a Little nonsense

A little nonsense ...
I mean ... I was about to write about something ... but right away I realize that it's ... maybe too niche for where I really want to be at right now. Or, more to the point - it seems like trying to get rid of a hornets nest, while all the hornets are out and about on a warpath. And those hornets are what I meant by 'little nonsense'. Though, sure, it should be plural.

And there's a lot of these little nonsenses. And I probably should have recognized this sooner. I mean, I ... did, I saw it, but I didn't quite make the connection. It's part of what I meant by ... little thingies that come to my attention but it mostly just ... zooms by.

So, I'd think that solving the 'underlying problem' would help. That being - whatever ideological nonsense connects "them" for instance. But the problem would be, that there is no real 'base of operations'; In this "realm". So, those little hornets be floating around, being annoying, and whatever happens to the 'underlying problem' is just being rebuilt eventually.
So, yea - it might be best to just retreat and let the damage that has been dealt to them ... well ... sink in for a bit. As it were. So, to save my/our own sanity and constitution.

So, this is a metaphor ... but it holds up. I mean, on and off, for some time now, I intended to "fix the problems" - as it were. In this sense ... looking at them hornets as to get rid of them. So I'd look for "where they come from" and try to deal with that.
And yet I'd have to find that - it may have only aggravated things further. Though not so in a direct sense. It's more like ... . Or actually "like" ... uhm ... is ... that I'd be exposed to examples and impressions of people being just ... "hornets" ... in the sense that they buzz about being little morons - a.k.a. just oblivious I'd assume - without any direct affiliation to a "nest" in that sense; Yet overall just being ... well ... like Agents of the System.

Well, now I can however write about what I meant to - as - the thing itself lends itself to this in a sense of showcasing things a bit further. Which is, perhaps, as good as I can do right now. I mean - if being "off the radar" is what I have to deal with, there's ... literally nothing I can do about people just being stupid and all that. So, as always - yea, uhm ... all I can do is to help those getting smarter that I can actually reach.

uh ...

So ... there are a variety of angles we can take this:

So, if you don't have the time, maybe this isn't for you - but, in summary: A person gets trapped in a cave - and by Hasan's reaction, they're pre-living life on the internet. A.k.a. being smartasses while only a little few people try to help and collective incompetence makes things worse and overall it's a picture of how that can get in the way of fortune being overall in favor of a successful save.

It wouldn't seem like that - for, by some definition everyone did what they could at all times. And so we could call it an awareness problem. And sure, flawed awareness is like ... a factor of incompetence.

As for here - it is also ... a quint-essential hornet's moment. Sortof.
I mean - on the one side we have a situation for a while where competing ideas cancel out 'other' bad ideas. We may deem this a good thing, and being myself not competent enough to really weigh in on the situation itself I have to recognize that this is something worth being careful about. And yea, I believe that caution is a factor of competence.

The problem so would be the at least presented ferocity with which people insist on bad ideas - to say, they're speaking from their own ... in German there's this word: "Gutdünken". One may argue that a literal translation were "Good thinking" - but the word "dünken" isn't really a word as such. It derives from 'denken' (thinking) I'm sure, but so would probably better translated into "thunking". The term (Gutdünken) has an entry on dict.cc, regarded as 'discretion', 'convenience' and 'whim' - which, yea - when taken together does roughly approximate the meaning. Or as highlighted in the phrases section: "To act as one [may see fit]/[thinks best]". So, it's more of a "from gut feeling" or - in a more sophisticated sense: "from ignorance". To say, it's from opinion. And in regards to deciding based on one's gut feelings, it's - I'd say - only a good thing if there is no other choice.

Though the issue at hand may be a very human problem, it does - by occasion - strike me as very american in its core. Though, at that point, we're also verging on the fringes of racism, I figure. To say that it is a stereotype that possibly got stuck that way due to how much America is in the spotlight.
But anyway - there's also a kind of superstition at play here. It is derived from a very practical and pragmatic reality, which is that science works. That we've come a long way, out of the stone-ages - where americans I think take great pride in the matter of conquering nature. But americans are thereby also known to have subscribed to a very ... uhm ... torches and pitchforks kind of attitude towards it.

