I’ve always been in the nebulous middle zone and never really did much with the “who I identify with” thing. I *could* identify with poor, rural, white male, or homeowner, businessowner, or raised suburban, or went to hippie school I couldn’t afford identities and probably a dozen others. I don’t know who I really support. Since I don’t identify with Garrison Keller, that he was called out on old bad behavior that was more acceptable years ago isn’t someone I hold a candle for or against really. It doesn’t taint his work, just as Kevin Spacey’s grab-assing doesn’t mean much to me. They’re in a different world than I am. But for example if I see vigilantes murdering an ex-felon because they didn’t like their crime that bothers me because if there’s not a clear and present danger and the ex-felon does their part to rejoin society and is punished for past crimes by people without the authority to do so, it’s not right. I don’t think the cause against toxic masculinity is inherently bad: I don’t like when fellow men are assholes and don’t feel a need to defend their asshole-ishness. There’s a masculinity that’s not toxic and positive: and defending rights-of-assholes is, to me, a sunken ship long ago. Perhaps I’m too Mr. Rogers.

I’ve always been in the nebulous middle zone and never really did much with the “who I identify with” thing. I *could* identify with poor, rural, white male, or homeowner, businessowner, or raised suburban, or went to hippie school I couldn’t afford identities and probably a dozen others.

I don’t know who I really support. Since I don’t identify with Garrison Keller, that he was called out on old bad behavior that was more acceptable years ago isn’t someone I hold a candle for or against really. It doesn’t taint his work, just as Kevin Spacey’s grab-assing doesn’t mean much to me. They’re in a different world than I am.

But for example if I see vigilantes murdering an ex-felon because they didn’t like their crime that bothers me because if there’s not a clear and present danger and the ex-felon does their part to rejoin society and is punished for past crimes by people without the authority to do so, it’s not right.

I don’t think the cause against toxic masculinity is inherently bad: I don’t like when fellow men are assholes and don’t feel a need to defend their asshole-ishness. There’s a masculinity that’s not toxic and positive: and defending rights-of-assholes is, to me, a sunken ship long ago.

Perhaps I’m too Mr. Rogers.

===

To me, the best defense against SJWs is not to become one. I was never a hard left anarchist either so I also don’t fully relate to what that’s like. I’ve always had friends that were, but I tended to stay clear of their shennanigans.

===

I suppose the group I identify with are the independents, the kids that fall outside of the bell curve for whom societal norms are squeezing them dry. When independents band together into coalitions, then it gets a little murky for me. Subcultures are fine yet when attacking the dominant culture what’s the attack for? That makes a world of difference.

===

It sounds to me you have a complex politics that doesn’t fall neatly into stereotypical silos and I admire that.

For myself, for example, I relate more to conservation over environmentalism, freethinki/independent schools/unschooling over singular federal curriculum. Yet, like riders on a congressional bill, there’s too often shit that goes with these things, stuff I don’t agree with.

If independent schools means a rich monolithic religious group takes that as an excuse to pump $$$s into their kind of religous education and manipulates these freedoms to create religious movements on the taxpayer dollar, I don’t like it at all. [see Betsy DeVoss].

Or gun rights: guns for hunting is great. Handguns for protection *can* be ok but only if states (Confederalist in this matter) can choose for their own communities what’s proper in terms of regulating movement of arms.

Basic Federal or international standards I’m fine with. Basic human rights to me is a no-brainer and I don’t see a need for them not to be universal. 8th grade level education-as-basic requirement for a society is fine, if standards must be there at all.

But do I care of one school says evolution and another says “evolution” in scare quotes? Not really, so long as they both teach it enough for kids to pass basic science knowledge skills.

—-

 

Leave a comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


3 × six =

Leave a Reply