By Erin K. Costello
I’m going to break this post down in a couple areas and take apart MAM’s sentences because, to me, they do not make any sense. When I read posts like this from MAM, I can’t find a thought pattern. I don’t see how she starts at one idea or premise and then ends up where she ends. I don’t see the steps in her thought process, I don’t see any connections, I can’t find her logic, or any logic. Maybe I overthink things too much? But I can’t compare my thinking to determine it to be overthinking or not when it’s being compared to something with such a lack of thinking. Let me explain my take on this post by MAM.
I’m going to begin in the middle of her post where she says:
What if it’s a situation where only one course of action can be agreed to by the whole? For example…say an election? After an election we don’t split an area up between the person who came in first, second, third…etc… and let them all do what they want. We have to side with what the majority chose. We all have to accept the winner as the winner, and the losers as the losers, especially if those running in the election accept the winners and the losers. We all had to accept President Trump as our President. We didn’t have to like it, nor did we have to agree that he should have won, but we did have to accept that he did win. We didn’t all get our own way in some way. But as I break her post down a bit more this reveals to be a moot point because in the first sentence, as usual, she contradicts herself:
“Here is something to think about right now: what do we do when people don't agree on the right course of action in a situation?”
Now, by stating there is “the” right course of action she is saying there are not several right courses of action. And by admitting to having the dilemma of disagreement in determining “the” right course of action she admits that there must be AN agreement on A right course of action. By explaining this she also reveals herself to be a willing participant in the discussion and debate at hand for the right course of action.
By being a willing participant, she must accept the rule that if she won the argument then she would get the right to decide on the best course of action above the losing side, and also must accept the rule that if she had lost the argument then she would also lose the right to decide the best course of action to the winning side. If after participating in the discussion you then decide to no longer agree or follow the rules because the discussion’s outcome did not favor you this time, then you are breaking your side of the agreement to participate in the discussion and debate, thus you forfeit your right to continue in any further debate and discussion from this issue. If you are no longer participating because you don’t want to follow the rules, you then cannot demand the same consideration you would have had in the debate since you are no longer willing to participate in the debate.
How freedom-minded is it for the rest of the participants to have to give you participant-level consideration without being given the right to the same amount of consideration from you? It doesn’t at all sound like freedom supporting behavior. It sounds a bit more like her word…tyranny
For this next one I want to first bring attention to the part where she says:
“We've gotten so far away that if 'experts' say something, or people desperately crave safety, we let a small group railroad everyone else into making certain decisions.”
I want to then point out where she says:
“Those who support tyranny will say, "the one I think is right needs to happen, by any means necessary." And they may well think they know what is best for people, and that it's justified because people aren't making 'good decisions.'
But why do *they* get to decide? What gave them the inherent right to be "right?" Why do they get to force their will on people? Why do they perceive people who believe or do otherwise, as stupid or in need of being forced into another way?”
Now, she never reveals who she is talking about. But she first gives the impression of describing a scene where people simply just can’t agree on a single best course of action. This indecision by all those involved implies that all those participating in this discussion have equal rights to be heard, to be considered, and that their belief of the best course of action should be equally considered.
In the first part I mention here, she mentions experts weighing in on this discussion. She also alleges that one group is able to railroad everyone else participating in this discussion, which means this is not an equal and open discussion. So, basically, she believes she has the same rights to being heard, considered, and tended to as everyone else, but that she is not an expert in this debate and not everyone in the debate is equal since there are, in fact, experts.
Final point, she also accuses some involved of having inherent rights to be right, meaning some involved have an innate or inseparable right to be considered right. If this is the case then why is she even pretending there is a discussion happening at all if only a few have the right to be right, and these rights were not earned or granted by an outside source, but are an intrinsic characteristic of those with these rights?
Once again, she then contradicts herself on the claim of inherent rights by acknowledging that there are experts. By acknowledging the expertise of the experts, she reveals that the consideration they receive is due to their expertise. By this admission, she also reveals that not everyone involved in the discussion is considered equal, and that some have earned the right to be considered and some have not. By calling some involved “experts,” she also acknowledges there are others involved who are not experts. By revealing herself to be in disagreement or even just skeptical of these experts involved, she then outs herself as not being an expert.
If you believe expertise to be a factor on why people are listened to, then you do not believe they have an inherent right to be heard, but that they have an earned right to be considered. You cannot then demand you have the right to be equally heard when you also admit to having not earned this right since you are not an expert.
Is it just me, or does this sound like the social media version of an adult playing a game of skill with a kid that happily rubs their win in the adult’s face but then throws a tantrum when the adult wins a game instead of letting the kid continue to win. I mean, when you think about it, that’s exactly what MAM is doing. She’s like a kid believing herself to be a novice chess player despite the fact her only experience with chess is seeing it played once by other people in a movie. She then shows her delusion by assuming her right to play the role of contender against a chess master. If she wins, it’s only because she is the better chess player. If she loses, it’s only because it isn’t fair. And when no one cares to watch her play any longer because she sucks and they want her removed and replaced with an adequate chess challenger, she cries victim and claims her rights and freedoms have been violated and she’s being censored.
On a side note, I must digress and say that I think an opportunity to do some outrageous shit by forcing your will on people would be wasted on forcing vaccinations as your will. I mean, this is YOUR WILL we are talking about. Sure, it would be awesome if somehow everyone became vaccinated, but..come on, man. You could force people to do anything you wanted! You could force them to give you all their money, force them to give you an island, or you could tell everyone John Cena moved to New Zealand and that's why you can't see New Zealand anymore, then you can force most of the world go stand on New Zealand and hold a big mirror above their heads so when GPS satellites pass by overhead they are no longer able to see New Zealand, and you can say, "It's all Cena's fault. Everything is his fault."
Though, I suppose forcing everyone to learn why their anti-vaccine claims are wrong by forcing them back to school would be the best idea. If I could force my will I guess New Zealand’s place in the world would stay secure…..for now….. #YouCantSeeNewZealand #BlameCena
What's The Harm?