RE: Neutrality is Assent to the Oppressor

avatar
(Edited)

You are viewing a single comment's thread:

Well for starters I was indeed aware of the existence of the period you outlined.

I did not know exactly when it happened.

But I am glad you have let me know the full details.

Today's South Africa or todays situation of any past of a society from an apartheid situation are extremely relevant. The people that lived through that and live through the aftermath of that have invaluable experiences. When I say I wasn't aware it finished. I was clear of what I meant when I said apartheid in the broader sense. This mentality still exists and there is still segregation as far as I am aware, albeit not with the use of law.

You chose to focus on this subject in your blog as much as I did and a disagreement in semantics has caused an inability to communicate.

I did indeed read the rest of your article and I related it directly to the encroaching totalitarian state the situation of state sponsored bullying to push an experimental injection on everybody.

The apartheid situation being developed now by the government between those vaccinated and those that choose to repsect the function of their innate immune system is real.

By learning from past apartheid and segregation experiences whether it be South Africa, Nazi Germany, Palestine or Northern Ireland - directly from the people who have experienced it first hand and feel the effects and know how long it takes to heal - we can avoid this.

Not sure why we have to keep disagreeing and finding fault in what the other has said.

Shake hands?



0
0
0.000
4 comments
avatar

I think it's pretty clear that you want to focus on and talk about social apartheid which is not the subject of this post.

If I wanted to talk about social apartheid I could have talked about any country in the world, including my own.

The only reason South Africa was brought up is because of the context to Desmond Tutu and the actual period of apartheid he fought against.

Your focus and mine are clearly different.

Mine is on the personal responsibility and reactions to bullying which is the topic of this post. I don't have any interest in being dragged into a discussion of social apartheid and have tried to kindly redirect you to the topic of the post.

Yours has been on social apartheid. I think it would be a great idea for you to do a post on the subject of social apartheid. Clearly you have an interest and some passion for the subject.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Your focus and mine are clearly different.

I disagree. Our focus is not exclusive from one another.

Apartheid takes up a third of your post and Desmond Tutu was a part of South African society.

You final subject conclusion is to relate it to bullying.

As you have made the relation yourself I see no distinction between apartheid in any situation - past or modern - and bullying in a social setting.

You could have used any other apartheid situation and any other leader's quote from 'that' situation.

The designation of where it happened is irrelevant.

I am not sure how you see a difference.

0
0
0.000
avatar

As you have made the relation yourself I see no distinction between apartheid in any situation - past or modern - and bullying in a social setting.

If you can't see the link between bullying and apartheid, this discussion just became a total waste of time and energy. You maybe should have made that clearer sooner and saved us both a lot of time.

As you read in the post, the quote came to me, I didn't seek it out. I did choose to work with it.

So, once again, you want to talk about social apartheid have at it on your own post. This discussion just ended.

0
0
0.000
avatar

Excuse me - we have another disagreement caused by language.

As you have made the relation yourself I see no distinction between apartheid in any situation - past or modern - and bullying in a social setting.

This means... I see no separation between apartheid in any situation and bullying in a social setting.

0
0
0.000