Although I agree with what you've said in terms of not using certain arguments to justify disengagement, I do want to say that there are times when it's necessary for people to take breaks in order to avoid falling into the abyss. I personally have not met anyone who has said that this "game" is beneath them -- in fact quite the opposite -- but I recognize that's just within my own little orbit, and I have no doubt that the others of whom you speak are out there.
What I have found within my small group are people on the verge of a mental health crisis. The frustration, the hopelessness, the rage, the feeling that no matter what they do, nothing seemingly helps -- or if there is a success, it's followed by 10 more shit sandwiches -- all while trying to live in a nation that has been turned on its head.
Having a sociopath as a president of a country you love is bad enough. But then having, what, 30% of the population either not being able to recognize the sociopath in the room, or worse, being ok with the sociopath in the room -- like half of Congress -- really fucks with your head.
Anyway, I tell friends to take a break when they need to. We have long-term goals ahead of us that require everyone's participation, just not always all at once. When some need to step out, others will be stepping back in, refreshed and ready for battle. And so the cycle goes.
It's imperative to remain mentally healthy so that helplessness and hopelessness do not devour our collective will.
It doesn't seem like your friends are saying they're above it all just doing their best to deal with how it's harming them. They don't seem to be people who are saying because they're fine there's no problem.
Let me quickly clarify what I was saying. My circle of friends have NEVER suggested they are above it all; they are instead expressing that they are exhausted by it all... exhausted by their participation in what seems like a never-ending uphill battle. Which is why I encourage them to take a break (and not feel guilty about it) so as to not risk mental burnout or a state of resignation.
Hi Jamie we're referring to different groups of people I got what you were saying about your friends. You clearly communicated what was going on with them.
It's the same thing going on with lots of us. We care deeply. It sometimes impacts us personally and we are doing the best we can.
I was pointing out I think the article was covering folks who either say
They don't care because it doesn't affect them.
They are cynically above it all say attack the earnestness or idealism
They are like Marc Andressen
All three have something in common dismissing the harm, predation and nihilism.
They try and make out the people who disagree like your friends are woke, before it was virtue signaling, pc, radical chic or whatever.
You communicated your friends are not in those categories. They are trying to defend themselves from a system they are opposed to.
And yes, I understood what group and the kind of people Mike was talking about. In certain ways it reminds me of folks who conclude that voting is beneath them and if perfection can't be achieved, then there's no sense in participating in the process. And yet when things go well, despite their lack of participation, they eat the fruits of others' labor, and when things go south they exclaim, "That's why voting doesn't matter."
My original reply to Mike's post was just me simply going off-topic in order to address some of the challenges that many good folks face.
I get it. Those are exactly the sort of people. I remember a leftist saying once, if voting changed anything it would have been illegal which was old cynical bullshit before we were born. I pointed out that in living memory it had been illegal for many Americans.
"It is called anarcho-capitalism. It goes by other names — self-ownership, personal dominion, sovereign individualism — and it has, at its core, a single proposition: that the only legitimate right is the right to be left alone, and that any arrangement which compels you to consider the interests of others is a form of tyranny."
Please correct me if I'm wrong -- and I may very well be -- but is this not the foundation of Libertarianism in a nutshell?
It's truly astonishing, how often libertarian ideology is a thin sprinkle of philosophical croutons scattered over a tasty dressing of cool ranch white supremacy.
My favorite Mike Brock essay. The highest and best civilizations that we can build will always be flawed. Persevering is and has always been our only recourse. To constantly strive toward “a more perfect union.” Bravo, Mike…
Peter Thiel took his "Antichrist lecture series" to Rome.
Robert Prevost's AI adviser wrote an essay asking whether Thiel should be burned at the stake.
To quote Populorum progressio:
"He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups."
So right, Mike. I long thought that this whole thing was the province of the Ayn Rand fan club, but now it seems it is much wider than that. We are deep in its grasp, but most humans don’t yet seem to realize it.
Yes battle is for Civilization. Civilization is not a mistake. It has been carefully crafted over thousands of years. It is essential and the only way our species will survive.
What Mike is identifying here is why I can't deal with cynicism. It's Always pretending to know the score and be above it all but not actually wanting to do anything
Although I agree with what you've said in terms of not using certain arguments to justify disengagement, I do want to say that there are times when it's necessary for people to take breaks in order to avoid falling into the abyss. I personally have not met anyone who has said that this "game" is beneath them -- in fact quite the opposite -- but I recognize that's just within my own little orbit, and I have no doubt that the others of whom you speak are out there.
What I have found within my small group are people on the verge of a mental health crisis. The frustration, the hopelessness, the rage, the feeling that no matter what they do, nothing seemingly helps -- or if there is a success, it's followed by 10 more shit sandwiches -- all while trying to live in a nation that has been turned on its head.