That however is evidently more of a global problem these days - even if the root problem would happen to have emerged over there. And the problem is, that smart people don't have much of a chance to be heard - because everyone just keeps on talking without listening. And if the smart person tries to be the smart person by listening - all they hear is ... uhm ... well, basically: "trust be bro!". It's only a few steps - or only one - away from the whole "white person posting an 'I as a black person' comment" thing.
I mean, yea - that literally is the next step. So, from just being highly opinionated from their own thunking - they attain a confidence or the audacity to take it that one step further to imply that the people more entitled to an opinion ought to think in the same way - so one decides to save everyone the stress of finding one and imposes as such. So, it's ... two steps.

One step further and we're in SJW territory - which is where now one takes advantage of the position of "the higher authority" to speak "in behalf of" those who are affected or per chance maybe ought to be affected eventually. And at that point we're in the realms of ... there is a term for it. It's a rich people thing where they're concerned of future people on behalf of the entire human race, regardless of how much suffering is caused right now. And sure, as with SJW's - and all that came prior - there sure may be good intentions at play; And also ways to convert these intentions into good outcomes - but they are also, and I'd say: for the most part, great ways to escape responsibility as to not see the problems right in front of one's self.

It's also something that has 'infested' the planes of 'rhetorics'. Where, calling it that makes it sound bad - with the problem being that there is little to nothing these days that doesn't sound bad to some extent. I mean, 15-minute city - apparently stands in equivalence with a dystopian hellscape that's erected to cage and control people. And sure, I suppose that '15 minute city' is too optimistic versus just saying 'walkable community'. But it sure is a great next step or undertaking. I think it wouldn't be feasible for a lot of Europeans because we don't have the space for it - while for me - I'm living in more of a 1 to 1 1/2 hour city. Which is - I can pretty much get to anywhere in and around Stuttgart within an hour. That is - 30 minutes in and 30 minutes out. Everything further away is like ... someplace else.
But - sure, we - I'm sure - also have to think of some kind of continency or upgrades.
But ... back to the topic.

So, "rhetorical escapism" occurs when we use terms that have some "integrated meaning" to imply it as a solution or rebuttal to something else. Like ... "big government" or "small government" are such ... terms. But there are also more subtle ones - like 'short term gains' and 'long term gains'. I mean, if something pays out in the short term - one might pull that card to imply that it's bad - to juxtappose it with some super unrealistic long shot of an idea - calling upon the long term gains card to imply that it's the better solution.

And what's weird on top of it all is, that ... it turns language into some kind of mythology. And they who hold the power to define words are as Gods amongst the Mortals. And because everyone can just define their own meanings - well - we're back to "who yells the loudest". Or, respectively, who can buy the most voices.

Now, the way that academia(?) has basically inoculated itself against that, to some extent, is by having like ... a bar of entry. Yes, we might call it "gatekeeping". And I'm sure people might - or already do - cook up some vile brew to make a case for letting uneducated people dictate what education ... uhm, yea ... .

So, how do we fix this?

Or at least ... counter the entailed problems to the best possible effect? With, sure, maximum efficiency - so God help us!

Well, I suppose, I might start by trying to establish a few things. To which I also might to just have ... make a few things up. Basically in a fighting fire with fire type of approach.

So, "the Liberal agenda" - as we might like to call it - profoundly favors modes of cooperation above modes of authority. [clack]
(I append 'clack' to statements I did my Key thing with, in case it matters)

While that is the pivotal weakness that suffers the aforementioned problems, it is however also the pivotal strength to overcome them. For, the more the individual is aware of it - the better they can participate in it. And in doing so they will waive on authoritative posturing in favor of cooperative competence seeking.

I then want to juxtappose this statement with an attempt at abstract art - as somewhat announced some time ago - so I'll try to establish an utterly nonsensical statement just for shits and giggles. So ...
Conservatism (right wing) is when upside down goes into the loop of making mayonnaise in boundaries of attachment where shit goes to fly. [clack]

Anyhow ...
One may now find, that by some angle, every political ideology or system or even any political body - past and present, does somehow fit into that idea of the Liberal Agenda. Like so is an appeal to cooperativeness I'd think often used to establish authoritarian structures. So does "classical liberalism" try to set itself apart from those outcomes, basically by implying an alternative outcome. And in that sense we can create a list of things that do or don't provide that. Which, in some sense, is what politics is all about these days.

This is similar the matter of "socialism is when healthcare" - which is a narrative rabbit hole all on its own.

But so - there's also that one caveat of 'profoundly' favoring cooperation. Yet - in order to proceed, it might help to shine a light on the fundamentals or internal structure of ideologies - as for how they are constructed per chance - to really get the most out of it.

