Behold the enemy


Vort
 Share

Recommended Posts

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/opinions/coronavirus-community-spread-collective-health-taylor/index.html

This woman, and those like her, are the enemy. Or to be more precise, their ignorance and hatefulness toward anyone who doesn't take their "progressive" view of things creates the enemy. If you're into victimology, you can argue that she is merely a victim of our perverse leftist culture. I would not necessarily disagree with you. But she speaks for literally millions of other people, doubtless including some on this very forum. Good luck making any real, lasting progress in the face of such opposition.

Make no mistake about it. The schism is coming.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Welcome to my world as a Bay Area resident I am subjected to this mindlessness on a daily basis. I'd bet $100.00 that this lady lives in SF in a nice Victorian, has a designer dog, sends her kids to private school, is a vegan, has season tickets for the Opera and ballet, cheats like crazy on her taxes and hates Trump for no other reason than that he is Trump.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This reminds me of a forum I used to go, where quite liberal and quite educated LDS folks go to opine about things liberal and educated.    In their current events thread, someone posted a story from Seattle.   I'll give you the english translation first.

Translation: Homeless guy used the bathroom at McDonalds to bathe.

Story and commentary: A suspicious character appeared to be intentionally contaminating a McDonalds with some sort of infectious agent, possibly a bio weapon.  He was in possession of a number of disease vectors, at the time the story was published, authorities were speculating the vectors were perhaps lice or fleas or maggots.  The man was placing the vectors on the paper towels, and then depositing them in several locations around the restroom when he was apprehended by authorities.  At this time, the governor's office has not released any statement about the possibility of homegrown or "lone wolf" terrorism, but some witnesses at the scene reported the man had been seen in the past shouting political views at patrons.

Edited by NeuroTypical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, Vort said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/opinions/coronavirus-community-spread-collective-health-taylor/index.html

This woman, and those like her, are the enemy. Or to be more precise, their ignorance and hatefulness toward anyone who doesn't take their "progressive" view of things creates the enemy. If you're into victimology, you can argue that she is merely a victim of our perverse leftist culture. I would not necessarily disagree with you. But she speaks for literally millions of other people, doubtless including some on this very forum. Good luck making any real, lasting progress in the face of such opposition.

Make no mistake about it. The schism is coming.

I don’t really want to give CNN the clicks.  Is there a tl;dr version?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t really want to give CNN the clicks.  Is there a tl;dr version?

Not really. It's not an isolated phrase or expression, but her whole approach, how she seamlessly and apparently unconsciously weaves her "progressive" leftism into every facet of her analysis about the novel coronavirus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Vort said:

https://www.cnn.com/2020/03/17/opinions/coronavirus-community-spread-collective-health-taylor/index.html

This woman, and those like her, are the enemy. Or to be more precise, their ignorance and hatefulness toward anyone who doesn't take their "progressive" view of things creates the enemy. If you're into victimology, you can argue that she is merely a victim of our perverse leftist culture. I would not necessarily disagree with you. But she speaks for literally millions of other people, doubtless including some on this very forum. Good luck making any real, lasting progress in the face of such opposition.

Make no mistake about it. The schism is coming.

interesting way to title the thread.

Why do you see this lady a an enemy?

She is a child of our Father.  She does not seem to say she is an atheist or Christian, but she advocates a more Christian idea where you help the homeless, the sick, and the poor (or do you disagree that we should help the homeless, sick and poor?).  She is also appears to be an American Citizen.  If you are an American Citizen this means she is also part of the same nation as you.  If you are an ally of the U.S. (such as a UK, German, NATO, Japan, etc citizen) than that would mean she is a citizen of an ally nation.

Why do you feel she is an enemy?  Is there a reason to make more enemies than there are already out there?

She may not speak for me, but I do not see any reason to label her as the enemy. 

7 hours ago, Just_A_Guy said:

I don’t really want to give CNN the clicks.  Is there a tl;dr version?

