Doomed!

I heard a person on a podcast make the cliche quote about learning history or being doomed to repeat it. I was on my bike, but I couldn't help thinking what a stupid comment that is.

The first example I thought of was General Lee (thinking of two of his biographies I recently read). He was an excellent student of military history, especially Napoléon Bonaparte. He knew all about Napoléon's mistakes in Russia: trying to push his forces too far and during too extreme conditions, and still Lee repeated those same mistakes pretty well. Maybe an expert in military tactics and history would say I'm over generalizing the commonalities, and maybe I am. But I'm sure if we dug deep enough we would find historians make a ton of the same mistakes they have studied. That's my real point. History will not save us. Hindsight makes it easy to say, "history would have told us." But there are so many factors leading to any event, how could anyone know which factors to focus on or which ones to avoid? It is ridiculous.

I'd have to say, knowing history might make you less likely to repeat it at best, but definitely not exempt.

While looking for the exact quote to use I found the top google hit was an article with someone claiming the same idea I had. I have to say, the articles examples are weak. Not that my example is better, but it is more specific, thus better.

According to Nicholas Clairmont at Big Think, the phrase probably originated from George Santayana.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it

I like that version a lot better because being a student of history is insignificant. Instead, the problem is memory and not the learning. With how unreliable our memory is, this phrase makes a lot more sense.

In the end, people and governments are doomed to make mistakes. Maybe super intelligent computers or super humans of the future will be able to know/remember so many things that they will be able to prevent mistakes of the past, but ntil then, us homo sapiens sapiens might just be doomed!

Email interview about The Punisher

I did an email interview with Abraham Riesman on the topic of "why so many soldiers and law-enforcement officers feel such an affinity for The Punisher." Here is the article's link. Below are his questions and my responses. Someday, I may revise and improve my responses into a more formal rant. 

Riesman: What was your role in the USMC, if you weren’t a grunt?

Me: I did supply administrations with an infantry unit. I always regretted not being a grunt. When I found out I couldn't switch, I volunteered to be sent to an infantry unit. I got to do more training than a typical supply Marine, and when we deployed to Iraq, I was a squad leader for a security squad for mainly resupply patrols.

Riesman: When did you first become aware of The Punisher?

I was a comic book and superhero fan growing up. So I feel like I always knew about him. I would have had Punisher trading cards and comics that had him. Although I collected comics growing up, I never read them until I became a reader in a late 20s.

Riesman: When did you become a serious fan?

I wouldn't consider myself that serious of a fan. But I really liked the 2004 Punisher movie. I especially liked how the character didn't make all the cliche action movie mistakes, or keep his enemies alive. The Punisher mini series titled Born written by Garth Ennis is one of my favorite comic book stories. Welcome Back Frank is another great story.

I especially liked The Punisher character in the new netflix series. I found the philosophical comparisons between Daredevil and The Punisher to be a lot of fun. The they did a great job sympathizing with Frank Castle without glorifying his actions.

Riesman: How do you show off your fandom?

Besides being part of the Punisher Body Count community as a memeber of their facebook group, I do not show off my fandom. People might see me reading a Punisher comic in public.

Riesman: What makes the Punisher interesting to you, especially as a member of the military?

His ethical code.

Riesman: What danger do you see in the Punisher’s philosophy of extrajudicial killing?

He is a character in a world of mutants, Spider-Men, etc. Within his story line there is a chance he could make a mistake and kill the wrong person which, in contrasts, the Daredevil/Spider-man character may avoid by using the justice system. Either way, I see all the super hero vigilantes' philosophies as unsuccessful in solving crimes or making their cities/world a better place. Criminals escape or new criminals arise. Within the Marvel Universe, it doesn't seem to matter.

To answer your question I do not see a danger. As a viewer or fan, I have not seen any evidence to suggest that The Punisher causes any danger to society. Steven Pinker suggests that humans are becoming less violent. I tend to agree with him. I can witness progress in racism, aggression, and attitudes towards violence in my friends, family, and colleagues during my life. The generation below me, in general, is a lot more compassionate. People want to blame violent video games, movies, or characters like the Punisher for increased violence, but besides a few isolated places, like Chicago, violence statistics are down. It would be interesting to see data on the issue. But I would bet poverty, lack of education, and drugs/alcohol are much stronger factors in violence than interests in violent vigilant stories.

Riesman: Why do you think so many members of the military find the Punisher interesting?

