FA+
Shop
325
Views
Views
4
Favorites
Favorites
Category
Poetry / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 50 x 50
File Size 2.8 kB
Report this content
★
More from Wotan
Am I the only one, who has noticed that the ultimate phrase of voluntary action, namely: ‘I Will’ has become rarer and rarer? These days, it’s far more likely that you’ll instead run across the imperative: ‘You Will’. That, indeed, is the main inspiration of this piece, as is another observation that someone pointed out to me a while back—namely how things that are often introduced as ‘optional’ or ‘voluntary’ all-too-often have this tendency to become mandatory over the long term. Nowhere is this more evident than in government programs and policies, as well as evolving social mores.
Likewise, people pushing social agendas are often very big on the proclamations of ‘You Will’, but not so much on the ‘I Will’ or ‘We Will’. I don’t know about you, but sometimes, especially during the recent rise to prominence of the so-called ‘Social Justice Warrior’ movements, I have found myself uttering ‘I Won’t’ far, far more often than I ever utter ‘I Will’.
There have even been a few instances, where I have found myself saying: “You know that old adage: ‘over my dead body’? Well, most people only ever say that as a tired, and pretty much meaningless euphemism. Nevertheless, it’s one of those statements that can also be uttered in a very earnest manner, if the need becomes pressing enough.
There are a lot more things I can say here, but I think most of them will become quite obvious in the context of the piece itself, so from here on out, I will leave you all with an old saying from Samuel Butler, and beyond that, I’ll let the poem speak for itself.
As for the relevant quote:
He that complies against his will
is of his own opinion still
which he may adhere to, yet disown,
for reasons to himself best known.
-Butler, Samuel - Hudibras. Part III, Canto iii, lines 547-550
Likewise, people pushing social agendas are often very big on the proclamations of ‘You Will’, but not so much on the ‘I Will’ or ‘We Will’. I don’t know about you, but sometimes, especially during the recent rise to prominence of the so-called ‘Social Justice Warrior’ movements, I have found myself uttering ‘I Won’t’ far, far more often than I ever utter ‘I Will’.
There have even been a few instances, where I have found myself saying: “You know that old adage: ‘over my dead body’? Well, most people only ever say that as a tired, and pretty much meaningless euphemism. Nevertheless, it’s one of those statements that can also be uttered in a very earnest manner, if the need becomes pressing enough.
There are a lot more things I can say here, but I think most of them will become quite obvious in the context of the piece itself, so from here on out, I will leave you all with an old saying from Samuel Butler, and beyond that, I’ll let the poem speak for itself.
As for the relevant quote:
He that complies against his will
is of his own opinion still
which he may adhere to, yet disown,
for reasons to himself best known.
-Butler, Samuel - Hudibras. Part III, Canto iii, lines 547-550
Category Poetry / All
Species Unspecified / Any
Size 50 x 50px
File Size 2.8 kB
Wonderful! You have a stronger will than I do to continue engaging with the madness that are the current social justice movements. You've definitely earned much respect for that. It tends to drain me completely when I do it. And the last line reminds me of my favorite Italian proverb: "At the end of the game, the king and the pawn return to the same box."
I think you're being more than a bit intellectually dishonest with this one re the skin color thing. That and 'cucks'? Really? Come on, man. Not trying to go all liberal whacko leftist on you or anything but this reads like something someone would post on an Alex Jones fan forum.
It's a didactic piece. I actually used the term 'cuck' quite specifically because I find it both annoying and ridiculous.
As for the 'intellectual dishonesty' w/r/t skin colour, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that. Of course, it's possible I've not been as clear as I should have been.
As for the 'intellectual dishonesty' w/r/t skin colour, I'm not quite sure where you're going with that. Of course, it's possible I've not been as clear as I should have been.
The impression I got was a great first half that talks about how people talk but don't do. Tell don't show re social justice. That I agree with. Keyboard warriors suck no matter what 'side' they're aligned with. The second half though makes it seem like you're refusing to acknowledge your own privilege. At least that was my takeaway. Because if so it means the statements in the second half contradict the whole point of the first half.
Not at all.
Acknowledging one's privilege is one thing, and I certainly don't philosophically disagree with the idea, at least on its face.
The second half goes far, far deeper than that, though. What you're reacting to is the eyeball-kick in the first two lines of the stanzas in question, but my REAL message is actually in the follow-up lines, which act as qualifiers.
Hence, it's not a refusal to check my privilege so much as a refusal to allow others, who haven't the SLIGHTEST CLUE of what my actual privilege picture IS to try and demand a Kafkaesque acknowledgement of something that exists in their own minds, but not necessarily in practical reality.
Hence such lines as: ...and I won't allow those, whose feelings make all their decisions,
to tell me how little hard-won knowledge is worth.
and:
...especially from those, who possess no knowledge
of who my actual ancestors WERE.
So, it's not a blanket refusal to check or acknowledge my privilege so much as a refusal to argue against someone else's ignorance... In short to argue bigotry against something that is just another FORM of bigotry.
Acknowledging one's privilege is one thing, and I certainly don't philosophically disagree with the idea, at least on its face.
The second half goes far, far deeper than that, though. What you're reacting to is the eyeball-kick in the first two lines of the stanzas in question, but my REAL message is actually in the follow-up lines, which act as qualifiers.
Hence, it's not a refusal to check my privilege so much as a refusal to allow others, who haven't the SLIGHTEST CLUE of what my actual privilege picture IS to try and demand a Kafkaesque acknowledgement of something that exists in their own minds, but not necessarily in practical reality.
Hence such lines as: ...and I won't allow those, whose feelings make all their decisions,
to tell me how little hard-won knowledge is worth.
and:
...especially from those, who possess no knowledge
of who my actual ancestors WERE.
So, it's not a blanket refusal to check or acknowledge my privilege so much as a refusal to argue against someone else's ignorance... In short to argue bigotry against something that is just another FORM of bigotry.
Comments