She is making a point about safety in the US.  She starts by pointing out two instances in her life where she felt very unsafe.  The first when an emotionally disabled individual said they had guns after entering into her classroom and she did not know if that individual was about to shoot the classroom up or was merely stating that they had them at home.  The other when a stranger picked up her daughter and started walking away with her.

She than points out the fear that we have in the US today about the Coronavirus.  She says that there are other current epidimics of homelessness, poverty and gun violence that we are also experiencing in the US.  She feels that this leads to fear regarding our safety and the ways to remain safe in the US.  This virus has exposed the fear that all of us have without safety nets to save us from things.  She ends that even if we may be safe in the moment (and with her as the example, that she is currently safer than many in having a place to bunker down during the COVID-19 spread) that while any of us are not healthy or safe, none of us are truly healthy or safe).

In essence I'd boil it down to these three paragraphs.

Quote

What's different, of course, is the speed, visibility and sheer novel danger of this epidemic. Viruses clearly don't care whether we are rich or poor, white or black, gun owners or radical pacifists. As we watch this virus spread, it maps our interconnections. It reminds us that as humans we were never so very separate from one another -- we must meet and share services and trade goods and explore ideas and share food and yes, connect with one another to build a world.

We share common breath. "No man is an island," John Donne wrote, and of course no woman, no child or nation is either. This virus (and the chaos it causes) reminds us of our common lives, our common breath, our deep dependence on interconnectedness: it shows that to thrive we must meet and build and plan and educate and heal and celebrate and make art and grow food and trade goods and eat together, because we are complex social artistic imaginative beings in a web, all attempting to share breath and resources on a planet. The virus reminds us that there is really no elsewhere, no place to retreat, no gated community whose walls will serve: We are all linked, and our health is a community function -- the well-being of others is also the well-being of ourselves.

.......

But the deeper problem is that were already tolerating the extent to which we live in fear in America, the extent to which we have let ourselves imagine and build privatized solutions, the extent to which we have been building those solutions at the edge of a great brink. I'm incredibly privileged that, for now, my partner and I can weather this crisis working from home, homeschooling my kids, that for now we and our kids can sequester. For now, where we live, all public and work and school events are canceled, perhaps for the next 8 weeks, and we basically leave home only to run in large open spaces or to get vegetables.

My thoughts...In regards to the article, to a degree she is right.  In the US none of us are really safe constantly.  We trade safety for freedom.  It is the price of freedom that we need to gauge.  Can we provide healthcare or shelter or other things while still retaining the freedom we have as American citizens.  The US wasn't built for safety, but for freedom from oppression and the freedom and liberty to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

On the otherhand, in the New Testament the idea of church members living a socialistic life (or what we may term as socialistic or communalistic or religious communism) was pretty strong.  Peter encountered a few that did not feel they wanted to donate all they had and live that type of life where there were no poor or rich among them, but where what they needed was provided by leaders and extra was given to the aid of others and the church.  As they were unwilling...they were KILLED.  That's PRETTY EXTREME when one thinks about it.  However, it highlights an idea we encounter now.  We could have the safety net of never having to worry about food and shelter, but to enforce it, if one is not all aboard on it, we may have to take the approach that the heavens did in accordance with Peter's problem.  In our society they may have to kill those who were unwilling to comply.  When that was not done, as we saw in Missouri and other locations, the idea of all things equal did not work out.  When there was the threat of death (for example some communities under Brigham Young where you would be outcast and not have any food or other necessities available and could be killed if you tried to obtain it) it normally was far more successful.

It SOUNDS appealing when one says there were no rich or poor among them (unless, of course, you are rich, then you stand chances of losing all those riches you've collected up through the years).  However, the question always arises, how do you implement that type of system and retain your freedoms.  Unless people can get rid of greed and desire as well as remain self motivated enough to keep being hard working without higher or lower rewards for doing so...I'd posit that it is actually impossible. 

