Re: Paul's insane use of reefer



Slip Kid wrote:
Dale Houstman wrote:



Slip Kid wrote:


I am baffled why people are pulled by the unknowable in other's lives.
I agree: "Anyone who has been in a relationship for awhile..."
But that is probably a nearly universal condition which should prohibit most people from applying a standard to other's they'd not wish to have applied to them.


This would be true except..MOST people (and e.e. cummings says this group simply doesn't exist) are not paricularly oberservant of either their lives and motivations, the lives and motivations of others, or even the most obvious phyiscal aspects of their surroundings. MOST people simply live on automatic, happy to let this or that agenda or philosophy determine what is worth looking at at, and even how it looks. I see people on a daily basis who are in the "twilight of their years" who really don't have a clue about how the universe is constructed, why the government seems to be running everything into the ground, why capitalism isn't precisely the panacea it claims to be, or even if there might not be another way to approach the problems of life beside what they were socialized to believe in. They "love" this or that person, or this or that country, or this or that sports team without understanding - or wanting to understand - why precisely. They are just happy to belong to a vaguely defined group and to follow what is mandated.


OK, I was able to assign the above or use a similar explanation to those who (a bigoted standard by me) didn't learn or respect or practice the general concept of 'critical thought'.
Maybe most of 'all' people (it's scares me to admit a usable percentage) are not applying reason or rational thought.

It's not an approach particularly fostered by our "grow up, get a job, buy stuff, shut up and die" education schematic I'd say. As social pressures escalate, most people start looking for someone weaker than themselves to blame. The immigration "problem" for example, which is aired constantly at my job: no one even seems to be open to the idea that it is more than natural for people who have nothing to lose to go elsewhere to better their lot, or that it might be advantageous to examnine precisely why companies can get away with having these low-paying jobs which Americans don't want in the first place, or why US big business is not in the least interested in addressing what is a "problem" (in election years) for the electorate, but is a profit opportunity for corporations. They don't want to hear that the vast majority of people risking the trek across a desert are not simply going north in the vague hopes of getting a job, but are actually recruited in Mexico by the people who wish to exploit them. My wife (a public health nurse) deals with such immigrants on almost a daily basis, and - believe me - they don't want to leave their families, homes, and friends to come here. Any normal American would do the exactl same thing if economics made it necessary. Actually, those immigrants and most Americans are on the same side and are being cheated by the same people, but it is easier to subscribe to fearmongering than to explicate complex thought. For far less money than the States spends on capturing and returning these men and women (who only return once again) the US could address the economic disparities that drive them away from the comfort of their own homes and into the arms of an exploitive industry. But that sort of action doesn't win votes quite as readily. People respond to the simplest, most brutal concepts.

The "celebrity worship culture" is just another way to keep us all distracted from any thought that we are being screwed; the "circus" we - as spectators - are supposed to be mesmerized by. And so it goes...


I'm more bothered when I see the flaw of this particular double standard being used by people who are largely objective, impartial and most of the decision making process is sturdy.
No, I probably don't know individuals in rmb well enough to excuse them or assume they only fail to apply sound judgment in this 'personal relations' category.

I do know people who do not fit the profile you describe regarding thought process. But they dare assume they have enough evidence to make a not casual judgment about relationships.

Try this on: A friend of 35 years requested I be a 'witness' in his RC annulment (after 18 years of marriage, a child and 8 years following his divorce).
Or, what kind of *** do it know, could I know or would claim to know about a couple decades of his life in order to provide any testimony which could give his claim more weight or bring it down?
Yet some of the most rational people are eager to explain the complexities of two other people they have never met. They might see nuances in politics or religion and a stranger's life is nothing but black and white, right and wrong or winner/loser.

So, I'm seeing people who seem far from closed minded (here) and for a year it's "insert the name and take a side". Then last month a lifelong friend 'needs' my verification for a life which was as 'knowable' as any could be for me and I'm pleading "I can't know 'bout what went on inside your four walls!"

It's just a hunch, but I suspect many critical thinkers aren't applying a double standard in this area.

Rather, they hope that their bias about other persons complexities will be applied to them.
They do not doubt and they expect others will have 'faith' in them.
"But we're friends" or "Blood is thicker than water" or "Whose side are you on?" all demand one adopt faith in order to see the black and deny the white.
The bias these objective people are comfortable with will 'rule in their favor' when they demand a type of loyalty.

They may surrender the single standard because they figure 'they are on the correct side' or may (and do) demand another's bias.

Everyone has observational and critical limits, but some are large than others...


My 'hunch' has a more diabolical or at least self-serving component because it is on the commission side of wrong doing rather than omission.
I see people willing to practice a way of thought and hope they set an example so they can demand others aren't critical when they are asked to take a side.


It's all based on fear and alienation, whatever the particular nuances of the analysis might be.

dmh

.

Loading