Einherjar86
Active Member
Not sure if it indicates on the link but they are set to play right at the point where thing is said, you won't have to spend but a few seconds (unless you want to skip back a little).
They started at the beginning for me.
By a strict definition of "the action of taking something for one's own use, typically without the owner's permission." Baldwin has no claim to these other experiences. I'll provide an analogy (although these seldom seem of use): Despite my status as a USMC veteran, I cannot speak up for "veterans rights" and in the process claim that "I CLIMBED MOUNT SURIBACHI, I STORMED KUWAIT, and I CLEARED FALLUJAH", despite the fact that A. I am a vet, B. I was in the USMC, which did those 3 things, and C. Was even in Iraq, although not in Fallujah. It's a common type of rhetorical device employed by the left, and has no basis in fact and evidences either delusion or guile.
Well, probably needless to say I think this is off-base, and I think it falls back on a quasi-positivist of what it means to speak for others.
As best I can tell, your claim is that because someone didn't have the same experiences as someone else, they're unqualified to speak about the other's experiences. But no one shares the same experiences with anyone else, if we take your point to its logical conclusion. Maybe we both have been pulled over by police, but that doesn't make my experience the same as yours. By extension, no one is qualified to speak for anyone else's experiences no matter how similar they are.
This is the same logical impasse of communication. Ultimately, I can't know what's going on in your head; I can only understand what you tell me. Communication can't be verified factually or definitively. It can only produce agreement or disagreement. This doesn't mean communication is pointless.
Likewise, we do share some sense of communal understanding about certain circumstances, and people of particular communities develop narratives about their circumstances and about those that preceded them. Speaking for others' circumstances isn't pointless, and communities and groups sanction a speaker's "appropriation" of their experiences by either accepting what s/he says or rejecting it.
I disagree that Baldwin can't speak for others, and that you can't speak for veterans' rights. There's nothing factual that says you can't do so; others will simply affirm or deny what you say.
Different doesn't indicate more/less sociopathy, nor one that is "race" based. I appreciate that he's an American concerned with America, it's just that he's noticed a cluster of symptoms and grossly misdiagnosed and also (maybe or maybe not subsequently) prescribed or subscribed to a wildly ineffectual treatment plan, to put it mildly.
I have a very different reaction to his words. And I'm not sure I'd call anything he says a "treatment plan."
But was that the primary goal of the struggle?
Well, goals imply a linear approach, and feedback models are nonlinear. The point of resistance is change; I'm not sure they had specifics in mind, beyond those immediately posing a physical threat.
And today's discourse is a different story for sure.
Last edited: