My Way of Thinking?

Over the years I've listened to various dialogues on so many different controversial issues and I continue to come to the same conclusions today. I have been right all along that is about one thing, and that is that if you start with the earth as the foundation of any argument you must inevitably realize we have all become dependent upon too much technology, that which separates us from the natural cycles of the earth and this has been psycho-sociologically injurious to us,  as well as has led us to engage in foolish destructive endeavors masked as beneficial, acts that avoid culpability through subterfuge and the displacement of effort and foisting responsibility upon powerless populations, and in the process wasting limited natural resources while poisoning all living inhabitants.

This displacement and subterfuge that I mention happens very gradually in such small increments that like the frog slowly succumbs to boiling water, we do not realize what we have done to ourselves—we do not realize that we put our trust in that which and those who have only self interest and little real rigorous science or compassionate humanity to support their presumptions of philanthropy.

This is why like some of us I find myself at odds with the status quo, in opposition to those who chose not to question authority—whether to protect their employment or because it would shatter too much of ones hard sought level of leisure, calm, pleasure or cost them possessions, or simply because of a dependence upon a given trust or belief system. Such systems sadly cannot be relinquished without great trauma or force. Persuasion that is has long since lost its window of opportunity for an easy reconnect; for an immediate and personal detachment awaits like a crevice, a gaping, maddening emptiness of no-return. It is the most extreme of cognitive dissonances that looms before us all. 

"How could we all have been so wrong", we ask ourselves?  Sadly, this is where the greatest choice of all either separates or binds us forever. We demand of each other to "choose a side." "You're either with us or against us." We're "us and them", reliable or fake, uplifted or downtrodden, wolves or sheep, hawks or doves, heroes or scapegoats, blessed with praise or cursed with schadenfreude. "Where do you stand?" "Explain yourself!" "You worry us with your thinking. There is a code for that in the DSM5, you know?"  "Perhaps you have a mental disorder."  

In countries like China or Russia, yes, even contemporary Russia, they incarcerate you for challenging the state's "way of thinking" or religious beliefs. What a sad condition we are in, we who would be kings, not peasants....   when all we have to do is look down for our answer.

Speaking of... candidates.

What I think I have failed to realize as a white male and thus verbalize succinctly is that maybe once there is an equal number of women and persons of different races and cultures in positions of power in both states and the federal government it may become more opportune then and acceptable for a person incidentally blighted such as myself by my whiteness to say I wish not to call attention to the color of their skin or their religion or their gender or sexual preferences but rather focus my critical gaze on the candidates' records and their ideals. I recall as an example of this kind of oblique marginalization authors such as James Baldwin who wished to be thought of as an author first rather to be labeled as a black author—segregated in a sense from the other masters of literature. And by this I mean to say that all women and peoples of the many cultures are human first and best judged by their character as Martin Luther King said, their primary attributes of ethical conviction as opposed to their appearance or the manifestations of their cultural practices or spiritual worship. All of us might find virtue better if we imagined we were blind and just listened to each other.

 Teachers who are incompetent or predatory should be of more concern to parents—I would not be averse to cameras in classrooms in other words. Also I think teachers should share with parents what their lessons entail; parents could then opt their child out of that particular lesson they object to. If they merely have "alternative facts" which the parent wishes themselves to "indoctrinate" their child with that's entirely their prerogative. 

Anyway I get the discomfort the teacher in question ( in a facebook feed I encountered) expresses but I see no evidence of malice, immorality or an intent to deceive or "indoctrinate".  That's an unwarranted interpretation. If a teacher presents factually vetted material about controversial issues without passing judgement the teacher should have nothing to worry about—from open minded parents that is and I think that's where the discomfort comes from, an awareness that some parents will object to some subjects that are readily available in the mainstream and social media. Why limit a student's ability to debate on such topics. Perhaps an astute young student might one day "enlighten" that previously narrow minded parent.