The Punisher is more complex than most Marvel characters. The benevolent characters, like superman, are boring. In addition, The Punisher does not have super powers, another boring trait of Superman because he is too powerful. But these factors make The Punisher a great character for all people.

Frank Castle was a Marine, and the Marines have a motto of Semper Fidelis (always faithful), that might be something that would create a bias in Marines liking The Punisher. Marines share pretty strong common bonds with other Marines, even ones they have never met.

There is, or was when I served from 2001-2005, a culture in the Marine Corps that values killing. In bootcamp, we are constantly yelling kill. Everything we did was, "Kill. Kill. Kill!" We "attacked the chow hall" when we entered the cafeteria yelling "Kill" and making war cries. That's one way we were brainwashed to to support killing. War movies too. I think patriotic war movies brainwash young men to idolize war and killing "enemies/terrorists" more than fictional vigilantes ever will. I wanted to kill bad guys in war as a young man, I never wanted to hunt criminals even though I loved vigilante stories.

Sorry, but I cannot help but going back to these ideas about violent vigilant characters creating violence in fans or viewers. Military members are probably more violent and aggressive, I'd be surprised if data said otherwise. But I don't think that has to do with the superhero genre. I blame the media selling and supporting war. I can think of a few people I personally know who joined the military because they wanted to kill people, but that was rare from my experiences. Faith in American, fighting "good wars," and patriotic war movies made us want to fight in war.

I hope you are writing a non-judgemental piece. It would be very easy to write up a story about the Punisher's connections with military members, and or mass shooters, especially with the new series coming out soon and the Vegas shooting. That would make a good headline to sell, but that would be a shame and misrepresentation.

I hope my ideas can help. It was fun to think about these ideas.

The Spidey Rescue Dilemma

Introduction

 

When Spider-Man (2002) came out, I was a Marine deployed to Okinawa, Japan. My friends and I watched the movie in the barracks. I thought the ending was strange and stupid. Spider-Man saved Mary Jane (MJ) before the cable cart full of people, mostly children (see clip below). To my surprise, mt friends all agreed about saving MJ first. I was shocked that I was alone in thinking the right thing to do is sacrifice a loved one in order to save the many. One of my friends even said, "I wouldn't care how many people it was, I'd save my wife or mom over them." MJ is super hott with charming personality, but Spider-Man/Peter Parker, cannot choose Mary Jane over the cable car full of people. That is not superheroly. Spider-Man needs to make the super decision and save the group of people before saving MJ. 

When a person dies, all their loved ones suffer. When a person dies young and or tragically, the suffering is usuallu intensified. On average, more people dying will produce more total suffering. How many suffer when a cable car or people, mostly children die? How is that comparable to MJ dying? Why is Spider-Man a hero? Spider-Man and utilitarian philosophy can teach us how to judge the value of different lives.

(Watch the first 30 seconds below if you don't remember the scenario.)

 

Spider-Man makes the wrong choice but he learns from it!

If you remember the movie well or are more interested in the philosophy, skip to the next section.

In the movie, Norman Osborn, the Green Goblin, turned into a power hungry schizophrenic after under going an enhancement experiment. His greed for power turned him to recruit Peter Parker/Spider-Man. Osborn, makes an appeal to Spider-Man's emotions after capturing and sedating Spider-Man. Spider-Man refused Osborn, and Osborn concludes their fighting will, "Cause the deaths of countless innocents in selfish battle... ...again and again and again until we're both dead. Is that what you want? Think about it, hero."

Spider-Man didn't think about the innocent lives yet. Instead, he set out to stop the Green Goblin and save the people of New York City.

Osborn, debating with himself as the Green Goblin, decided they should educate Spider-Man. He told himself, "Instruct him in the matters of loss and pain. Make him suffer. Make him wish he were dead... And then grant his wish... First, we attack his heart." This is Spider-Man's biggest flaw, his heart and his attachment to the people he loves.

At the climax of the movie, the Green Goblin put Spider-Man into a Trolley-like-Problem by making Spider-Man the cause of other people's deaths. The Goblin said:

"This is why only fools are heroes. Because you never know... ...when some lunatic will come along with a sadistic choice: Let die the woman you love... ...or suffer the little children. Make your choice, Spider-Man... and see how a hero is rewarded... We are who we choose to be. Now, choose!"

