2 ms·

The point isn't "idealism" - the point is promoting viewpoints that they have no intention of following themselves. RTFA.

082349872349872 3y ago
All four of Dr. (as he is now) Henderson's major points: handwringing over family structure, unifying social edifice of religion, role of luck in success, and white privilege, are not first world problems: they are specifically US problems. Eg: maybe the lower classes need religion in the US, but that is not a universal truth. I suspect I may be part of Dr. Henderson's "elite", but since I follow[0] these idealistic viewpoints as well as promoting them, and in order to avoid the Lie Direct and stick with the Retort Courteous[1]: having read the fine article my opinion is otherwise. [0] to the point of having voted with my feet to live in a better society than the States had, and (to judge from the news) has. [1] see As You Like It V:iv
- gadders 3y ago
  Which of these beliefs to you practise in every day life? Are you a single parent? Are you in favour of defunding the police and live in a high crime neighbourhood? Are you in favour of mass immigration whilst working in a job that would be affected by this?
  - 082349872349872 3y ago
    All four: (households) I support a society where —as in the US of the last century in which I grew up— a single working parent suffices to support a household. (religion) I support a society which has its own intrinsic solidarity, without needing the sort of middlemen who "love to pray standing ... in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (success) I support a society where a good education —in trades as well as professions— is available even to those who have been so unwise as to pick the wrong parents. (racism) I support a society where, sure, there's always some ethnicity on the bottom rungs, but at least it changes every generation as the old bottom rungs assimilate. (Over the last half century it's been, in turn, italians, turks, former yugoslavs, former warsaw pact, and now I guess north africans?) Fortunately we don't have "high crime neighbourhoods" in the US sense — I think there are several obvious reasons why not, but implementing them in the US would require not only structural changes, but probably also constitutional amendment. (having seen what happened to the ERA in the Old Country, I'm not holding my breath)

082349872349872 3y ago

All four of Dr. (as he is now) Henderson's major points: handwringing over family structure, unifying social edifice of religion, role of luck in success, and white privilege, are not first world problems: they are specifically US problems. Eg: maybe the lower classes need religion in the US, but that is not a universal truth. I suspect I may be part of Dr. Henderson's "elite", but since I follow[0] these idealistic viewpoints as well as promoting them, and in order to avoid the Lie Direct and stick with the Retort Courteous[1]: having read the fine article my opinion is otherwise. [0] to the point of having voted with my feet to live in a better society than the States had, and (to judge from the news) has. [1] see As You Like It V:iv

gadders 3y ago
Which of these beliefs to you practise in every day life? Are you a single parent? Are you in favour of defunding the police and live in a high crime neighbourhood? Are you in favour of mass immigration whilst working in a job that would be affected by this?
- 082349872349872 3y ago
  All four: (households) I support a society where —as in the US of the last century in which I grew up— a single working parent suffices to support a household. (religion) I support a society which has its own intrinsic solidarity, without needing the sort of middlemen who "love to pray standing ... in the corners of the streets, that they may be seen of men." (success) I support a society where a good education —in trades as well as professions— is available even to those who have been so unwise as to pick the wrong parents. (racism) I support a society where, sure, there's always some ethnicity on the bottom rungs, but at least it changes every generation as the old bottom rungs assimilate. (Over the last half century it's been, in turn, italians, turks, former yugoslavs, former warsaw pact, and now I guess north africans?) Fortunately we don't have "high crime neighbourhoods" in the US sense — I think there are several obvious reasons why not, but implementing them in the US would require not only structural changes, but probably also constitutional amendment. (having seen what happened to the ERA in the Old Country, I'm not holding my breath)