I Write to Seek Truth, Not to Reinforce What Readers Want to Believe

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

I Write to Seek Truth, Not to Reinforce What Readers Want to Believe

.



A WRITER'S JOB IS TO TELL READERS
WHAT THEY DON'T WANT TO HEAR

I don’t profess to be either the owner, or arbiter, of truth. I’m a seeker of truth, as oppose to a seeker of validation. And I don’t see the internet as a social club. I view it as an educational tool, a place to educate, and to be educated. So writing is not a competitive event for me, nor is it a social activity where I feel obliged to either stroke egos, or tell people what makes them feel warm and fuzzy inside. I avoid such places and activities both online and in the real world, because they’re a gross waste of time. They’re only good for reinforcing the often erroneous beliefs of the people who congregate there. I call them FOXholes.
.
So I’m not going to waste my time writing just to tell people what they WANT to hear. If I’m going to write, I’m going to write about what I think people NEED to hear, and if they're mature adults, they should understand and appreciate that. If they’re not, I simply dismiss them as not the kind of people I’m interested in communicating with in the first place. Why try to have a discussion with people whose minds are closed to ideas that differ from their own? Such people have already made up their minds about what they want to believe, so truth, new facts, and even reality, are meaningless to them. So what’s the point of a discussion? There isn’t one.
.
I’ve found over the years that you can pick and choose who you want to associate with in the real world, but on the internet that’s not always so easy. So I’ve found an easy solution for that, and maybe others might want to adopt it. When I find that a person online has nothing of value to offer, or doesn’t fit the profile of the kind of person that I’m trying to get through to, I simply ignore that person. The minute I see the person’s name I simply skip over it and move on. That way, it’s like the person’s not even there. And if the person tries to force themselves upon me, as many such people tend to do, I simply block them. If everyone did that, trolls would eventually find themselves with only one another to troll. They’d be relegated to a troll’s Heaven.
.
I received a comment from one lady (at least, I’m assuming it was a female) that said something to the effect that every since I betrayed a thought that she didn’t agree with that she’d lost all respect for anything I had to say. It later became obvious that my opinion was offensive to her more liberated feminist views. I had written an article that was intended to give women insight into how most men think. I considered it a very innocuous article, since it was based on what we men have routinely discussed among ourselves since the time we were little boys. It described my observation of how most men categorize women. I pointed out that in my opinion most men place women in one of three categories: 1). Easy - convenient and nice to have around when there’s no one else to have sex with, but we have very little respect for. 2). Friends with benefits - women who we like and respect, but whether or not we'd marry them is a question mark. Or 3). Women who are generally low-key and very protective of their sexuality - or, the kind of women that most men are looking for in a wife, hence, the phrase, "my lady."
.
Women don't like hearing that - especially feminists - because they have a vested interest in believing that men are taking them seriously, and that their newfound sexual liberation isn't being used against them. But the fact is, due to the fact that men have been innately wired to be morally corrupt, and all's-fair-in-love-and-war predators by nature (probably to ensure the perpetuation of the species), we are indeed undeniably manipulative of the newfound sexual liberation of women. It plays right into our lustful hands. But that said, it's grossly illogical to lash out at a writer for brazenly reporting the blatant truth. He didn't create the situation, nor is he promoting it, he's merely doing his job, reporting the facts. So that clearly demonstrates that craving the comfort of an ideological echo chamber is a human characteristic, and not merely a conservative affliction. That's why it is incumbent upon writers to never cater to this tendency in human nature.
.
But again, the lady was highly offended, and said that as a result, she had lost respect for anything I had to say. I pointed out to her that while I was sorry that she felt that way, I could certainly understand it. So I simply won’t expect to see her name commenting on any of the blogs that I submitted in the future. I let her know that while I was sure I’d miss her input, I wasn’t there to win friends and fans, and I was certainly not there just to reinforce what she wanted to believe. I was there to engage in serious discussions with serious-minded and objective people who are capable of intellectual detachment. Thus, for my purpose, people who are emotional and allow their egos to get all caught up in a discussion are a distraction.  
.
So if a person doesn’t like what I have to say, it’s not necessary for them to throw tantrums and spitballs - that’s the way children behave. Such people need to realize that they don’t live in this world alone, and the rest of the world don’t have an obligation to cater to views that make them feel good. There are others who may also disagree with me, but may want to challenge my views in a more detached and intellectual fashion. I welcome such people, because they are the ones who give the internet the potential for being the most powerful educational tool that man has ever known, and more than once, individuals of this caliber have caused me to reexamine my views, and even reverse them.
.
But my opinion is my opinion, so if it’s such an intolerable assault on what an individual wants to believe, they should simply vote with their feet, and I’ll get the point. And what’s most ironic about it is, more often than not, these tend to be the very people running around with their hair on fire, wanting to know what’s wrong with the world, and why people are so dumb.
.
Well, here’s another "why." Why distract others who are online to discuss issues, explore ideas, and who are genuinely seeking mutual growth, with inane side issues and false assumptions regarding the motivations of the writer. If you feel that the writer has a hidden agenda, do something constructive. Write an article of your own with an opposing view, laying out the issues that you feel are relevant - some of my best articles have started out that way. That way you’re ADDING to the body of knowledge, instead of simply being a distraction. 
.
Life is simple. Why make it complicated?
.
Eric L. Wattree
Http://wattree.blogspot.com
Ewattree@Gmail.com
Citizens Against Reckless Middle-Class Abuse (CARMA)
.
Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content

Obamacare: What's So Wrong with Having Government Protection?

BENEATH THE SPIN • ERIC L. WATTREE

Obamacare: What's So Wrong with Having Government Protection?