They obviously were able to pull it off under the Nephites after the Lord came.  They may have been for a short period in the New Testament under Peter (or at least one community of saints perhaps were).  There were a few communities that were under Brigham Young (and very successful ones at that, though at times it may have been more out of necessity for survival than anything else).  Those are outliers.  Overall, most societies cannot do this.  They are too greedy and desire far too much on their own.

However, we are not necessarily those of the New Testament or of the Nephite time after the Lord's visitation or even of the Pioneer days under Brigham Young.  We are Americans in the US today.  We have that heritage where we value our freedoms and liberty.  With that comes an inherent risk.  Some want more risk and more freedom, while others want a bigger safety net for the US.  I suppose it depends on how much freedom vs. how much of a safety net we desire.

I would not classify those who have different desires or levels of desire regarding freedom vs. a safety net as enemies (or so I hope.  If one is classifying their fellow citizens as enemies, it will not be long until everyone is the enemy and no one is your friend), but it shows varied levels of fear and hope about various things in our world today that we all deal with.  I feel that in the US we have already LOST many of the rights and freedoms that we had when I was a boy.  Things we took for granted have been taken away.  Many don't even blink about that today, but we have slowly had fear drive us to remove some of the freedoms we had yesterday (for example, walking to the airplane gate as a family before a loved one departs, or meeting one at the gate for a loved one's return) so that we can have more safety nets to address those fears.

It begs to question the idea of...

The only thing we need to fear...is fear itself.

Edited by JohnsonJones
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Vort said:

This is an inexcusable misunderstanding of a clearly documented event.

Indeed...  It was not that they were unwilling...  All the non members were unwilling and they were just fine.     It was that they were willing to lie about it.  Lying so they could gain the benefits and not pay the price.  That is what got them struck dead.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, estradling75 said:
2 hours ago, Vort said:

This is an inexcusable misunderstanding of a clearly documented event.

Indeed...  It was not that they were unwilling...  All the non members were unwilling and they were just fine.     It was that they were willing to lie about it.  Lying so they could gain the benefits and not pay the price.  That is what got them struck dead.

@JohnsonJones is not ignorant of this. He simply chooses to misinterpret (read: wrest) scripture to suit his fancy.

The New Testament folks who lived in consecration but lied about things were not "killed" for "unwillingness". They were struck down by God (not by Peter) because they violated covenant. The wage of sin is death, and guess what covenant violation is?

I suppose that @JohnsonJones can pretend he didn't realize this staggeringly obvious fact if he wants to. Indeed, given previous demonstrations of his lack of critical reading skills, perhaps it could be true. But in that case, he should refrain from commenting on scriptural passages, since he so obviously fails to grasp them, even in their rudiments.

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, JohnsonJones said:

She is making a point about safety in the US.  She starts by pointing out two instances in her life where she felt very unsafe.  The first when an emotionally disabled individual said they had guns after entering into her classroom and she did not know if that individual was about to shoot the classroom up or was merely stating that they had them at home.  The other when a stranger picked up her daughter and started walking away with her.

She than points out the fear that we have in the US today about the Coronavirus.  She says that there are other current epidimics of homelessness, poverty and gun violence that we are also experiencing in the US.  She feels that this leads to fear regarding our safety and the ways to remain safe in the US.  This virus has exposed the fear that all of us have without safety nets to save us from things.  She ends that even if we may be safe in the moment (and with her as the example, that she is currently safer than many in having a place to bunker down during the COVID-19 spread) that while any of us are not healthy or safe, none of us are truly healthy or safe).

Her point about safety is not the Christian one you frame it as. She doesn't encourage us to turn to God, or follow Godly principles of whatever faith you belong to. Her point is that we need a government to provide us with our safety nets. Not God. Not the individual. The government.

