(Topic Creator)8 hours ago
Wow, good questions! I'll try my best.
1. Your first question purports that societal dismantling is necessary to liberate the people, and, that if it should be dismantled, that it be done peacefully.
First, let's look at the dismantling bit. Certainly, looking at a society like the United States, there is an overwhelming presence of stagnant infrastructure. One needn't look further than the "Rust Belt" to see that the industrialization that led the country to economic prosperity is shackling us down. While infrastructure is not society per se, it can, and in this case does, reflect the view of the people as it is internalized. Crime, famine, and perpetual un/underemployment of the educated is a sign of dissonance between economic trends and the infrastructure we have present. My god, the health care system is shot; look no further than the mortality rates of infants in this country, which has no place being so high in a first-world development, as proof. The fastest growing places, including in the U.S., grow either in places where there is no infrastructure in place or it has been destroyed beyond salvation, so that new infrastructure is necessary.
When I refer to infrastructure, I refer collectively to physical, economic, educational, and political. Each of these are struggling right now. For new physical infrastructure, you need money; for economic infrastructure you need educated people to set it up; for that you need politicians to allocate funds to municipalities for educational purposes. Or do you? Recent innovations and the advent of the internet has made education exponentially more available. So, I'm not sure about the last point yet, and hopeful that education becomes more fluid and abundant so to set up systems for economic mobility. I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't already see evidence of it. But, I digress...
so, do I think society should be dismantled through peaceful methodology... that's sort of a paradox because one does not "dismantle" society peacefully. Germany and Japan build themselves up into world powers only after being blasted to smithereens. The U.S. did the same after sending off its young men to horrible wars. Change is violent and often comes too late for those who needed it the most. The best we can do is hope that the advances we make spur growth from the next generation. Progress comes slow and even if we were to dismantle the powers that be it would be it would create power vacuums and be perhaps a lateral move, if that, after spending resources toward "dismantling."
Hillary Clinton says that "You don't change minds, you change laws." My thought would be, "You don't change laws to change minds, you change what people see every day." That means a makeover that requires a lot of physical infrastructure renovation and a renewed look at the educational system. Whether this all can be done with a two-party system, I'm sure I don't know, but it doesn't help that fundy panderers in Congress are preventing any significant measures to speed up the drag that is the overwhelming poverty in the U.S. I think it's changing, though, slowly, and perhaps violently.
People do what people do regardless of the system, so it would be a waste to focus on "dismantling." Peaceful methodology is always ideal. I prefer the idea of "challenging."
2. Working off the previous spiel, barriers should be lowered at a measured pace. The problem is that they're being raised in lurches. Ideally optimization would be the goal but the current model is neither optimal nor widespread. And, a little iconoclasm never hurt, but it's best not to lose the valuable lessons spread by icons. Even pain inflicted by dogma mustn't blind us from history, and the same goes for oppressive regimes and those that contributed to them.
What's critical refusal?
3. Whomever takes on the responsibility. Educators, journalists, writers and philosphers,
1. Your first question purports that societal dismantling is necessary to liberate the people, and, that if it should be dismantled, that it be done peacefully.
First, let's look at the dismantling bit. Certainly, looking at a society like the United States, there is an overwhelming presence of stagnant infrastructure. One needn't look further than the "Rust Belt" to see that the industrialization that led the country to economic prosperity is shackling us down. While infrastructure is not society per se, it can, and in this case does, reflect the view of the people as it is internalized. Crime, famine, and perpetual un/underemployment of the educated is a sign of dissonance between economic trends and the infrastructure we have present. My god, the health care system is shot; look no further than the mortality rates of infants in this country, which has no place being so high in a first-world development, as proof. The fastest growing places, including in the U.S., grow either in places where there is no infrastructure in place or it has been destroyed beyond salvation, so that new infrastructure is necessary.
When I refer to infrastructure, I refer collectively to physical, economic, educational, and political. Each of these are struggling right now. For new physical infrastructure, you need money; for economic infrastructure you need educated people to set it up; for that you need politicians to allocate funds to municipalities for educational purposes. Or do you? Recent innovations and the advent of the internet has made education exponentially more available. So, I'm not sure about the last point yet, and hopeful that education becomes more fluid and abundant so to set up systems for economic mobility. I wouldn't bring it up if I didn't already see evidence of it. But, I digress...
so, do I think society should be dismantled through peaceful methodology... that's sort of a paradox because one does not "dismantle" society peacefully. Germany and Japan build themselves up into world powers only after being blasted to smithereens. The U.S. did the same after sending off its young men to horrible wars. Change is violent and often comes too late for those who needed it the most. The best we can do is hope that the advances we make spur growth from the next generation. Progress comes slow and even if we were to dismantle the powers that be it would be it would create power vacuums and be perhaps a lateral move, if that, after spending resources toward "dismantling."
Hillary Clinton says that "You don't change minds, you change laws." My thought would be, "You don't change laws to change minds, you change what people see every day." That means a makeover that requires a lot of physical infrastructure renovation and a renewed look at the educational system. Whether this all can be done with a two-party system, I'm sure I don't know, but it doesn't help that fundy panderers in Congress are preventing any significant measures to speed up the drag that is the overwhelming poverty in the U.S. I think it's changing, though, slowly, and perhaps violently.
People do what people do regardless of the system, so it would be a waste to focus on "dismantling." Peaceful methodology is always ideal. I prefer the idea of "challenging."
2. Working off the previous spiel, barriers should be lowered at a measured pace. The problem is that they're being raised in lurches. Ideally optimization would be the goal but the current model is neither optimal nor widespread. And, a little iconoclasm never hurt, but it's best not to lose the valuable lessons spread by icons. Even pain inflicted by dogma mustn't blind us from history, and the same goes for oppressive regimes and those that contributed to them.
What's critical refusal?
3. Whomever takes on the responsibility. Educators, journalists, writers and philosphers,
