Fundamentalists

Fundamentalists

The problem with fundamentalists, is that they always complain that they are being excluded from the conversation.  Hate speech should be allowed, since all speech should be allowed.  Except, hate speech only has 1 purpose, and I’ll get back to this in a minute.

Fundamentalists aren’t being excluded from the conversation. No, instead, they are being ignored.  Which is more infuriating.  They want to be heard.  But not in a fashion that supports actually resolving an issue. Instead, they want to be heard in such a way that it distracts from solving a problem.  As if kaos were the only solution.

The Supreme Court created a test that stated that speech is not protected when it fails one or both of these tests:

Does it harm yourself

Does it harm others

Think about that for a moment. Does your freedom of expression cause physical harm to yourself.  If you cut yourself in such a way that it puts your life in danger, should this activity be protected?  And, what if a group uses ritual sacrifice, which ends the life of another human, is that protected speech?  In this case NO!.  It is not protected speech.

The second test is whether your speech calls for hurting another person or group.  This came about when Sarah Palin asked her base to shoot a Senator.  Had anyone else said it, they would have been incarcerated immediately.  However, this speech is not protected either.  Calling for someone’s death is akin to demanding genocide.

Which brings us back to what fundamentalists want.  If they believe that kaos is the answer to everything, then their only means of feeling as though they are winning is when kaos rules. Thus, to achieve kaos, they must engage everyone else in fights.  It is the only time that a fundamentalist is being heard.

Fights don’t solve problems.

And, thus, why fundamentalists are ignored. Not silenced. Just not given the space needed to be engaged.  This requires time or energy and will only be lost in a fruitless exchange that leads no where.  

Destroy!

Nu.

Playing Till You Win the Game

The Super Mario Effect - Tricking Your Brain into Learning More | Mark Rober | TEDxPenn

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9vJRopau0g0&t=331s

The clip above talks about reframing the problem into a game, and keep trying after every failure because you learned something. How many times does it take to win Super Mario, or some other game.  Getting a job is the same way.  With every job you apply for, what do you learn when you don’t get a response to your cover letter, or don’t get a call back for an interview, or fail a technical interview, or on and on and on ... 

What did you learn?

The Conversation

Whats more important at a given moment, keeping the conversation going or stifling it?

If the constitution were to be interpreted as the framers intended, then you would know that they were all about keeping the conversation going. Not about stifling it. However, the constitution speaks about ling term social issues not immediate crisis. In those instances more direct action is required.

The framers knew all to well that they could never solve all the problems we have today, but what they could solve was whether or not we talked about them. Examining problems. Debating. Bringing new information to light.

Even scientists fell into the religious trap in that late 1800s early 1900s when they began to claim something was correct because it was common sense. When Einstein released his proof on General Relativity, Special Relativity, and it lead to the discover of Quarks, the doctrine of common sense was thrown out the window. The conversations had to start again about, "Gaud playing with dice!" And, "Fuzzy action at a distance."

Some say that leadership is situational, because there are times that the conversation must go forward, or during crisis decisions must be made and executed. Do not mis interpret one situation for another. Nor, disown the conversation because it doesnt affect you. You may see things from your status as an observer very differently.

An example is the caravan walking through Mexico. Whether you think they should or shouldnt be let into the country, have you considered whether these people should be given food, aid, and shelter? And, should the US apply diplomatic pressure to the countries that they are fleeing from? And / or ask the UN to send in troops to stabilize the region so that people can conduct their daily business in peace?

A leader knows how to drive a conversation, bring people to consensus through mutual goals and motivations, and execute a plan.

But, if the constitution were to be amended do you think you or I would ever have a say in the process? Maybe a obligatory vote to appease us, but framers would do what they wanted and sell it to use with lots of promises, and then go back to the courts to interpret it.

Luck

Luck is not an ethereal thing granted by gauds. Its a result of refined work being recognized, appreciated, and rewarded.