I have 2 thoughts in relation to this mindset. First, I see this as a city mouse / country mouse dichotomy. When you move into the city you voluntarily give up some freedoms you already have simple because of how dense it is. If your freedom to swing your fist ends where my nose begins, then in the country you can use extend your arm like Inspector Gadget but in the city you might have to keep your palm open. That's just a simple density problem. My problem is when the city mice with their control over the media tell the country mice that the city system of management really is better, even in the country. And then to take it a step further and suggest that those who govern both city and country should impose laws over both that solve city problems. I think @Vort has admitted in the past that there are inherent problems with living in the city because, duh, it's a city. I'd like to hear from him what are some limitations that should be expected because of the urban environment and where he would draw the line for it going too far.

My second thought is to compare the hurricane crises from the start of the Trump administration. Both Texas and Puerto Rico were hit. The news cycle quickly abandoned Texas and moved to Puerto Rico once the opportunity presented itself. Puerto Rico had the federal safety net and was dependent on the Federal government being organized enough to send out relief, and dependent on the local government being organized enough to distribute that relief (they were also dependent on the local government having that safety net, but it wasn't there so it got escalated to the Federal level). The video footage of Puerto Rico showed people the start of the local distribution chain saying "we need supplies" even as supplies sat behind them, and people at the end of the distribution chain saying "we still having gotten any supplies and we don't know what we're going to do". Footage in Texas, showed people firing up their fishing or recreational boats and helping neighbors. There may have been local safety nets, but from what I could see (and maybe some locals can confirm) the safety net was largely left to the individual - and the individual recognized that. And once the individual found himself and his family secure he extended his net to his neighbor.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, mordorbund said:

I think @Vort has admitted in the past that there are inherent problems with living in the city because, duh, it's a city. I'd like to hear from him what are some limitations that should be expected because of the urban environment and where he would draw the line for it going too far.

Excellent analysis, as always.

I have not given a great deal of thought to exactly which rights need to be limited for urban living and how those limitations should be codified and enforced. I don't claim to have any great insight into such things. I can see a strong argument for metropolitan firearm control. In the spirit of "don't yell 'Fire!' in a crowded theater", I can see certain limitations on "fighting words" and other inflammatory speech that could cause rioting or other civic unrest. But of course, I also see why proscribing these rights is intrinsically problematic.

As in your "city mouse/country mouse" example, I would feel much less antipathy toward citythink if the city dwellers kept their city-inspired proscriptions to themselves rather than seeking to export them to everyone else. People like the author of the above-linked article are deeply ignorant, and thus (to use the current holier-than-thou expression) are part of the problem—aka the enemy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Vort said:

@JohnsonJones is not ignorant of this. He simply chooses to misinterpret (read: wrest) scripture to suit his fancy.

The New Testament folks who lived in consecration but lied about things were not "killed" for "unwillingness". They were struck down by God (not by Peter) because they violated covenant. The wage of sin is death, and guess what covenant violation is?

I suppose that @JohnsonJones can pretend he didn't realize this staggeringly obvious fact if he wants to. Indeed, given previous demonstrations of his lack of critical reading skills, perhaps it could be true. But in that case, he should refrain from commenting on scriptural passages, since he so obviously fails to grasp them, even in their rudiments.

Let us read what it actually says and WHETHER OR NOT it was mandatory or by choice...starting in 4:32

Quote

32 And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and of one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.

33 And with great power gave the apostles witness of the resurrection of the Lord Jesus: and great grace was upon them all.

34 Neither was there any among them that lacked: for as many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold,

35 And laid them down at the apostles' feet: and distribution was made unto every man according as he had need.

36 And Joses, who by the apostles was surnamed Barnabas, (which is, being interpreted, The son of consolation,) a Levite, and of the country of Cyprus,

37 Having land, sold it, and brought the money, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

1 But a certain man named Ananias, with Sapphira his wife, sold a possession,

And kept back part of the price, his wife also being privy to it, and brought a certain part, and laid it at the apostles' feet.

