Author George Lakoff apparently wrote this for the 2004 election, but much of it is relevant to todays conversation. I have also been reading "Moral Politics" by the same author. These have helped me understand where each side is coming from. Has anyone heard of or read this author? I mostly picked these up after visiting my family in MN in 2017 and realizing how conservative they are, I really had no idea, and how they seemed to view me as a hippie. I was looking for common ground and not finding it. Also I admit I had not delved much into politics prior to the current office. I realize most here at WF have a much stronger baseline for their beliefs and it is one of the reasons I come here-I enjoy reading the banter back and forth and it gives me something to think about quite often. (I mean then I have to weed out the drivel and personal vendettas which I know little about) but you get it.
Interesting post by Mike Rowe this week on his FB page. He reposted from a guy who was appreciating a group in the south called the Cajun Navy who help and helped people out during the hurricanes. The post did have a slight lean to it-pointing out "real American men" and how they help people and don't worry about privilege or the patriarchy etc etc. And of course at least one woman pointed this out-and was met with criticism. Of course it may have been the way she framed it....saying to Mike Rowe that his mother would be dissapointed in him. But I have a feeling no matter how she said it or what she said that it would have been met with the same amount of criticism. Others pointed out the leaning in the original post, even while thanking the Cajun Navy and still got backlash. All this to say-what seems like a cut and dry topic, is not. The men are telling the women not to be so sensitive or get upset or be offended while they themselves are getting offended. Here is the original post or thread, it can be found on Mike Rowe's FB page. And then he later addresses the woman who called him out and told him that she received over 3000 responses to her post.
yeah... there's the disclaimer of "no right, no left, just passion" but then he goes on to specifically exclude activists-at least those who'd support typically "leftist" perspectives. There's a whole lot of "there might be some liberals among them, but probably not because they're entitled pussies". Nice swipe at "whole foods" too (as not eating steak and 'taters five times a week is turning 'merkin men into sissies).
expanding on spaceturkey's comment of american men not eating like sissies - if Arnold fucking Schwarzenegger eats less meat these days and thinks influencing food choices is mostly market/advertising driven I tend to defer to practical experience and listen to Arnold. Due still lives and breathes training to this day so he stays on top of nutrition science. Granted "studies" are always going back-and-forth as to what is healthy and what is not, but if they are funded by anybody the results are in question. Even when the studies are not funded quite often results can vary quite a bit because there are so many variables that cannot be controlled. And I hope science has advanced to the point where we don't feed lab rats their own weight in sugar/fake sugar/mustard/Spam/caviar etc. just to watch them get cancer.
I tend to go with a pretty simple philosophy with regard to food. If it grows I can probably eat it. If it comes from a factory and has chemicals in the ingredients I'm probably better off without.
There is a certain sort of interesting cycle to this. They go and help out, but at the same time they are supporting the people who are knocking these people down. It seems like they justify their negative actions with the positive ones they chose to do. It is really great that these guys come around and rescue people, but what if we had a society that provided for evacuations when needed? What if we had a society that gave these poor people enough basic support that they could move themselves when the time came, and were not worried about trying to save every belonging they have when disaster hits? My family has enough wealth that if a disaster is coming we get the fuck out of the way. We also have built strong houses that can shelter a certain amount of weather. If things are going to get real bad we pack up the cars and we head for safety. Worse comes to worse we will rebuild and have food, shelter, and entertainment while it happens. There are people who do not have that. They don't have that by design, because we don't want people to have a certain guaranteed ability to survive. We make it so the unlucky people have to be thankful these guys come around because we do not provide for everyone. We put poor people in danger so we can come along and save them and pat ourselves on the back for doing good things. That is the system these guys want when they vote against public safety nets like food, water, shelter, medicine, and electricity for everyone. I am glad they are out there helping. However, if they helped before the emergency instead of being selfish that would be better. It is really lovely when they do things like endanger and trample the black, hispanic, and generally brown people and then reach out a helping hand to a few of them that behave white enough and say you should be grateful we are around because without our help we would still be kicking your ass. When you are standing with the Nazis, racists, and prejudiced bullies rescuing people perhaps you are just pretending to be a good guy. edit: @Dayton Kitchens , @Paladin , @Marso , @Tuttle @TheLonelySquire