Osborn was teaching Spider-Man that he was wrong to reject his partnership. Spider-Man even fell for the trap and made the wrong choice. He saved MJ first. Luckily, because it is a Spider-Man movie, he saved everyone too. But his lesson wasn't learned. Spider-Man took a beating from Osborn. Right before Osborn finished him, he threatened Spider-Man with a slow death to MJ. Of course, this fueled Spider-Man to defeat Osborn and save the day, once again.

I want to neglect the idea that Spider-Man's attachment to MJ saved the day because it gave him the strength to defeat Osborn. Maybe it's true, or maybe he would have been better prepared to fight without a Trolley-like-Problem in front of him. Let us ignore this and focus on what Spider-Man learned.

At Osborn's funeral, Spider-Man came to the conclusion, "No matter what I do... ... no matter how hard I try... ... the ones I love will always be the ones who pay." This is why Spider-Man cannot choose MJ. Having that attachment and love for MJ or anyone else, puts Spider-Man into situations where he will have to risks larger quantities on life. This creates more targets to protect, and less opportunity to save the people in need. By having loved ones, Spider-Man knows he will choose them over the innocent lives of random people. He also knows that more people will suffer and die because of his attachments. He can only stop so many deaths, crimes, and villains. This is why Spider-Man has to reject MJ and distance himself from his loved ones. At the end of the film, Spider-Man understands and states it best,  

"Whatever life holds in store for me... I will never forget these words, 'With great power comes great responsibility.' This is my gift. My curse. Who am I? I'm Spider-Man."

A Brief Description of Utilitarianism

 

Utilitarianism is an ethical philosophy that guides how a person should best behave. Utilitarianism takes into account the consequences of everyone involved in a situation. There are multiple types of utilitarianism.

 

Utility is an idea for measuring worth or value. The founder of utilitarianism Jeremy Bentham described utility as:

 

"That property in any object, whereby it tends to produce benefit, advantage, pleasure, good, or happiness ... [or] to prevent the happening of mischief, pain, evil, or unhappiness to the party whose interest is considered."

 

For Spider-Man's purposes, utility of victims will be measured by how much potential they have for their current life expectancy. I will call this type of utility Potential Life Utility (PLU). The scale will all be relative, but an average human beings will be a 1.0 on the scale. The higher value a person has, the high positive value they will hold. The lower potential a person has will take them closer to zero and or put them into a negative value. Someone like Jesus of Nazareth might have a value in the positive billions while a Stalin might have a negative value in the millions. A surgeon who saves multiple lives a day, might have a value in the thousands. A middle aged Average Joe who gives homeless people a few buck here and there is a positive 1.0. A younger average Joe would have a higher value. An older Average Joe would lose value as they age.

 

The Spidey Rescue Dilemma

The Trolley Problem is a very played out thought experiment in philosophy and psychology, but it is fitting for superheros, especially Spider-Man. I am coining a new thought experiment, The Spidey Rescue Dilemma. The new problem presents Spider-Man (a superhero) a choice to save MJ (a loved one) or a group of random unknown people.

 

Green Goblin is holding two cables. At the end of the first cable MJ is hanging for her dear life. At the end of the second cable is a cart with numerous random unknown people. In The Spidey Rescue Dilemma, Spider-Man can only rescue one of the two cables, see image below. He either saves MJ or the random people. Who should Spider-Man save?

Who Should Spider-Man Save

 

It depends on the people. Sometimes MJ, but most times the random people.

If all lives are created equal, they do not stay equal throughout life. The potential matters. An average child's life has countless more potential than an average elderly person. A fertile young woman's life has countless more potential than an old sterile violent sociopath. Race and socioeconomic status are huge problems and different types of utilitarianism have different measures and or accounts for those factors and discrimination. Being of superhuman powers, Spider-Man found an undisclosed solution that fits any readers morals.

 

Spider-Man has to consider the consequences of all people involved: himself, MJ, Green Goblin, all the random people, and everyone who will suffer and or benefit from any of the people involved's death. If MJ is an average Joe, she'll almost never be saved unless the cable is full of violent criminals or terminally ill patients with dementia.

For MJ to have a higher potential life value (PLV) she has to be pretty extraordinary. She makes Spider-Man happy and Spider-Man saves a lot of people. That will gain her a substantial amount of value. How devastated would Spider-Man be if he was responsible for MJ's death? Would that be more or less than the devastation of a cart full of random people? This is why Spider-Man needs to follow utilitarianism. He needs to be confident that his actions produce the greatest consequences for everyone involved. That will keep him mentally healthier and focused on his goal.

