and the murderer also used a knife while shouting “Britain first”,you can see that both events have implications for acceptance of differences and the suppression of the territorial imperatives surrounding nationalism(tribal-aspirational)as well as fully developed.Jo Cox was a hero,(heroine) but Britain is likely to vote for Brexit.The usual bewailings of mental illness are being raised,but the execution of radical acts depends heavily on the immature and conflicted.These behaviors will continue; minimizing their frequency and scope can be done.Both DS and AT have reminded us (from opposing vantages) of the dangers of embracing causes without evaluating consequences.But if this is evolutionarily ordained,all we can do is strive to minimize consequences and pursue reason.

Categories:

20 Comments

  1. When GregoryS writes: (July 1) “I see no need to waste more time trying to change your opinion, Don.” It is clear that the best agenda is not being pursued. The better agenda is to guide OUR minds to the most reasonable judgments. True, I want all my neighbors (including Gregory) to navigate most functionally. That would make my life and my loved one’s lives more reliably healthy. But I am most interested in testing and correcting my own mind rather than that of others given that it is my mind with which I most intimately live the time of my life, and what a waste (and increased danger) if that one life is spent believing things that are not true, making foolish judgments based on premises that are not true.
    Clarity has the priority. Hopefully others too will be striving to better understandings as they judge the quality of our visions as they are explored via this (and other) blogs.

    With this in mind, let’s examine the veracity of some of the ideas that GregoryS recently presented:
    GregoryS: “Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot by destroyed by logic. Also people enjoying privilege are reluctant to relinquish that privilege.”

    Prejudgment means that more certitude is assigned to one’s judgment about an issue or person or group than is warranted. As one learns better how to judge what is warranted, it is more likely that there will be less prejudgment. Therefore reason CAN destroy prejudice. Also, we can agree that people enjoying privilege tend to be reluctant to relinquish that privilege. Being that “privilege” can be defined and experienced so many ways this applies to all political spectrums. For instance, in the US we are all “privileged’ (unlike almost all countries past and present) to have a heritage of government of the people, by the people and for the people. The Constitution’s focus on individual rights and limited government power has “privileged” more of our citizens (of all parties) than any other. All U.S. citizens have enjoyed this privilege and ought to resist those who would ignore the original intent of the Constitution and would thereby relinquish it.

    “Bathroom laws” are linked to sensitivities that are shared by Democrat and Republican. Why we want, and why we should want privacy come with multifaceted and complex reasons. Some are justified and some not. The libertarian element of the Republican Party would be more open to ignoring many of the sex “hang ups” that embarrass others. The history of cultures seems to tell us that there can be negative social consequences when intimate contact between the sexes is increased. One could also understand that changing contexts as to attitudes is a variable factor and thus we face unknowns that neither Democrat nor Republican can exactly define. Caution is justified. It seems that it is predominantly the Democrats who are prejudging (rushing) this issue.

    Why should any student of politics accept as true Harvey Fierstein’s statement that Rubio’s “SOLE” reason for his efforts at immigration reform legislation were to insure that gays and lesbians are denied equal protection under the law? The complexities of that legislation were great and such oversimplification should cast this man’s opinion into the category of highly bizarre.

    The 2012 suppression by the IRS of groups trying to raise money for Republican support were of a particularly egregious nature given that it was the central government in power that stifled election activities. The Ohio case where the judge labeled laws “voter suppression” was adjudicated by U.S. District Court Judge Algenon Marbley (who was appointed by Bill Clinton). Interestingly in Dec 2014 he was involved in a settlement to resolve a state ethics case against him determined by the Ohio Ethics Commission. Even so, it would be strange if both sides did not at times engage in sloppy judgments.

    The Steve Benen article provided by Gregory tells us only that voter ID laws, laws that only reduce partially the ease with which all people of all parties acquire identification, apparently affect mostly those who would vote Democrat. This does not speak highly of the veracity of those so affected. Bottom line – If all individual citizens experience an EQUAL degree of difficulty why are Democrats the only ones to be negatively impacted?

    “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ~ John F.

    YES. This supports the original intent of the Constitution. I agree that we experience diminishment when government creates special rights for special groups thereby forcing other citizens to bow or cater in some way to those who are by government favored or declared “special”.

    “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded” Martin Luther King

    YES. King is saying that we should demand that individual liberties need be equally protected. Our original contract called the Constitution does that. We should demand that it be adhered to and not “living-constitution” compromised. This is a Republican position that is contrary to that of the Democrats.

