"The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary." ~ H.L. Mencken
Mama Tried, You Failed
"Nobody talks like that anymore. If you’re unemployed or addicted to drugs, it’s somebody else’s fault. Laziness and self-indulgence have morphed into one big illness we all caught from mom’s sloppy butt-wiping techniques."
- Login to post comments
User Login
Search This Site
Recent comments
Root Strikers
Non-Voting
Civil Disobedience
Reprint Rights
Comments
Saying that if I'm addicted to drugs or unemployed, it's my fault implies that somehow YOU, via the state, have the right to punish me for my drug addiction/unemployment. I'll gladly accept full responsibility for my own choices, in fact, I always have. But drug addicts, regardless of their drug of choice, rarely segue straight from drug addiction to unemployment; it takes the state to complete the circuit: Drug addiction/drug raid/drug arrest/drug felony/unemployment.
There are two kinds of people in the world -- those who want to be left alone and those who won't leave us alone. My drug addiction only became your problem when you sent in the SWAT team.
The author of this article set the trap, "If you’re unemployed...it’s somebody else’s fault"; and it appears that you have fallen into it with this, "...it takes the state to complete the circuit..." Isn't that just one more way of saying, "it's somebody else's fault", rita?
No, what he is saying, is where is there "fault" in a victimless "crime".
The only reason we are discussing drug addiction as some kind of "fault" is because the state enforced morality goon squad has decided that some drugs are bad and others are just bad if you operate heavy machinery.
There is no fault in drug addiction, there is only personal choice. There would be no need to lay any blame if the state did not get involved in what people do with their own bodies.
Also, having a legitimate gripe about something is different then trying to deflect blame.
If there is 10% unemployment, and government regulation and credit prospects do not allow the start of your own business, and you have done everything you can to become gainfully employed, who is now at fault?
It seems the real problem here is low brows who style themselves as intelligent or insightful don't understand the difference between a reason and an excuse.
As a computer gamer you see it a lot, a person on a server gets busted for cheating, and his response is "stop whining", because the cheater seems to think the cheated have no legitimate issue. This blame the victim mentality is a perfect fit for the state worshiper.
Hey bud, it's YOUR FAULT the state HAD to bust down your door and shoot your dog, you CHOSE to break the law! Omitting of course the debate about the rational and legitimacy of the law and action altogether, we will just worship the state.
I really don't think you get this whole freedom and liberty thing.
HA HA HA... Very funny, Rita.
Interesting that this was originally published at a conservative website. It's mostly the rhetoric that I grew up with. When you buy all of it (because some of it is certainly true, as I see it), you fail to notice cause and effect.
There's a crucial difference between blaming Mommy and Daddy, and noticing cause and effect. I know where my "perfectionism" comes from. I don't blame anybody but myself for continuing to fret over small stuff. I'm a grown man. But it gets better to deal with it and be honest about it when I understand where it comes from. This is called "root striking." The conservative answer is "spanking."
Unfortunately, the current soft, mushy, psycho-climate we live in, that this author decries, does not get to the root, either; in this regard, I agree with the author. But he never bothers to get there himself. People will read this and reject the research of Alice Miller, because some people will see her as one more psycho-babbler who blames Mom and Dad for everything. She doesn't. That is just, plain clear.
Perhaps the author would agree with Miller; perhaps not. I like one of his closing sentences:
"I’m not saying your parents have no influence over your life. Being physically or sexually abused catapults the victim over the Wall of Culpability into the land of Not Your Fault, but what’s everyone else doing there?"
Well, I can tell you what I'M doing there. I'm trying to figure myself out. It has a lot to do with falsehoods I still believe and the way I've become "hardwired," depending on action and my reaction, whether the action is one placed upon me by another, or one that springs from me. We learn A TON from our parents. Both hard-line conservatives and softy-lefties fail to recognize this.
He fails to see the connection in one of his own links. Earlier in the article, he says, "Your mother can’t even influence what you eat." If you follow the link, you will see that the mother's actions on instructing her child as to where and when he should be spending his time has AN ENORMOUS influence on that to which he is exposed, and it will definitely change what and how he eats.
Do children who grow up with lots of affectionate love, with freedom of operation during their day, with older people who are committed to the relationship, ever turn to drugs? If not, then shouldn't we be paying closer attention to that?
I think the author is on to something by linking to "Free Range Kids." I hope he continues in that direction.