A saga in two parts: Redemption for me but not for thee:
For those wondering about my thinking:
The very purpose of a plantation was to perpetuate great evil.
George Floyd was a sinner who tried to reform his life.
If the meaning of a place can change over time, then surely the meaning of an individual life can also.
For Walsh, Floyd is frozen in time. The plantation is not.
Hence the double standard.
And I haven't even commented here on how Walsh seems to miss the entire point of Christianity in his tweet about George Floyd. "As a college that believes in the redemption of human beings why are you elevating a sinner?"
Me:
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
This erroneous post from CBS Mornings provides us with a great opportunity to discuss my friend Tobias's new book, 'Outrage Machine: How Tech Amplifies Discontent, Disrupts Democracy -- and What we can do about it.'
That's right ladies and gents, it's time for a thread!
Firstly, I skimmed this curriculum and it's a pretty robust curriculum. Nowhere does it suggest that enslaved people benefitted from slavery. I would encourage you to review the entire curriculum. I even noticed, with great surprise, some books I was exposed to in my youth.
Conspiracy Theories are coping mechanisms that give people a sense of solidity in a fundamentally insecure world (by definition, hehe). They’re often both bigoted and adaptive. You cant get a person to stop believing in them unless you give them tools to deal w/insecurity.
Conspiracy Theories are a form of splitting in the psychological sense of the word where you see all things over here as good and all things over there as bad. (Here and there are just categories, you can replace it with any arbitrary category.)
One cannot propositionally argue, condemn, or cajole someone out of believing in a conspiracy theory. In fact those attempts sometimes assure the conspiracy theory will remain solidly fixed in said person’s brain.
My tweets re: Disney really ignited a conversation & I'm grateful for that. Even if you thought it was stupid/dumb/idiotic, you still engaged so part of me is grateful for that. Thank you! Many also raised very interesting questions about the role that money plays in all this.
I'd like to take a stab at discussing that. I've learned that I'm actually not one of those people who believes in banning billionaires. I think there's a way to consciously (healthily) seek profit (as opposed to unconsciously).
I'm sure there are many ways in which Disney doesn't do that but putting that aside for a second, do you think that's possible?
I've been watching this really interesting conversation between Marion Woodman and Robert Johnson about the concept of the divine feminine and divine masculine and how both are suppressed in our society today. (Thread)
You can think of the divine feminine and divine masculine not as genders but as primordial, complementary energies that permeate the fabric of existence. In the Daoist system these are represented as Yin and Yang.
One of the coolest attributes of the divine feminine is the capacity to be receptive; to receive people as they are w/ resonance without needing to change or control them. To be able to receive them is an act of honoring them as they are: a sacred being made in the image of God.
Disney plays a sacred role in our society. It is tasked with transmitting the values of fairy tales, both old and new, to generations. This is a holy task. Fairy tales are not trifles. They are symbolic myths, representations of the collective consciousness of our culture.
I would encourage the company to ask itself what it means to take that task seriously when navigating culture wars. Disney is not a billion dollar company merely because it makes us "happy." Many of its films are about the greatest aspiration of all time: human individuation.
This is not something to be taken lightly. I will be thinking more deeply about this in the coming weeks.
I skimmed the NYT editorial on free speech and I get why people are angry. For starters, the opening paragraph is simply not true. I appreciate the spirit of where it's coming from but no one has the right to be free of fear.
It's actually kind of amusing since this is exactly the argument that some Critical Race Theorists in the 70s used to argue for the curtailing of free speech on behalf of minorities who, as they argued, could feel afraid when being called shameful slurs.
You cannot cure the world of fear. Fear is a natural human phenomenon that provides good feedback loops and there are valid reasons to be afraid in certain circumstances. But I would offer something else that we Americans should learn how to do which I hope might help.