    “How prevalent is voter fraud in the United States? It must be huge since Republicans are denying millions of citizens (300,000 in Wisc. alone) the right to vote … right? Wrong!

    This article by http://www.politifact again takes the view that voter ID laws that apply EQUALLY to each and every US citizen negatively impact mostly Democrats (to the tune of 300,000 more?). We should ask at what level of cognition is the risk of voter fraud more dangerous to our future than the dangers imposed by a great many voting who know so little about navigating life’s responsibilities that they are incapable of acquiring basic identification.

    “Our nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors.” ~ William Ralph Inge

    Here we see two opinions and no supporting evidence. I know of no society that is free of delusions of some form or other – do you? As for “common hatred” of its neighbors I see no evidence that “our nation” displays a climate of “hate” for Canadians or Mexicans. Unless you think that immigration laws are created only because of “hate” and for no other reasons, this statement is both bizarre and false.

    “All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian.” ~ Pat Paulsen

    I like the humor. But realistically, the American Indian was not a unified, single component. The original settlers of North America were many societies that displayed all the peaceful, warlike, good, and negative characteristics of human nature. We, like them, are likely trying to create a “successful” future. If smart, we will learn and apply the appropriate disciplines that ACTUALLY result in the most appropriate freedoms and quality of life.

    Persecution of Muslims? We should recognize that sharia and separation of church and state are incompatible. Unequal treatment of women and outright punishment of extreme sorts for gays is a part of today’s Islam. Do you believe that these things are incompatible with western concepts of rights? Is resistance to these tenets of Islam to be considered a “persecution” of Muslims or is it instead TRULY a protection of our freedoms from a potential oppressor as Gregory earlier admired in King’s quote. When we figure out how to avoid those who would damage our rights and how to admit Muslims who will support those rights it should be done. Tell us how that can be done. This reflects Trump’s latest view on this issue. I hope everyone can understand its importance.

    “Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” ~ George Orwell

    When was the “now” mentioned by Orwell? The nation he depicted in “1984” was indeed a nation to be avoided. Because nations can be heinous does not mean that all nations are of no exceptional value. In fact, we can argue that objectively there would be a best nation. We strive to know the nature of that nation and it seems that an attitude of nationalism in support of that nation would be an appropriate sentiment. But we cannot know for sure, so we use our best processes for
    knowing and growing.

    “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.” ~ Albert Einstein

    This is a general observation that applies equally to all human beings and therefore tells us nothing that distinguishes Republican from Democrat. The tools of objectivity (logic and the scientific method) provide the means by which we escape the subjective traps (such as Marxism) into which social environments lock so many minds.

  2. Daedal2207 tells us (comment July 3) that “It is obvious that to undo injustice, one has to treat those unjustly treated as a special class until they are part of a non discriminated against whole. It can only be the fear that preference and privilege will be lost that permits such reasoning; that fear also dictates the denial of those facts and their consequences that dictate course correction.”
    If the premise is untrue, or incomplete, or misleading, we must consider suspect the conclusions that follow. We need to know the nature of what is believed to be the “injustice”, and to whom this “injustice” was inflicted. Who, alive today was unjustly treated by our Country’s laws? There are no individual citizens alive today who were held as slaves. From the earliest days the Northern states did not condone slavery. People of all races were free. In fact, over 150 years ago the Slave states were defeated in a war that cost over 400,000 citizens their lives, and slavery throughout a unified country was prohibited. Social attitudes of segregation against colored, against Catholics, against Jews, against the Irish, alternative life styles, ebbed and flowed in many parts of the country, but our laws up until the 60s (Exceptions include some actions by T. Roosevelt, Wilson, and F. D. Roosevelt) intentionally tended to be blind to such group differences. It was up to society to interpret and affect those group-defined adjustments. It was up to our government to protect INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS and not take sides. The Leftist mindset changed that and set about using the uniquely coercive powers of the central government to force upon all of us those INTERPRETATIONS of equity THAT INSPIRE ITS LEADERS.
    Daedal2207 claims that “it can only be fear” that prevents a mind from seeing the justice issue as he sees it. I don’t wish to diminish fear as sometimes being an appropriate emotion. However there are many driving factors besides that of fear. DEVOTION TO TRUTH as represented by ALL the available evidence is a most marvelous reason to deviate from those who would narrowly define and measure justice and equality only by group or class distinctions. Inspiration reinforced by the evidence of 200 plus years of truly exceptional achievement (on every level of honest comparisons) is a pretty good reason to resist those forces that are operating to diminish, compromise, and/or destroy it.

