Belly Button Lint

Feeling Lint-y?

Tag: justice

  • Theme:

    State rights as self-limits

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The state both grants and protects rights, declaring them inalienable.
    Since they cannot be rescinded, they are redefined. As the grantor and guarantor, the state is crafting the boundaries of permissible rebelliousness upon which we shape our identity.

    Many of us craft our identity around limits, exploring and expanding the boundaries. Yet the constraint of our self-construction is paradigmatic and ideological: it tends to function and limit us without our recognizing its influence.

    In this way, our "intrinsic self" or "authentic core" is shaped by extrinsic forces. While we take perverse pleasure in our dalliance with overstepping, our state has increasingly limited and normalized what it means to be free.

    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Perilous Adventure: use your rights

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    For those craving perilous escapades, reflect on unexercised rights: Are you utilizing your freedom of speech or bearing arms?
    Society often conflates legality with morality, distinguishing between the civilized and the uncivilized based on superficial markers: a civilized individual shuns firearms and engages in courteous discourse, even while indulging in most of the seven deadly sins.

    This dichotomy invites a reevaluation of the divide between legal standards and moral principles, challenging where true civility lies—in the actions sanctioned by law or the integrity of our conduct.

    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Necessity of Fault

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    What if everything considered human in us derives from our faults? Instead of privileging the pure or authentic, we can more consistently rely on balancing a multitude of negatives to create the positive self.

  • Theme:

    The paradox of Equality and Difference

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The Woke and DEI movements theoretically advocate for ‘equality through promoting difference.’ This seems paradoxical: in a system where each element is unique, these differences produce equivalence (if every part is unique/different, they are all equally valuable).

    However, this equivalence collapses under a uniform metric or standard, like productive efficiency or race.

    The consideration between equality and difference is a ‘coincidence of opposites,’ a paradox that indicates interdependence and mutual reliability. This means there is no inherent polarity or antagonism, so endorsing one over the other or both simultaneously produces contradictory relevance or dissonance.

    Intriguingly, as a system strives toward its ideal, it inadvertently intensifies its opposite: simultaneously attempting equality and diversity guarantees the opposite of difference and uniformity.

    This ongoing struggle fuels polarization but to no apparent end: the dichotomies are inherent. Thus, their total absence cannot be manifested, and by claiming alternate poles simultaneously, we merely flip contradictions as the goal is approached.

  • Theme:

    tyrannical reaction to the competitive instinct

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The competitive instinct is the desire to excel and be honored for it, not the power to dominate.
    – In a confused overreaction, clamping down on any who would want distinction through winning is a means to dissuade a possible tyrant.
    Ironically, those clamping down are tyrannical in forcing egalitarianism, which enforces fragility and similarity.

    The competitive instinct is not always about dominance but the pursuit of excellence and recognition. This drive for distinction (excellence) is often misinterpreted as the potential for tyranny.

    This reaction itself can become tyrannical, as it enforces a rigid egalitarianism. Ironically, this approach fosters a culture of fragility and homogeneity, stifling the very individualism it seeks to protect.

    –
    –
    –

  • Theme:

    Egalitarian leveling

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The central tenant of egalitarianism is leveling. Specific traits are compensated for, artificially creating a more flattened state, whether positive, negative, or unique. In the process of creating egalitarian equality, naturally occurring differences are neutralized or homogenized.

    The neurotic soul, the mad genius, is normalized (neutered): the excessive traits that torment and produce are considered abnormal and must be subject to enhanced conformity.

    However, there is a more philosophical consideration that extreme difference produces equality without forced normalization: if each component/individual is utterly unique, there can be no hierarchy because there is no means for comparison. Ultimate difference produces ultimate equality, with no extraneous pressure needed for artificial leveling.

    However, the underlying problem is that leveling can only happen according to specific standards (an optimal goal), ensuring unfairness in attempting ultimate fairness.

  • Theme:

    Paradox: moral transgression

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    A confounding problem for progressive politics is the belief in transgression to move beyond traditional shackles.

    Transgression is anti-moral, in that morality is established by conservative mores, and yet the “equality” progressives seek is essentially moral, and must not be transgressed.

    As usual, at extremes, the deal struck to release us subverts its terms into it’s Achilles heal: to achieve morality we must transgress morality.

    That is, to escape hierarchical domination and become free, we atomize people and norms beyond the commonality that can gauge equality.

    (Inspired by Cristopher Lasch)

  • Theme:

    double standards

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    To bear two standards (banners or flags of loyalty) is to serve multiple masters: the favorite person and fidelity to the law.

    Given the inevitable conflict (humans crossing every threshold), the law will be breached and loyalty tested.

    Consistency to the principle (law) fails the specific (person). Once breached, return to trust seldom outweighs resentment.

  • Theme:

    Liberalism’s corrupting lie

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    The premise of liberalism is a lie: liberation, equality, and freedom as innate rights.

    Thus, we are constantly fighting off possible theft and violation of our rights. As such, we are all victims on the defensive against potential oppression.

    The real irony is that it leads us, the always victims, to become oppressors.

  • Theme:

    reacting to unfairness

    , , ,

    °

    1–2 minutes

    Unfairness causes backlash in proportion: resentment at imbalance causes a reactive lockdown or retaliation to rebalance the dynamic.

    Our reaction is to change who we are: to protect ourselves, we become someone else.

    However, the rage you feel towards others is your own. (You produce and maintain it; you can also drop it.)

    A genuine achievement is not getting even, but despite being wounded, remaining kind: remaining you.