Having a sociopath as a president of a country you love is bad enough. But then having, what, 30% of the population either not being able to recognize the sociopath in the room, or worse, being ok with the sociopath in the room -- like half of Congress -- really fucks with your head.
Anyway, I tell friends to take a break when they need to. We have long-term goals ahead of us that require everyone's participation, just not always all at once. When some need to step out, others will be stepping back in, refreshed and ready for battle. And so the cycle goes.
It's imperative to remain mentally healthy so that helplessness and hopelessness do not devour our collective will.
It doesn't seem like your friends are saying they're above it all just doing their best to deal with how it's harming them. They don't seem to be people who are saying because they're fine there's no problem.
Hi Banji,
Let me quickly clarify what I was saying. My circle of friends have NEVER suggested they are above it all; they are instead expressing that they are exhausted by it all... exhausted by their participation in what seems like a never-ending uphill battle. Which is why I encourage them to take a break (and not feel guilty about it) so as to not risk mental burnout or a state of resignation.
Hi Jamie we're referring to different groups of people I got what you were saying about your friends. You clearly communicated what was going on with them.
It's the same thing going on with lots of us. We care deeply. It sometimes impacts us personally and we are doing the best we can.
I was pointing out I think the article was covering folks who either say
They don't care because it doesn't affect them.
They are cynically above it all say attack the earnestness or idealism
They are like Marc Andressen
All three have something in common dismissing the harm, predation and nihilism.
They try and make out the people who disagree like your friends are woke, before it was virtue signaling, pc, radical chic or whatever.
You communicated your friends are not in those categories. They are trying to defend themselves from a system they are opposed to.
Hi Banji,
I see what you are saying now.
And yes, I understood what group and the kind of people Mike was talking about. In certain ways it reminds me of folks who conclude that voting is beneath them and if perfection can't be achieved, then there's no sense in participating in the process. And yet when things go well, despite their lack of participation, they eat the fruits of others' labor, and when things go south they exclaim, "That's why voting doesn't matter."
My original reply to Mike's post was just me simply going off-topic in order to address some of the challenges that many good folks face.
Also we all go off on our own tangents from time to time. What's the point if we can't make it about us 😺👍
I get it. Those are exactly the sort of people. I remember a leftist saying once, if voting changed anything it would have been illegal which was old cynical bullshit before we were born. I pointed out that in living memory it had been illegal for many Americans.
"It is called anarcho-capitalism. It goes by other names — self-ownership, personal dominion, sovereign individualism — and it has, at its core, a single proposition: that the only legitimate right is the right to be left alone, and that any arrangement which compels you to consider the interests of others is a form of tyranny."
Please correct me if I'm wrong -- and I may very well be -- but is this not the foundation of Libertarianism in a nutshell?
It's truly astonishing, how often libertarian ideology is a thin sprinkle of philosophical croutons scattered over a tasty dressing of cool ranch white supremacy.
My favorite Mike Brock essay. The highest and best civilizations that we can build will always be flawed. Persevering is and has always been our only recourse. To constantly strive toward “a more perfect union.” Bravo, Mike…
https://www.themonastery.org/blog/why-some-catholics-want-peter-thiel-burned-at-the-stake
Peter Thiel took his "Antichrist lecture series" to Rome.
Robert Prevost's AI adviser wrote an essay asking whether Thiel should be burned at the stake.
To quote Populorum progressio:
"He who has the goods of this world and sees his brother in need and closes his heart to him, how does the love of God abide in him?" Everyone knows that the Fathers of the Church laid down the duty of the rich toward the poor in no uncertain terms. As St. Ambrose put it: "You are not making a gift of what is yours to the poor man, but you are giving him back what is his. You have been appropriating things that are meant to be for the common use of everyone. The earth belongs to everyone, not to the rich." These words indicate that the right to private property is not absolute and unconditional.
No one may appropriate surplus goods solely for his own private use when others lack the bare necessities of life. In short, "as the Fathers of the Church and other eminent theologians tell us, the right of private property may never be exercised to the detriment of the common good." When "private gain and basic community needs conflict with one another," it is for the public authorities "to seek a solution to these questions, with the active involvement of individual citizens and social groups."
So right, Mike. I long thought that this whole thing was the province of the Ayn Rand fan club, but now it seems it is much wider than that. We are deep in its grasp, but most humans don’t yet seem to realize it.
Yes battle is for Civilization. Civilization is not a mistake. It has been carefully crafted over thousands of years. It is essential and the only way our species will survive.
What Mike is identifying here is why I can't deal with cynicism. It's Always pretending to know the score and be above it all but not actually wanting to do anything
Where does Marc talk about Carl Schmidt? Or are you just noting obvious influences?
Oh Mike!! Our work - make it less broken! Too gracious to them, they are the cee word.