In theory, an all knowing god or computer could assign any person a real time PLV. In math terms, it would be easy to calculate. Save the group with the highest combined value. But Spider-Man won't have all knowing knowledge or even enough time to make good calculations.

 

Spider-Man needs to adopt a defualt rule to always save as many people as possible. But when Spidey has an opportunity to gather information about potential victims and make an estimate, he should consider the following. These are valid criteria. The criteria Spidey could estimate in the heat of the moment I will highlight in lime for easier estimates and pink for possible but unlikely estimates.

• The amount of suffering a person's death will cause.

• The remaining life expectancy of a person.

• How old a person is.

• What a person contributes to society.

• What a person takes from society.

• How much pollution a person causes.

• The amount of natural resources a person uses.

• The amount of violence a person creates.

• The amount of abusiveness a person creates.

• The amount of suffering a person creates.

• The potential a person has to redeem themselves. 

• The positive influence a person has.

• The negative influence a person has.

Spider-Man should always save the group with the highest combined PLV. Most of the time he won't know the PLV, and he should save the highest quantity of people possible. When he has information about the potential victims, he should calculate a quick estimate and save the people with the highest estimated PLV (ePLV).

If Spider-Man is at a hospital, he could see with the random people in the cart are patients or medical staff. Medical staff would have a lot higher combined values. MJ might be worth one medical professional, but unlikely two or more. MJ could be worth multiple patients, depending on how old and sick the patients look.

If Spider-Man was near a school, or children were involved, I doubt MJ is worth a child's PLV, certianly not more than one child.

What if the PLVs are equal? Although all knowing calculation would be unlikely to produce equal values. If Spidey's ePLV produced equal values for MJ and the random people, saving MJ for selfish reasons could be justified. 

 

Which Heroes Have the Highest PLVs?

 

This gets funner the deeper I dive. Do vigillantes who kill higher rated have higher PLVs than vigilantes who do not kill? 

 

Punisher and Dexter Morgan type characters kill their oppositions and get them off the streets. Is getting bad guys off the street permanently significantly better than locking them up with a chance to escape and or continue to influence violent crimes?

 

Sidenote: The serial nature of comics and superhero adventures creates an incentive for heroes who do not kill and villains who do not die and or spawn greater predecessors. Ignore that storytelling necessity, superheros live in worlds that appear to get more dangerous over time. This may or may not be true, see Economics of Gotham for an example of misleading points of view.

There are a lot of reasons why killing villains could and couldn't be better for society as a whole. My hunch is that permanently removing violent villains would produce a higher utility to society because it would be a disincentive for new villains and the chance of escaping would be zero, which is very important for comic book stories, villains alive always escape. But I acknowledge that the positive modeling of nonviolence could be a better solution to violent crime and utility for a society.

What do you think? Leave a comment below with your best argument and evidence.

Are Heroes Positive?

I doubt it. Heroes do not prevent villains, heroes actually accelerate the grow of villains. For this reason, I think heroes have a negative PLV. They produce more pain and suffering from the consequences of their actions than they prevent.

This might be even more true for heroes, like Spidey or Daredevil, who refuse to kill violent criminals, like Kingpin. 

Should a Utilitarian Vigilante Kill Negative People

Probably.

Unless another intervention like castration was as effective as death, euthanizing negative people by definition of the utilitarian scale would produce more utility for everyone else. If a vigilante started to systematically castrate/euthanize the worst people, society would achieve great utility from less violence, fear, and suffering from unsafe areas.

Most people would have a positive PLV. If we think about a bell curve, I'd guess it would take several, even more, standard deviations to get into negative PLVs. So that would put a very small population of society into negative PLVs. The people without potential, causing great violence and suffering, would be the only people in this Utilitarian Vigilante's (UV) sights.

If 1% of people were negative, I wouldn't recommend the UV targeting all of them. I would recommended the most negative people out of thousands and millions of people, the worse 0.01% of people.

The problem is how are the negative PLVs measured? We need an all knowing source. Positive values are easier to measure because people aren't trying to hide them. Negative attributes take place out of sight, behind closed doors, and in the shadows. So how and who can calculate a negative measure of a person with accuracy? I have a story idea that contains a super AI computer, a tech genius,  and a deadly psychopath with a strict moral code. Story in progress as of Dec 2022.

 

Concluding Thoughts

Heroes would never be able to know or accurately estimate PLV, so they should use whatever information they can gather to measure quick ePLVs to decide who to save. They should, by deaul,t save as many people as possible most of the time. And yes, we didn't need a thought experiment of ethical philosophy to figure that out.