But Peter said, Ananias, why hath Satan filled thine heart to lie to the Holy Ghost, and to keep back part of the price of the land?

Whiles it remained, was it not thine own? and after it was sold, was it not in thine own power? why hast thou conceived this thing in thine heart? thou hast not lied unto men, but unto God.

And Ananias hearing these words fell down, and gave up the ghost: and great fear came on all them that heard these things.

And the young men arose, wound him up, and carried him out, and buried him.

And it was about the space of three hours after, when his wife, not knowing what was done, came in.

And Peter answered unto her, Tell me whether ye sold the land for so much? And she said, Yea, for so much.

Then Peter said unto her, How is it that ye have agreed together to tempt the Spirit of the Lord? behold, the feet of them which have buried thy husband are at the door, and shall carry thee out.

10 Then fell she down straightway at his feet, and yielded up the ghost: and the young men came in, and found her dead, and, carrying her forth, buried her by her husband.

11 And great fear came upon all the church, and upon as many as heard these things.

Many of those who were expected to live the Law of Consecration both in Joseph's time and Brigham's had NOT made a covenant, and more to the fact had not even been to the Temple when they were expected to live the Law of Consecration.  The Jews had a Temple but Christians at the time really did not have a Temple of their own either.  They were Baptized and became part of the Christian community or congregation.

Are you talking about the Baptismal covenant then? 

Which covenant exactly are you referring to?

As per verse 11, it was FEAR that came upon the churc and as many as heard these thingsh...not great willingness.  Once again, it is amazing how the fear of death spurs people on to do things.

This would apply to OUR DAY as well.  With the greed and desire men have I see it would be impossible for them to live in such a manner today without that fear.  The incidences we have of it even being somewhat successful in our modern era always has the threat of death for those who do not comply, whether directly, indirectly, or insinuated.

Unless people lose this greed and desire and at the same time are willing to work hard (as hard as they would when they have riches as a motivation) being motivated by the desire for the good of ALL the community, I do not see this being able to being able to be successful.  There is too much pride and selfishness today.

However, this relates to the US and different ideas going around today.  Obviously the Lord's way is to do away with selfishness and to have all in common with each other (something I think most members of the Church in the U.S. today would be averse to.  Some say with their mouths that they would, but their actions speak differently, and actions speak louder than words).  This, like many other ideas along these lines, is dealing with what I term as safety nets.  We can either have safety nets or we can have freedom.  Because of the nature of people, when we institute safety nets, the way to bring them about is enforcement.  Many will not support these safety nets.  Thus, to have them we must on the other end do away with freedoms we have.

If possible, we might be able to have total safety but then we would have to say goodbye to our freedoms.  On the otherhand, if we have complete freedom, there would be no safety nets of any kind (no law, no public rights, no enforcements).

The US was NOT made to instill a lot of safety nets.  It was originally to ensure freedom.  It was for those seeking life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  We didn't like government looking over our shoulder, dictating what we had to believe, what we could say, what we could do or what we had to support.  The maximum freedom we could have vs. the safety nets of the day.  The colonists got angry over a tax that was smaller than most taxes we pay today!!!

They had those that were called loyalists that wanted the safety of the government over them, but as history shows us, those who desired more freedom won that freedom.

Today we have a similar thing.  There are many in the US who WANT these safety nets.  There are those who want more freedom.  It has always been a balance between these two ideas in the US.  Normally FEAR is what drives people to want these Safety nets installed.  Fear of those who want to kill us.  Fear of nature.  Fear of the world. 

Thus, we come to this discussion.  We see in the US people that want to have these things, however as I see it, the only way to do so is to remove freedoms we currently have.  It is a trade off...safety or freedom.  Freedom requires an inherent risk today.  If one wants freedom they may have to sacrifice for it and the dangers are real.  We could be homeless tomorrow, or we could go hungry as prices of food rise.  In the worst case we may die as illness or sickness takes us.  Thus the question is how much freedom does one want vs. safety.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share