(Reprise)

 

.

I initially wrote this article in August of 2009. Since that time the single payer plan has been taken off the table, because the insurance industry and the Republicans in congress fought tooth-n-nail on behalf of the insurance industry and against the American taxpayer - the very same taxpayer who had just recently bailed the industry out from certain disaster to the tune of 700 billion dollars during the Wall Street crisis. So yet again, the fat cats had convinced an uninformed American public that protecting themselves, and their families, from corporate manipulation was a form of socialism, and therefore, un-American. Essentially, they convinced us that President Obama was un-American, because he was engaged in a socialist plot to protect our families. Think about that.

.

Those in congress who are protecting the insurance industry from government intrusion are doing a great job - of protecting their campaign contributions. They've managed to so complicate the healthcare debate that many Americans have been completely blinded to what should be clearly obvious. There's only one issue in this debate - whether or not we want to entrust the healthcare of our families to an entity whose only goal is to provide service, or one that's in the business solely to make as much profit as humanly possible.

.

In order to see through the smoke and mirrors of this debate we need ask ourselves only a few very basic questions. First, do we really believe that the insurance industry is giving politicians $1.3 million a day just so they can protect our well being? Second, how have the insurance companies become so rich that they can afford to give away that kind of money? Third, if they're doing such a good job of looking after our interest, why do they fear that a public option will lead to a government takeover of the industry?

.

And finally, what's so bad about government-protected healthcare anyway? The government protects us with the police department, the fire department, the military, social security, and medicare. So why do we allow these things to be run by government? What do they have in common? The answer is very simple - they are all services that are much too essential to our well being to entrust to those whose single motive, and sole reason for being, is to make a profit.

.

Can you imagine what it would be like having to negotiate with the police department after having a child kidnaped? Imagine the police telling you, "I sorry but your daughter just turned eighteen, so she's no longer covered under your kidnaping policy." That's exactly what's happening to Americans on a daily basis regarding their family's healthcare.

.

The fact is, the so-called insurance industry is not an industry at all. An industry produces products. The insurance business produces nothing. It is made up of Wall Street speculators who take your money with the promise that they'll protect you from financial ruin. Then if something unforeseen does happen, they spend much of that money trying to find loopholes to get out of honoring their agreement.

.

Their entire business model is based on the proposition that they can get more money out of you than they'll have to pay back. So they're not in the business of providing you with a service. On the contrary - they're in the business of taking your money while providing you with as little service as possible. That's how they make a profit.

.

Now, with his healthcare reform, it is President Obama's contention that too many Americans are being denied services, and as a result, they're dying or losing everything they own just so these speculators can make money. He wants to bring that to an end.

.

In response, the politicians who the insurance companies are paying to deceive you are screaming bloody murder - and since they don't have truth on their side, they've taken to lying to the American people.

.

If your representative is among them, instead of representing your interest, he's being paid by the insurance companies to lobby against you. He's trying to convince you that it's a bad thing for you to have the choice of a public option that would protect you and your family from loss of coverage if you're laid off your job, or having your insurance cancelled if a member of your family contracts a disease that the private insurance companies deem so expensive to treat that it cuts into their profits. In short, he's placing his seat in congress before the welfare of your family.

.

These politicians will often claim that a public option would place a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor. But the fact is, the healthcare plan that the president is proposing for you is the exact same plan that your representative and every member of congress enjoys, and I've never once heard a member of congress complain about their healthcare.

.

In addition, they always conveniently fail to mention that with your current healthcare you have a businessman, who's out to make a profit, between you and your doctor. You're rarely aware of what goes on between your doctor and your current insurance company, because your doctor simply won't prescribe a treatment that he knows the insurance company won't cover. But how many times have you gone to the pharmacy and had a generic drug suggested because your insurance won't cover the drug that the doctor originally prescribed, and wanted you to have?

.

In addition, we mustn't forget that the infamous AIG is also an insurance company. It was suppose to be insuring Wall Street against investment losses, and you see what happened there - AIG was so greedy for profits and paid so little attention to the precarious condition of its customers, that when Wall Street collapsed and AIG's customers came to it to cover the losses that they'd paid billions of dollars to insure, AIG simply said, "Sorry, we can't help you."

.

Thus, if the crooks on Wall Street can't trust the insurance companies, the average American family doesn't have a chance. And remember, even though AIG was founded, appropriately enough, in Shanghai, China, and was doing business and spreading its money all over the world, when it found itself in trouble it ran back to the United States to pick your pocket, in order to get back on it's feet.

.

And that's not the worst of it. Once the American taxpayer did agree to help them to get back on their feet, they took much of our hard-earned tax money (while we were losing our homes and jobs) and used it to wine and dine company bigwigs at plush resorts, and pass out multi-million dollar bonuses to the very people who ran the company in the ground, and they are currently spending the gains that they received from YOUR tax dollars, to pay YOUR representatives, to undermine YOUR interests.

.

So now, these are the people that many of your representatives want to protect from a government takeover - never mind what's in the best interest of your family. And it is these very same people who have already robbed you of your tax dollars, that your representative want to see standing between you and your doctor, with calculator in hand. Of course he does, because the government is not going to contribute to his campaign.

.

So if your representative comes to you during this break and tries to feed you this nonsense, you should respond with just one sentence - "You're out of here in the very next election." You'd be entirely justified, since his support of the insurance lobby is irrefutable evidence that what he sees as his vested interest, is far removed from your own.

.

Eric L. Wattree

wattree.blogspot.com

.

Religious bigotry: It's not that I hate everyone who doesn't look, think, and act like me - it's just that God does.

Sphere: Related Content