      1. Thank you for the blunt critique. The issues raised by Daedal2207 are central to today’s political divide and we need to find ways to express them that are readable. I think that the logic was there, but apparently it got lost in too much “stuff”. Here is another attempt:

        Daedal2207 (Jul 3): “It is obvious that to undo injustice, one has to treat those unjustly treated as a special class until they are part of a non discriminated against whole.”

        I am suggesting that it is not obvious – because it depends on the specific meaning of “justice”. Is it “justice” under the law? Is it “justice” measured by equity of possessions? Are we comparing apples to apples or stumbling into a comparison of apples to oranges? Daedal2207’s mention of class indicates that he is dividing society into groups for comparison. But in many ways the groups that make up our society are of diverse makeup. Much of that diversity (cultural and genetic) is of the sort that would cause there to be different levels of performance. But our laws can be written such that no matter these differences we are all made equal in the sense that our treatment under our law is the same. But laws created to treat groups equally will require a different “justice” than laws designed to treat individuals justly. A government that creates laws to impose a group-measured equity must by such action thwart, or compromise individual-measured equity. In other words, it is unavoidable that the “creation of a special class” must FORCE some individuals to cater in some way to members of those classes chosen to be “special”. And, given intrinsic differences between groups, how do we know when a group (By definition capable of being distinguished as a separate entity) has become something that is sufficiently “non-discriminated against”? (Is perfect non-discrimination possible?)(What about important forms of discrimination – such as the need to isolate the killers – or those possessing dangerous levels of dysfunction?)

        Daedal2207: “It can only be the fear that preference and privilege will be lost that permits such reasoning;” This is among the easiest to refute logically. All one needs is to present a cause for “such reasoning” other than that particular fear of loss. If Daedal2207’s use of “such reasoning” refers to an earlier stated “preferential self-interest, selective inattention”, etc., I think that such reasoning can be caused, yes by fear, but also by ignorance, wishful belief, and imaginative faith of many sorts.
        If his use of “such reasoning” is in reference to those who desire “preference and privilege” there are other possibilities. In context it seems clear that Daedal2207 is using these terms to represent inappropriate preferences and privileges. But, a devotion to truth would clarify also what should be appropriately preferred and protected, what privileges are beneficial and should not be lost. For instance, I think that it is good to self-identify with a group identified with good health habits, and it is good to be associated with a group that values the privilege of being educated. We keep trying.

  3. Daedal2207 writes: “For those who collect their own facts, it clearly is unimportant how much is adduced.”

    I am trying to figure out what this statement means. In a way, we all collect facts and what is deduced using the proof of those facts is of the essence regarding the concept called wisdom (accurate understandings). If Daedal2207 is suggesting that we (all?) invent, or selectively isolate our own “facts” to the exclusion of others there may be some truth to the idea that “it is unimportant how much is adduced.” But, the testing of our “facts” is exactly what the process of “knowing” (the scientific process) is all about. My questions provide a test challenging the objective accuracy of GregoryS’s (and Daedal2207’s) opinions regarding the Republicans.

    “… I will point out to you what happens when reasoning discounts emotion. Brexit is what happens.”

    Emotion, to the degree that it is disconnected from empirical evidence (evidence often revealed and clarified with good reasoning processes) can obviously take us anywhere – and “anywhere” is often destructive given that it tends to put us at odds with the “rules of nature” (with which we must harmonize in order to survive). An extreme example is provided by Islamists willing to make of themselves human bombs thereby serving their emotional (but unreasonable relative to survival) place of meaning within their religion.

    Brexit demonstrates that cultural factors are in play. Contrary to what many wish to believe, not all cultural values are of equal value to humanity’s future. The wrong (or right) global government forced too quickly on diverse cultures can be more painful than necessary. The majority-vote Brits think that the leadership in Brussels is thrusting upon them ways (and people culturally imbued with beliefs) that are destructive of the better future. If true, it is a reasoned vote, and emotions in support of that reason would be appropriate.

  4. I’d also like to mention that although right-wing political groups are fear factoring against Socialists of late, the majority of violent extremists and purveyors of hatred seem to be originating from the right-wing in the form of nationalistic attitudes and religious fundamentalist discrimination.

    1. Before anyone responds that in America the majority of Democrats are also Christian, it’s telling to note that all of the GOP presidential candidates tried to align Christianity as the religion of their party (claiming God as their ally), and Republicans are the dominant party in the promotion/passage of “resistance laws” such as those persecuting LGBT people, e.g. “bathroom laws”, laws restricting minority voters, laws/regulations persecuting all Muslims, and nationalistic laws against immigrants and refugees.

