And if so, exactly what to write? This is a question that comes up every day. Further, can one split the writing almost in half, praising one. condemning one - and the one is the same person? This is a problem confronting every blog writer, every person who makes his/her point out there in public. In today's world, it is often an all or nothing situation. But that is not the true name of the game when doing public writing.
The name of the game is discernment and discrimination. Discern where one's opinion is and how it differs from others, or equally possible, how it meshes with the other opinion. That is the discrimination that is not hate, but a recognition of a split of opinion. It is neither bad nor good. It is what it is, and it is for a person to say or not. It is for another person to accept or not, to approve or not. That is the name of the game.
However, this 'game' veers off the playing board when differences of opinion melt down to opinions and words of hate and violence. Into incitement to violence even unto death. In this situation or such an incident it must be made clear that this is not acceptable speech. This is not a freedom of speech. issue. This is a matter of right or wrong. The discernment and the discrimination are clear as glass and opposing speech and writing, is clearly called for.
If one heeds not that call, that charge of responsibility, that is a blow to civility, to truth, to a better world. In varying words, though of same intent, we have been warned. that one need not actively promote violence for it to succeed. Remaining quiet, passive, in the face of injustice, is equally, perhaps even more so, promotive and enabling of the worst of humankind. Bottom line, at the end of it all, whether one is complicitly or implicitly involved in the promotion of negativity, an equal equation is in place. Then you must wear those shoes, put on that hat, for so you have chosen and so you must accept the consequences arising from those choices, and accept responsibility for them.
Here is a blatant situation, which practically rises up out of the pages of print or jumps off the screens of social media. Can one praise Trump for finally stepping in, adding to the bombing power of Israel in their combat against an existential threat and then condemn him for manner in which he did so and for his timing? Can we praise and then condemn him vociferously for his faults? For his attempts to rule the nation and then the world? For his grandiose schemes to be awarded a Nobel Peace Prize? Can we question his timing and motivation. for the bombers? Was it a careful strategic decision or did it arise out of a deteriorating mind with less control over impulsivity? Are his openly deteriorating physical aspects a reflection, a partner to the same deterioration? It would not be an unexpected event as the man certainly is of age.
Is all this flurry of threats and promises an attempt to disguise his true ambitions, to rule the United States, with ambition knowing no boundaries? I don't know for sure. I can't speak for sure. All I can do is put forth my opinion. Bottom line - I do not trust that man. I do not think he does anything out of altruistic motivation. All is weighed and measured on a Trumpian scale. What is good for Trump? What is not? If in the furtherance of his ambition he happens to do something that is good, I will acknowledge and accept but that does not mean that I must change my overall evaluation of this man and the danger he presents to continuation of democracy within the borders of this land.
Trump has become a mentor for others of his ilk. They would noisily, indignantly, deny this statement, but truth is truth no matter how much one tries to cover it over. There was no difference in words of hate coming from right or left or middle. There's no difference in the ugly results and consequences. There is no shade between them. Their shared words of antagonism and ridiculous denial are partners in a tight relationship of ugliness and hatred. Deny it as they might, those who espouse vociferous words of hate, of encouragement to create false lines of separation, along with words of denial when something goes wrong, or when a policy is visibly opposed, no matter from where they shout their ugliness, they are the same.
When Trump raises the temperatures surrounding immigration and citizenship, when he openly opposes the constitution, tramples on true law and order, he is no different than Mamdani. the current. candidate for Mayor of New York City. A city known as a Jewish city, now with a candidate running on hatred of those who built the city which enabled him and his family to find a place within. He uses words to hide truths evident to all. Refuses to accept responsibility for his violence and hatred encouraging words.
“The language that I use and the language that I will continue to use to lead the city is that which speaks clearly to my intent, which is an intent grounded in a belief in universal human rights,”
When pressed about the Jewish community’s concern about the slogan calling for violence against Jews, Mamdani responded, “I’ve heard those fears, and I’ve had those conversations, and I don’t believe that the role of the mayor is to police speech,” he added.
The mayoral candidate added that, if elected, his task would not include “making clear what language I believe is permissible or impermissible.”
Truly bosom buddies in the realm of hate and denial of truth. No air between the results of their words and policies. Of their shirking of responsibility for the bloodshed they enable and encourage, for their role modeling of avoidance and denial of truth. Though the words might differ the ugliness is the same.
It is upon the rest of the electorate to stand up and speak out against this ugliness, be it from the right, the left, the middle, from wherever. If we do not, an ugliness of yesterday will impact greatly upon today, and will doom tomorrow.
Our choice. Our responsibility.
No comments:
Post a Comment