I'm sure readers have already thought of the Minority Report or A Clockwork Orange. How could we trust such a system or government to do the right thing? How we would prevent a Kingpin type villain from abusing this power and using it for personal gain? Although I doubt a system like this could ever be accurately measured and or implemented.  If it was in place, I'd argue it would motivate even higher PLVs from its citizens. Maybe even a perpetual better world would arise each generation until an ideal utopia. 

Use The Spidey Rescue Dilemma to evaluate your heroes and villains, consider their PLV to speculate on whether they make their world a better or worse place. If they don't make their world a better place, why don't they change their philosophy?

Go where your mind wanders and wonder about the potential value of life. Let me know in the comments how many average Joe's you'd save over MJ?

23 September comment

After listening to most of a General Lee biography, I’m not too impressed with him as a person or a general. His greatest attribute was his loyalty, which I can admire. I could turn my back on my country over plenty of causes, but it would be hard to fight against family and friends who I grew up with and share so many experiences. So I am not judging Gen. Lee on leading the Confederates or turning down the Union.

Lee was at the top of his classes at his academy. He later became an engineer officer in the Army and had a successful career leading to the Civil War. But as a general I don’t think he excelled or even did well. The south was destined to lose. They had no chance and no help from France, unlike their predecessors. Back to him as a general, he was reckless with his men. A clear sign of a terrible leader in my eyes, or at least a huge asshole.

As a person, I was pretty disappointed by Lee’s actions. He questioned slavery and succession during his life, but his actions were very supportive of both. Lee owned slaves inherited from his in-laws and he was known to be very strict and I’d argue inhumane. Slaves caught trying to escape were purposely sold far away from their families as a punishment and deterrent for other slaves. (He was also very tough on the Confederate soldiers that went AWO, eventually passing a death penalty). As a slave owner, he was instructed to emancipate all the slaves he inherited within 5 years, and he didn't release them until after the 5 years. These actions make it very hard to accept that he was against slavery after his treatment and use of slaves.

Today, Gen. Lee is a symbol for racism. I don’t think we need his statues because he wasn’t a very good person or general. But like Ashley said, it isn't good to forget. And maybe his statues will help us remember instead of divide.

But if Gen. Lee’s statues are going to be removed I think we should remove founding fathers too. Pres. Jefferson among others (I’d keep Pres. Washington). Jefferson was a dick too. And he probably would have sided with the Confederates had he been alive for the conflict.

5 Oct addition:


For anyone who cares about Gen Lee. This quote sums up who he was pretty well. It is from the first chapter of Clouds of Glory: The Life and Legend of Robert E. Lee by Michael Korda. This biography is really good, unlike the previous one I read.

“Like Henry Lee, Robert was tall, physically strong, a born horseman and soldier, and so courageous that even his own soldiers often begged him to get back out of range, in vain of course. He had his father’s gift for the sudden flank attack that would throw the enemy off balance, and also his father’s ability to inspire loyalty–and in Robert’s case, virtual worship–in his men. On the other hand, perhaps because of Henry Lee’s quarrels with Jefferson and Madison, Robert had an ingrained distrust of politics and politicians, including those of the Confederacy. But the most important trait that influenced Robert was a negative one: his father had been voluble, imprudent, fond of gossip, hot-tempered, and quick to attack anybody who offended or disagreed with him. With Henry Lee, even minor differences of opinions escalated quickly into public feuds. Robert was, or forced himself to be, exactly the opposite. He kept the firmest possible rein on his temper, he avoided personal confrontations of every kind, and he disliked arguments. These characteristics, normally thought of as virtues, became in fact Robert E. Lee’s Achilles’ heel, the one weak point in his otherwise admirable personality, and a dangerous flaw for a commander, perhaps even a flaw that would, in the end, prove fatal for the Confederacy. Some of the most mistaken military decisions in the short history of the Confederacy can be attributed to Lee’s reluctance to confront a subordinate and have it out with him on the spot, face to face.”

My previous opinions about Gen Lee were misguided. I feel good leaving it with this quote.

Response to "CONSIDERATION VS PERSONAL FREEDOM?" by The Fool's Crusade

Here is a revised and edited response to a blog post "CONSIDERATION VS PERSONAL FREEDOM?"

To answer your questions, yes consideration does impede personal freedom. I would follow up your video by asking, is personal liberty the most important value?