      1. GregoryS: (And Daedal2207 given that you “agree” with Gregory’s statement): For the sake of clarity (and fairness, and objectivity) give us some examples.
        Is choosing not to give special rights to any group an example of “resistance” to any group? Is it “persecution?
        How do Republicans restrict the voting rights of specific minorities? Perhaps (but not necessarily) related: How do you recommend we counter voter fraud?
        Other than one outrageous statement by Trump (since modified), name potential or existing Republican leaders who have passed, or recommend passing laws that “persecute all muslims”?
        And what nationalistic laws advocated by Republicans are “against immigrants and refugees”? Do you advocate that we have no immigration laws of any sort? If you do advocate some laws, how do you defend against the charge of being “against immigrants and refugees”?

        1. We missed you DS. I guess it takes a bit of time to adjust to the leadership of the Trump..eter.I will not reengage on the issue of “show me”.For those who collect their own facts, it clearly is unimportant how much is adduced.GS can reply if he so wishes.Instead I will point out to you what happens when reasoning discounts emotion.Brexit is what happens.Brexit is also an example of the need to course correct and of what happens when leadership cannot or will not, The chickening out of the Trumpesque Tory conservative Johnson, suddenly discovering that he can’t lead the government is also highly instructive.(Sorry HW, belaboring the obvious is sometimes necessary).If the front cover of the latest New Yorker is on target then there is no course correction possible for UK .Stiff upper lip,umbrella and bowler notwithstanding, it’s free fall time and possible splintering for Brittania.(Was that final step a goosestep?)There is a contagious quality to nationalistic madness and the EU can splinter as well if so the much needed globalization will be grievously set back.

        2. daedal2207: “(Was that final step a goosestep?)”

          Clever! Inner senior circle reference? Young followers will have to refresh on that not-too-distant past.

          daedal2207: “There is a contagious quality to nationalistic madness and the EU can splinter as well, if so the much needed globalization will be grievously set back.”

          The beginnings of another Dark Ages. Yep. Ask the Greeks.

        3. I won’t try to convince you to change your mind concerning the prejudices of the GOP. There’s a reason why prejudice is so hard to overcome: Prejudices are rarely overcome by argument; not being founded in reason they cannot by destroyed by logic. Also people enjoying privilege are reluctant to relinquish that privilege.

          But I will offer some retort using quotes and links supplemented by short comments.

          Addressing GOP attacks against LGBTQI individuals:
          Bathroom laws (an example of a resistance law) were designed to make our daughters safer, according to Republicans. Yet, the vast majority of rapes in the United States are committed by cisgender men upon women that know them or are even related to them. And the recent bombing of a women’s restroom by those opposing transgenders to choose which restroom they will use certainly didn’t make anyone safer. Also, wouldn’t that be considered a terrorist bombing?

          Intersex individuals usually don’t get a voice in the decision of which gender they will be. A doctor or others usually make this choice for the individual. Would that be the special rights of which you speak? … someone else determining your gender … and now laws to support the determination of your gender by others. So who is it exactly that is being granted the “special rights”? Certainly not the transgender individual.

          “When a politician like Marco Rubio is willing to sacrifice his career defining immigration reform legislation solely to insure that gays and lesbians are denied equal protection under the law, we have to admit that we’re under attack. This is not pragmatic politics at work. These are the policies of bias, exclusion and unfairness.” ~ Harvey Fierstein

          Next, voter restriction:
          The court (Republican judge) determined that Ohio Gov. Kasich (former GOP presidential candidate) and the Republican controlled legislature were violating individual’s rights (especially targeting Democrats and minorities) through its purging of voter roles. http://www.msnbc.com/msnbc/court-blocks-another-set-voting-restrictions-ohio
          Meanwhile Rep. Gov. Scott Walker (former GOP presidential candidate) disenfranchised 300,000 Americans in a blatant voter fraud scheme:
          http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/republicans-voter-id-laws-work-intended
          It’s hard to deny when the words come out of a Republican’s mouth.

          “Proponents, largely Republican, argue that the regulations are essential tools to combat election fraud, while critics contend that they are mainly intended to suppress turnout of Democratic-leaning constituencies like minorities and students.”

          It’s no secret that a large number of the restricted voters are black, and the majority are Democrats.
          “So if you defend systemic racism and its decision that so blatantly devalues Black life and protects the interests of Whiteness, you defend White supremacy. And in doing so, you sacrifice part of your humanity.” ~ Jamie Utt

          “The rights of every man are diminished when the rights of one man are threatened.” ~ John F. Kennedy

          “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.” ~ Martin Luther King Jr.

