We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
I saw a eulogy that went viral. I see or hear the thoughts shared regularly because of where I live - not in eulogies, just everyday commentary from time to time. The eulogy itself was quite unfortunate.
My personal view is, at worst, if I had a parent whose views I truly disliked as much as the speaker did, then I just wouldn't go to the funeral or (at least) show and keep my mouth shut. Speaking ill of the dead, of someone incapable of defending themselves, is rather disrespectful. There are moments and situations, rare enough, where it makes sense. I think we can all speak ill of Hitler and few reasonable people will feel bad about it. In general, doing this says more about the person speaking than those they speak about.
Still, it's hard to believe her father was really as bad as she paints him. She speaks of how he raised her. I'd be proud to raise a child in the fashion she describes. Strong, questioning things, pushing back on authority. I doubt he taught her to be vicious and hateful and self-centered. Yet that's what her eulogy exposes. Here's the kicker. People applauded her. I think I'd have remained silent and confronted her later.
I really doubt her father was racist or misogynistic, based on several facts I've learned about this woman since - but I suppose it's enough that he supported Trump for her to apply the broad brush. I know this happens because I didn't support Trump, ever, and often been painted with the same brush. Here's the video so you can have your own POV.
Many of my friends think I'm politically driven. In reality, my politics are relatively mild. My politics certainly aren't the core of my identity. I'd say my identity informs my political views. The pull of politics, more importantly of activism, is so strong with some people (and there are some on the Right like this - but far fewer) they allow their openness to be set aside for, and by, their political beliefs. Every time you see one person (on either side) say "so-and-so deserved this because of XYZ political belief", the issues of today are a problem perpetuated through pig-headedness. I happened to watch Dr. Zhivago last night and several characters reminded of people like the speaker.
Thing is, there's money to be made in perpetuating these thoughts....even by the communists/socialists/Progressives. I know, like anyone else, those people are self-interested. They want POWER, not money (some say). They want the power so they can have the money, and they'll divvy it up a little differently, say they "care" and people will nod and say "Yeah, they really, really do care."
The world has always been better off with a balancing act in which people who really don't care are typically overwhelmed by those who actually do 'care'. But they are allowed to be this way. The critical part of that arrangement is those who do care voluntarily offer themselves, their time, their sweat, their money, their kindness.
This balancing act becomes precarious when economic times get tough and people feel or see their lifestyle(s) slipping away - even if they aren't. Progressives take advantage of that situation claiming "It's a systemic problem" and claim to know all the answers if you just agree to join them and agree to impose 'what's right' on others through force, coercion, or overwhelming social pressure and personal humiliation.
A systemic problem implies there is a feature in the system which makes certain things necessary. We are told racism, misogyny, hatred are all 'systemic issues of Capitalism'. Unfortunately, Capitalism doesn't have any of those features, because if it did, it would fail inherently. Nobody could do business with each other. Contracts would never hold, agreements and trust would be non-existent.
People like the eulogist tell us they are systemic problems because they continue to exist, though they are issues which have been reduced substantially and are disappearing. So, as systemic problems, we can't just hate these things, we have to hate the system, and the people we have labeled. We have to, or their system won't work (pro tip: it won't work anyway, but they've fooled themselves into believing it will).
Eventually, as reactionaries claim "it's systemic" and impose their will, they may actually create a system of racism, misogyny, and hatred because their system relies on these things. You have to really hate people to force them to be like you, don't you? If you want proof, let's just take a look at The French Revolution, the Bolshevik Revolution, the Chinese Communist Party today, and even Cuba today.
The main reason the crazies of the CRT, Woke and Cancel Culture movements gain traction is because our system has shifted so far to the Left, it actually accommodates them, and coddles them. Which, in turn, gives rise to the crazies on the Right who actually do fall for all manner of nutty nonsense like Alex Jones and his ilk. This seems to make it seem, or look like, the 'systemic' problems the Left warned us of are really getting worse. In reality it's a dying gasp - but the Left needs that dying gasp to grow to keep them viable.
The eulogist could just as easily have been speaking of the United States - and probably views her father as a symbol of the United States. I have no doubt she thinks that the nation has failed her just as her expectations of her father have failed her. She's not a symptom of a larger problem. She is the problem.
Happily, we live in a nation where people like her are allowed to exist, and we're allowed to have opinions about different views. Many of the contingent opposing her would say she, and people like her, need to be removed. I say they are fine as is, because they remind us of how not to be. Let them be the sad people they are, and let's strive for a better place.
Long ago, I was told you don't benchmark yourself against others, you benchmark yourself against who you were yesterday. However, you do need to see others' behaviors to determine how you rate your own behavior. I hope and pray that I won't ever be as self-centered as her, but try as I might sometimes all of us slip a bit. Sadly, I don't think this was her slipping.
