Skip to main content

Response to blogger, Sharing is Good (25 Dec. 2008)

Hi SharingIsGood,

The way to communicate with those who vote conservative, who believe the whole environment-thing is overdone, who think those who would oppose the war in Afghanistan are essentially traitors, etc., is to find a way to like them, to respect them.

How is this possible? The old way of thinking of them as primarily in need of our cavalier attacks on the media that manipulates, uses them, allowed us to mostly focus our attention of their/our collective enemies -- we didn't really have to face up to the fact that we likely thought their tastes, their company-- *them* -- kind of disgusting, we really didn't have to look at them. And so now as some on the left begin to acknowledge that the problem is somehow in the "sheeple" as much as in the "shephards," the left is left with only the knee-jerk response -- "What the fuck is wrong with you people!" --and so we think of national collapse, and hope that the beasts who voted in Harper "enjoy" the hell on earth he will surely provide them with.

If we take a longer, less self-deceptive look at the broad populace, if we allow ourselves to understand ourselves as democratic, with democratic sympathies, while still overtly assessing them in what might easily be made to seem an aristocratic way (i.e., that they are by constituion not as healthy as we are), we can move toward loving and respecting those who would still support Harper, regardless of how often the "Tyee" found its way onto their porches. You'll see in their eyes and their demeanor--they have not known the love we have known. They are the results of childhoods involving a considerable amount of fear and sadism. AND, almost no matter how damaged, how limited their ability to love is, we'll see that they likely still possess the ability to read in other peoples' eyes, true respect. They're not much used to such a response; they'll likely think they probably don't deserve it; but they'll love us for it. And, eventually, as we listen to them with more true respect than we hereto have managed, they'll better listen and attend to our stories, too.

That, in my judgment, is the way to get to them, SharingIsGood. But the truth is, if your childhood was garbage, there's only so much growth possible. Tactically, as always, you've got to get to the children. May every well tempered, progressive person, go into education.

And have kids (though not too many, lest they experience abandonment issues -- one or two will do, nicely).

Link: The Tyee

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Discussion over the fate of Jolenta, at the Gene Wolfe facebook appreciation site

Patrick McEvoy-Halston November 28 at 10:36 AM Why does Severian make almost no effort to develop sustained empathy for Jolenta -- no interest in her roots, what made her who she was -- even as she features so much in the first part of the narrative? Her fate at the end is one sustained gross happenstance after another... Severian has repeated sex with her while she lay half drugged, an act he argues later he imagines she wanted -- even as he admits it could appear to some, bald "rape" -- but which certainly followed his  discussion of her as someone whom he could hate so much it invited his desire to destroy her; Severian abandons her to Dr. Talus, who had threatened to kill her if she insisted on clinging to him; Baldanders robs her of her money; she's sucked at by blood bats, and, finally, left at death revealed discombobulated of all beauty... a hunk of junk, like that the Saltus citizens keep heaped away from their village for it ruining their preferred sense ...

Salon discussion of "Almost Famous" gang-rape scene

Patrick McEvoy-Halston: The "Almost Famous'" gang-rape scene? Isn't this the film that features the deflowering of a virgin -- out of boredom -- by a pack of predator-vixons, who otherwise thought so little of him they were quite willing to pee in his near vicinity? Maybe we'll come to conclude that "[t]he scene only works because people were stupid about [boy by girl] [. . .] rape at the time" (Amy Benfer). Sawmonkey: Lucky boy Pull that stick a few more inches out of your chute, Patrick. This was one of the best flicks of the decade. (sawmonkey, response to post, “Films of the decade: ‘Amost Famous’, R.J. Culter, Salon, 13 Dec. 2009) Patrick McEvoy-Halston: @sawmonkey It made an impression on me too. Great charm. Great friends. But it is one of the things you (or at least I) notice on the review, there is the SUGGESTION, with him being so (rightly) upset with the girls feeling so free to pee right before him, that sex with him is just further presump...

The Conjuring

The Conjuring 
I don't know if contemporary filmmakers are aware of it, but if they decide to set their films in the '70s, some of the affordments of that time are going to make them have to work harder to simply get a good scare from us. Who would you expect to have a more tenacious hold on that house, for example? The ghosts from Salem, or us from 2013, who've just been shown a New England home just a notch or two downscaled from being a Jeffersonian estate, that a single-income truck driver with some savings can afford? Seriously, though it's easy to credit that the father — Roger Perron—would get his family out of that house as fast as he could when trouble really stirs, we'd be more apt to still be wagering our losses—one dead dog, a wife accumulating bruises, some good scares to our kids—against what we might yet have full claim to. The losses will get their nursing—even the heavy traumas, maybe—if out of this we've still got a house—really,...