So far we can say, that at least some flavor of the liberal agenda is at the [somewhere] of any political affiliation. Beyond that, it is somewhat easy for any political belief to put forth some amount of thing that are to be synonymous with it. Likewise would conservative politicians for instance try to portray themselves as a pro worker party, although their political actions are profoundly anti working class. So, anti union, anti worker rights, anti any kinds of protection for that matter ... and so on.
So is "socialism is when healthcare" also a meme of sorts - or "when pronouns" I suppose - which is certainly a comical degree of cuckoldry. And ... this matters as one way that ideology gets defined, is through opposition. Or so, when it comes to the interests of the working class for instance - 'right' may just come down to who got to you first. Sure, the narrative that centrist or left wing politics are anti work is a lot more convoluted and reliant on conspiracy theories and gaslighting and strawmanning, but ... we've seen it work out.
Likewise - I also believe that there is some universality to any kind of political affiliation; With the primary differences between ideological bodies being rhetorical and symbolical. Like so have we, since the rise of Marxist ideology, not have much progress when it comes to tackling any of the pivotal ideas head on. In "Socialistic Democracies" (i.e. Europe) progress was made in terms of lessening the individual significance of money or borders or classism - but the pivotal forces of capitalism are also pretty much still "as effective".
I mean however, that ... depending on how you phrase it - I think one can get a right winger to "acknowledge" that "nobody is saying 'that'" - 'that' being left wing ideas that right wingers openly oppose.

So, political or ideological universality - as a theory - means, that any one has the capacity to affiliate with any ideology. A lot does however come down to the narrative an individual perceives and who it aligns with their 'knowledge' - not to say 'worldview'.

So, Trans rights for instance are the contemporary "hot button issue". And we've been through a few in the past - and, the more that people take offense in trans rights - I'd argue - the more other ground there is that they've lost already. Like so I'm almost certain, that conservative ideology, as defended by anyone in conversation with "a left winger" amounts to pretty much everything left wingers want ... 'but'. That but I'd say mostly revolves around trans issues, a.k.a. Freedom of Speech and "OMG the Children!"; And, ironically "(TER)Feminism" - the rest, the appearance of what conservatives stand/stood for, is I'd say mostly just an illusion - an anomaly emergent from the broadness of topics and narratives that emerge such that it primarily consists of minor nitpicks that get expanded into their own conspiracy theories. Saying, yea, that ... right wing/conservative politics is mostly something invisible that gets carried by the accumulation of fears.

Anyhow - the point so being, that the perception of an opposition does affect how we perceive ideologies. And sure - eventually we can roughly sort the two sides into a side of compassion and a side of hatred. But ... I don't think it's all that simple; Though for the most part it may as well be.

All this does amount to a major problem for any kind of coherent unity we should be striving for. For, to reiterate, I'm sure that any point one might bring forth - as a reason 'for' [the unity], is going to get rebutted by a "but we want the same". Well, unless it hits upon one of those critical issues - from where things eventually loop back into the "but we want the same" part except now there's this asterisk referring to a "not actually" statement. And the distance between the relevant aspects is certainly going to be heavily contended.

So are there these things that are viewed as problematic - where, we might start with trans rights but then have to contend with TERFs and pseudo-biologists and free speech issues - until we're far enough down the conservative rabbit whole where "free speech" becomes "for me, but not for thee"; All guarded by a "but the Children" type of narrative.

So does the liberal agenda lend itself to the two narratives, a.k.a. "liberal good because ..." and "liberal bad because ..." - all deriving its value from the liberal agenda. And I'm sure that the same applies to each and every individual item one might jot down on either or any list.

This seems counter intuitive, because on the surface - in the realms of actuality - political affiliations are extremely varied. But yea. One would think that this nature of political universality ('the problem of political universality' - is it debunkable?) would lead to inevitable unity. And yea, it sure does - as however segregated into a few camps. Though either camp might be more or less serious about the underlying principles, thus yielding a camp more right than another, there's also a varied significance of superficialities - such as symbolism.

It is maybe worth mentioning here, how ironic it is, that the political group most known for hyper nationalistic cruelty did so under a symbol derived from a foreign culture. My gramps explained to me, that Nazi ideology - in terms of religion - was mostly driven by a belief in 'providence'. The belief, sotospeak, that German/Aryan superiority was 'meant to be'. And I think that that is what the Swastika was meant to radiate.