I saw this yesterday and it occurred to me that the "racism" she talked about her father having was probably him trying to prevent her from going to the radical side on her own racism. It is such a shame. That is, she may never understand what she did because she seems so self centered. But if and when she does understand she can never take back what she said or make up for the love that was lost. She would have well advised to say nothing without regard to what she felt. But listening to her I suspect she will be in the news again.
“Political language is designed to make lies sound truthful and murder respectable, and to give an appearance of solidity to pure wind. ” ― George Orwell
"A systemic problem implies there is a feature in the system which makes certain things necessary.'
As a culture, we have allowed the outlawing of confrontation. Imbeciles acting out in puerile ways, such as this young woman, using such a solemn occasion as a person's passing to spew this self-righteous nonsense, is only possible when others cannot comfortably confront without rising retribution - cancelling and the like. Confrontation and open discussion is a safety valve that allows resolution and correction. Without it, the societal pressure builds. I wonder if her mother was in the audience, or any of her siblings. I wonder what the will says.
Hope the will states her name and then says may god bless you.....the very last thought a loving parent could send their child......and she really needs it.
Your mistake is in thinking the eulogy was about the deceased. The eulogy was all about the eulogist. Narcissistic spoiled brat the world would be better off without.
Well, I did mention that her eulogy was self-centered. I'm not sure I made that mistake. I'm fairly certain she knew what she was doing and wanted to make it about herself.
Hope the dirty, ungrateful little bit*h got written out of the will. The sad thing is there are other ghouls clapping . They should have picked her up and physically threw her worthless azz out of the funeral.
Had a family member do something similar but certainly not as bad as this at her father's funeral. Brought in politics and we couldn't believe she actually got up in front of the family all the wile thinking she was being funny. Racism was not involved in this case.
The funny part is that she references how he raised her.
And doesn't make the connection that the 'strengths' she felt were exhibited by her eulogy were hers and hers alone. Clearly she realizes HE imparted them on her - and she didn't quite make the connection to what she owed HIM.
Bird Dog mentioned to me that it's oddly interesting that he posted about Gratitude only to be followed by this post - completely at random.
I'd be willing to bet this young woman is someone who likes to humblebrag how much "gratitude" she has in life.
With all due respect, I simply don't watch this shit, and much like it. The survivor and dating type reality shows, etc.
My parents told me that if you don't want to smell shitty, don't wallow in shit.
I don't watch reality TV (aside from sports). And generally don't like this stuff either. I actually discovered it when I was watching Reason Magazine's video feed.
I have always said to people "If you don't like something, don't watch it." Goes for this, too. While your parents POV is 100% correct, I think one thing worth noting is that watching this isn't wallowing in it. I happen to think it's important to understand the other side if you want to defeat it.
That's why I studied Economics at The New School for Social Research. I learned a great deal about Leftist thought without ever once absorbing it as my own ideology. There's much to respect in it. Sadly, they ignore the things that are worth respecting.
"The pull of politics, more importantly of activism, is so strong with some people (and there are some on the Right like this - but far fewer) they allow their openness to be set aside for, and by, their political beliefs." I have to disagree. There are some views so directly destructive of freedom or of civilization that merely holding them can justify not accepting that person.
I believe that any extremist, or "activist" as they call themselves today, is dangerous to freedom and or civilization. That's as true for the Right as it is for the Left.
I don't believe in 'the middle'. There is no middle, and I only use Right and Left as broad descriptors that people today tend to understand.
We each have our own concentric bubble of beliefs, and many of these bubbles overlap. But there are some whose bubbles overlap with far fewer other people. Those bubbles may grow or shrink, as the times require. Or as the individual requires.
Mine, like most people, has shrunk dramatically from when I was younger, at least in terms of anything which could be termed 'activism'. After all, when I was younger, I had considered politics as a meaningful venue to pursue. Later, it was documentary film making - a different form of 'activism'.
But it's not true that only hers is the side that holds destructive views. I can say, without much thought, that many people who are Progressive stopped speaking with me after Trump became president. Not because I supported him. But because I was willing to use reason when I spoke about him, rather than pure hate.
On the other hand, I did cut ties with several people who became hard core Trumpistas - particularly after they threatened me for holding views which weren't exactly in line with theirs. One even said "Your views will get you marched into a camp." I replied, "what's really unfortunate is that you'd be holding the gun and marching me in."
Technically, this "eulogy" was the opposite of a eulogy:
eulogy (n.)
mid-15c., from Latin eulogium, from Greek eulogia "praise; good or fine language" (in New Testament, "blessing"), from eu "well" (see eu-) + -logia "speaking" (see -logy). Eu legein meant "speak well of."
Bet you her therapist put her up to this, the same therapist she has been seeing for four years (I'd guess) and the same therapist she will be seeing for the long future.