          How prevalent is voter fraud in the United States? It must be huge since Republicans are denying millions of citizens (300,000 in Wisc. alone) the right to vote … right? Wrong! http://www.politifact.com/georgia/statements/2012/sep/19/naacp/-person-voter-fraud-very-rare-phenomenon/

          On the subject of immigration:
          Isn’t it a bit hypocritical for Trump to complain about immigrants taking American’s jobs when he himself imports foreign workers into the U.S. to work at his resorts. And his complaints about foreign countries taking American manufacturing jobs is also hypocritical since many of his own garment brands are manufactured by underpaid workers (working in almost slave-like conditions) in foreign countries.

          “Our nation is a society united by delusions about its ancestry and by common hatred of its neighbors.” ~ William Ralph Inge

          All the problems we face in the United States today can be traced to an unenlightened immigration policy on the part of the American Indian. ~ Pat Paulsen

          Persecution of an entire religion (Islam/Muslims):
          I love the way you try to minimize persecution of Muslims by claiming that only Trump has made such statements. The other GOP presidential candidates did so also, just in more tactful ways. Since Trump is the presumptive presidential candidate at this point, you can hardly state his rants as insignificant. What if he becomes president? Would you deem that insignificant?

          “Nationalism is power hunger tempered by self-deception. We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.” ~ George Orwell

          Trump’s vitriol against Muslims (including our own citizens) is no better than the incarceration of Japanese-Americans during WWII. These are proof of the damage done by extreme nationalistic policies. Trump is helping to recruit terrorists.

          The nationalistic fervor within the GOP is causing more hatred rather than defusing problems.

          I see no need to waste more time trying to change your opinion, Don.

          “Few people are capable of expressing with equanimity opinions which differ from the prejudices of their social environment. Most people are incapable of forming such opinions.” ~ Albert Einstein

          I’m sure you see your efforts in the same light.

        4. Once again agreed GS.Decisively argued but unlikely to pierce the armor of preferential self interest and selective inattention to fairly commonplace observations with accompanying conclusions that plague political and human discourse, this blog included.It ia obvious that to undo injustice, one has to treat those unjustly treated as a special class until they are part of a non discriminated against whole.It can only be the fear that preference and privilege will be lost that permits such reasoning;that fear also dictates the denial of those facts and their consequences that dictate course correction.No mature mind entertains ideas of bridges without controls and/ or walls without gates that are monitored in some way.Human selfishness ensures gradualism but as the percentage of those who are desperate due to disparity increases worldwide “something’s gotta give”.

  5. daedal2207: “… implications for acceptance of differences and the suppression of the territorial imperatives surrounding nationalism(tribal-aspirational)ss well as fully developed.Jo Cox was a hero,(heroine) but Britain is likely to vote for Brexit.”

    And, the U.K. voted to leave the EU. The forces of nationalism/nativism were stoked by fear and they won. The unemployment picture had improved considerably … 5%, similar to our side of the pond … over the recessionary period. The economic uncertainty relied on xenophobia … and hate won (Jo Cox its martyr).

    JT: “… demagoguery and(super) nationalism prey upon the feeble-minded and uneducated.”

    History tells/teaches us that exploiting the uninformed becomes a pressure cooker for class warfare with dire, if not deadly, consequences. Reactive world markets have plunged. Another deep recession is now predicted for Britain, which, in the reality of the global economy, will ripple throughout the world. Buyers remorse is already predicted. Looking further down the road, are we seeing the seeds of greater conflict as a relief valve? WWIII? What does this portend for our own choices this coming November? Can we recognize the right temperament to steer us through the storm? All that glitters is not gold. Sad.

    1. We are assuredly blindly sowing the seeds for greater conflict.The repercussions are good for ( my guess)a minimum of five years.But if the world’s sole superpower still moves toward world government and free trade between blocs of nations,not between a babel of individual nations,there may be hope.A Trump victory would reinforce the global nationalistic stupidty that threatens us all.(7 1/2 billion of us).

  6. Dr Jeff(JT)writes” The conclusion that the territorial imperative ( and all of it’s divisive,often violent implications) is inexorable seems inescapable.Equally incontrovertible is that tolerance and open-mindedness require both intelligence and will (and often education).it is not surprising that demagoguery and(super) nationalism prey upon the feeble-minded and uneducated. It is interesting to speculate that although both incidents(Yorkshire and Orlando) are likely grounded in serious mental illness,they are similarly disposed at one end of this spectrum.The weakest minds fall first.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s