These are philosophical questions. It all has to do with values.

Back to consideration, if someone's goal in life is to seek pleasure (the philosophy of hedonism), than being considerate to others may conflict with there personal freedom (PF). Depending on their sense of pleasure, restrictions to PF would vary. Part of hedonism is avoiding pain, so that would definitely call for being considerate to prevent those ass kicking you mention.

It really comes down to individuals. I'm all for consideration as you are. But I do not value PF over other social norms. I love PF. I support having a large range of PF, just not absolute PF.

For your movie theater example, being quite is a social norm. So another question arises: should people follow social norms? If we traveled back to Shakespearean days, crowds were rowdy and that might have increased the entertainment of the show. Personally, I strongly dislike any distractions in a movie theater. During Revenge of the Sith, my friend next to me was texting his girlfriend the whole movie, and I was pissed about it.

I have two other comments.

First I wasn't sure where you were going with the fighting. I felt you were taking the discussion in the wrong direction. But I couldn't agree more about the results of getting your ass kicked. Most people think and act differently after an ass whooping. I can't say this applies to everyone, but for most of us, we'd think about why it happened. And sensible people would come to the conclusion that it wasn't because of their lack or strength or fighting skills. But we've all met or know people who act worst after getting beat up. They fight more or take it out on weaker people. Ultimately, violence is not the most effective way to teach, but it does wonders for managing behaviors.

Last thought, about blaming the children, how much can we blame the parents? Were parents not children once who had no choice in how they were raised? I don't have the answer here because at some point in life, people have to accept responsibility for their actions and life. I just find it hard to blame people. I can't support my next idea with any evidence or data, but I would assume that consideration is strongly correlated to empathy and education. I also know reading is correlated to higher empathy which connects to education, family life, and privilege all things people cannot control when they are young. Maybe growing up to be considerate is just luck of the draw, as with most things.

Well, that was a lot more than I originally expected to write. You bring up a great discussion. It'd be interesting to read what philosophers have to say about PF vs consideration and societal norms.

Annoying Liberals from a Liberal

I'd like to condemn and defend the idiots with torches.

People who know me, know I don't have to say that violence is a less effective form of protest. I’m for peaceful protest, civil disobedience, and freedom of speech because these ideals make America Great.

After the riots the last few years in response to police brutality towards black men and boys, I said, "Good. Maybe people will start listening and paying attention." In that case the riots bring additional media coverage, but also additional criticism and evidence for racism. Or evidence for the need of force from police. I think we will see progress in the future as a result of these actions, and hopefully no literal race wars, but I think the cause would benefit greater without the riot parts of the demonstrations.

Now I feel similar. I'm not going to say good, but maybe people will start to listen.

There is a ton of tension growing between classes and race. I'm really annoyed by the liberal media and liberals on social media. People act like poor and working class white people have nothing to complain about. Even worse, when liberals act like they are on a moral high ground because they claim to acknowledge their privilege, myself included. All white people do not share the same privileges. I grew up with plenty of white people with abusive parents, single parents, poor parents, and or addicted parents. Many of those white people don't see themselves as privileged.

I completely disagree with the rioters’ message: I support affirmative action and many of the progressive ideals towards equality. In fact, if I ruled the word, I’d increase affirmative actions. I might even open borders. Still, there is a problem. Although poverty affects more than twice the percent of people of color than white people, there are still large groups of white people--not me-- who are seeing their opportunities and their children's opportunities diminish. The rioters are the most extreme voices, but they represent a large group of people in this country who are fed up. Their distress is valid; loss of jobs, price of education, slow wage growth, etc all affect their communities as well. It isn't a white or black problem, so we should recognize their struggles and lack of opportunities. This will lead to effective solutions for people of all colors.

Furthermore, how helpful it is to use language that fuels the fire of those, for now, small torches. Degrading people and their beliefs forces them to double down and hold tighter to their cultural identity. It provides them with evidence to their conspiracy theories that the liberal media and politicians are trying to replace and disadvantage the white race (their argument, not mine. Can you sense my defensiveness?). When was the last time someone who ridiculed you taught you something or changed your opinions.

If you want a more united country, conduct yourself in a more uniting way. If you want to further divide, then use the rhetoric of the hateful. I vote for common grounds and unity, so we can reconcile and work on finding better solutions.

Phew! 

I lean back in my chair. Is this what righteousness after a long social media post no one will read feels like? I kind of like it.