Reality is an interesting word or concept. Many people try really hard to avoid it. Through drink, drugs, sex, tv, video games, and various other avenues. Peter Furler and Steve Taylor are pretty close when they say that the ultimate reality is found in God.
But for everyday use we talk about reality being what conforms with what we see, touch, taste, hear, measure, etc. Of course, if God created us and all those things, there shouldn’t be any conflict between acknowledging that God is our ultimate reality, while His creation is our temporary reality.
Where there is tension is when reality intrudes on our biases, agendas, or politics. For example the reality is that Trump is in many, many areas of his life a despicable human being. He’s arrogant, egotistical, unfaithful, untruthful, and certainly much more. Yet, does that reality means he’s devoid of anything good or redeeming? The truth is, that between his public persona, the version of him advanced by his detractors, and the version advanced by those who venerate him, we probably have very little idea of the reality of Trump. Many people, perceive Bill and Melinda Gates in just the opposite way. They’re altruistic, low key, seem likeable and fairly normal. Yet, the He’s clearly a ruthless businessman, not above stealing, bullying, and lying to gain money and power. His foundation also spends millions to distribute dangerous (banned by the FDA) birth control across the continent of Africa. The Clintons are interesting, they’ve somehow managed to portray that the reality is that they’re also nice people, yet I don’t have enough space here to demonstrate otherwise. I’ll just suggest the Slate article about their conduct in Haiti as a starting place.
The reality is, that the overwhelming number of people in Chicago who shoot other people are black, that the overwhelming number of MS13 members are Hispanic, that the overwhelming number of members of the Mafia are Italian. The vast number of human babies aborted are black. To acknowledge this is to simply and dispassionately look at the data. It’s simply the reality.
But, sometimes reality is inconvenient. Sometimes people use reality in ways that broad brush everyone in a particular group, it’s most likely always wrong to say anything about “all X’s”. Yet too many people do just that.
It seems like there should be a middle ground, a ground where we can realize the fact that the likelihood of a person of Japanese heritage being a Muslim terrorist is exponentially smaller than of someone of Saudi or Somali heritage. There should be a way to recognize that reality, and screen accordingly, without assuming that “all” the people in that group are guilty. It seems like the first step is to see people as individuals rather that members of a group.
My problem with the open borders, willy-nilly, let everyone in crowd is that’s it’s just as problematic as the close the borders/isolationist side. They’re both over reacting.
That’s why any immigration debate should start with controlling the borders. Some sort of barrier, yet one designed not to prevent, but to facilitate orderly immigration. I also think it’s important to screen everyone as individuals(I’m willing to accept the cost, in time and money), to make sure that we’re bringing in the individual people and families that will be beneficial to both the immigrants, but also to the communities they live in and the country as a whole.
Acknowledging that racism is sometimes a reality, is just reality. Acknowledging the reality that “Virtually all members of MS13 are Hispanic”, is simply stating an empirically demonstrable reality. But it’s not racism.
How can we get to a place where we can acknowledge reality we aren’t comfortable with, without demonization and vitriol?
3 comments:
Tough to answer that last question so long as leftists (because the reality is that it truly the leftists who are most responsible) continue to rely upon pitting groups against each other to further their agendas.
Conservatives, for the most part, understand that generalization is a means by which a subject can be discussed in a less cumbersome manner. That is, between them, they know they don't have to continually say things like, "of course I don't mean all muslims" in order for a point to be understood.
So, you’re suggesting that since you posted a link to some bills that were introduced at some point in the past, that may or may not address the issues that have your panties in a wad, that there is no legislative remedy that the DFL can propose or negotiate going forward?
Since when do questions =“fake news”.
Re population: there is probably a point where the population will be too large to be sustainable. Although that number is probably mitigated by things like increases in agriculture efficiency and potential advances in energy generation. While factors like availability of jobs, housing, transportation, and waste disposal will probably limit the upper limit.
It occurs to me that those who praise the notion of "diversity" because of "new ways of thinking" would in any way eschew the notion that more people results in more ideas.
Post a Comment