This, by the way, is the star of ishtar - or how I'd like to call it: Star of Astarte. Astarte is ... basically a "villain "Character"" in the bible - as one of the many idols that "the enemies" of Israel worshiped. And I deem to appropriate her as ... Queen/Goddess of Heaven(s). Well ... . Ishtar and Astarte seem to be different dieties though they sure have some things in common. What strikes me however is that ... there's something about the Star of Ishtar. Like, once the murk of history is washed from it. Like, ancient magic maybe. Anyway - from the german wiki, translated by ChatGPT:

:P

And I figure ... there's a can of worms ... if you want to glance past Christian/Gnostic ideology.

But uhm - symbolism holds power, as symbols are somewhat flexible - more than "the discrete word" - when it comes to matters of unity. I mean, WOKE has become one such symbol - as it often enough seems to mean what you want it to - and yet there is discrete meaning to it that has become more educated (nuanced and stuff) over time. Yet on the other hand it's just ... whatever.
And ... yea. I'm currently side-viewing a video, and @31:19 we get to a statement worth taking a closer look at. Like, can we lump this in with conservative ideology? For I'm sure they take offense in "female agency", as it probably ... is like ... at odds with 'the redeeming power of Love'. A.k.a. "rape" I assume. I mean, there's also that thing, where conservatives probably (I'm sure) would like to distance themselves from matters such as promoting rape - but, the way people communicate themselves around these edges on the internet ... paints a different picture.

- uses ad hominem to provide a counter argument -
"But you didn't address the argument I put forward (love is at odds with agency)"
- thinks that they haven't made a case for how love is at odds with agency -

btw.

And yea - that's basically where things are at. Basically: What an individual person, independently, communicates in alignment with an ideology. I mean, if we argue that any ideology, to be real, needs some kind of 'elite' who dictates or otherwise promotes its tenets; We can derive, that this elite is then also responsible for ... doing so properly. And if there's a disconnect, well - either it's intentional or just a failure.

But so again a problem. How to cut through the thicket of it?

Well - in simplest terms however, putting cooperation above authority does a lot actually. For in essence there are two motions: That towards cooperation - which empowers individual agency - and that towards authority - which empowers ... that of an elite.

In other words: There is something to be found when thinking of the 'purest representation, rationalization or realization' of a thing. And to that end, rather than adding things - one is to be mindful of a things inherent potential.

This also has historic precedent. Sortof. I mean, the whole abortion thing - a.k.a. "pro life" (pro 'forced birth' actually) has been such a thing. And in the same vein - rather than being socialists or progressives some people might rather be "healthcareists" or something along those lines. Except ... socialism, etymologically, does have tremendous potential for things it must even just by needs include.

But well - pro life so being its own thing allows it to throw shade against what opposes it as some kind of evil~ish death-culty thing. And so we here may have a case of "balooning by opposition" - to say that a lot of the pro forced birth momentum came by drawing out the worse case images festering in the left; To get all the self-righteous folks up at arms with their torches and their pitchforks. Some might say: The "real american" national sport.

The problem, so it would seem, is that while the right-wingers insist that on the left everything be carved in stone, the right wingers rely on a set of vague ideals that are relatively strong (Bible, God, Family) while however organizing into individual groups that target specific matters of left-wing ideology; And if need be they can thereby distance themselves from one another.

That, to us, is however not an option. And when things clear up - it also won't be much of a successful/winning strategy for them either.

So, rather than adding things to the Liberal Agenda, in this case, it might be worth focusing on the things that emerge from it. Its fruits, as it were. Like so we can say that Socialism is ... in part or in effect or in actuality, as per its identity/described ambitions, a conclusive product thereof.

Alternatively however we can also look at other ideas or ideologies - and figure out how well they align with it. And yea, there is some narrative freedom. Now, I would however argue, that the Liberal Agenda is an emergence from "the Light of Christ" - to highlight that the Liberal Agenda and Christian/Gnostic ideology aren't as much at odds as they basically or implicitly imply one another. Some might take offense to that and start balooning certain aspects of one or another into an opposition - but that is alright for as long as we can center on some productive ... ends. Or how to put it.

And so, for now ... I think I've gotten a lot more out of this than I initially thought; And ... yea - don't think I could do much good but 'adding' anything to it.