Migrant Caravan Reaches US-Mexico Border (Strictly Fact or Emotion is Stupid)

After two months of back-and-forth blame, shouting and taking of responsibility (though perhaps a little light on the responsibility), the world renowned ‘migrant caravan’ from Central America has reached the US-Mexico border on Sunday

Migrants climb across walls and other barricades in an attempt to enter the US

Migrants climb across walls and other barricades in an attempt to enter the US

11/27/18, 7:03 pm EST

By John Corry, photo from RadioNZ

Sunday; early; three days after Thanksgiving with the Western world still readjusting to the horrors of the real world outside of our families, and one of the biggest political stories of the Fall season has come back to the headlines. After more than three months on the road, the caravan from Central America has reached the US-Mexico border.

This got a lot of coverage back in October and especially in November, in light of the 2018 midterm elections (wonder why…). Trump said it’s a big deal, liberals agreed but for different reasons, and the rest of us waited around to see if anything would happen, or, if it did, if it were to happen in any way similar to situations like this in the past. Indeed, as migrants have been scaling fences, throwing rocks and other projectiles at border patrol agents, using women and children as human shields, and demanding entry into the country for no more a reason than to find a job, the similarities are not exactly surprising.

But the US military has used force to defend themselves, including the use of tear gas (equally surprising), which has unfortunately reached some areas with women and children. According to white house DHS head Kirsten Nielsen: at 8,500 members in Tijuana and Mexicali, the caravan “is far larger and more organized than previous ones,” has potentially over 600 convicted criminals in it, has been attacking border agents in Mexico and other Central American countries throughout its trek north, and contrary to what many news outlets have been saying of late, the caravan is comprised primarily of men (and that link is MSNBC, for the record #BiPartisan).

Within this context, this certainly is a heated issue. Just as last time, this story has the conservatives yelling: ‘but this happened before!"‘ ‘it’s not all Trump’s fault!’ ‘stop crying and let’s actually figure out what to do about this!’ and the liberals saying ‘but can’t we just cry a little bit more?’

There is obviously reason to ‘cry’ regarding this situation, but the fact is that there are far more men than there are families in this specific caravan, trying to make a thing out of this issue so that they can cross the border and find work in the US. It is of course terrible that kids are in a place where tear gas is going off, but how that’s absolutely any one person’s specific fault is not apparent. The United States have been screwing over these countries for decades. People who are suffering deserve sympathy and help when possible and appropriate. Yes, the parents are leaving a terrible place in hopes of a better life, but do they, at some point, have to realize what’s going on? There are people in this caravan are being violent, who have been being violent since the caravan started in August. What responsibility do people less well-off have in any situation? It might be less than those better off, of course, but is it zero? At what point do we talk about what’s actually going on in these Central American countries? Are we just going to leave them a baron wasteland for the gangs and drug cartels? Is it our job to ‘save’ these people from themselves? is it our job to ‘teach people what it means to be human’? (That’s not really a thing.)

These are real questions with complex answers that I certainly can’t come across alone, but, as we all know, what really matters here is the fact that Trump is tearing families apart, and that women and children are being teargassed. These are terrible things, but to get so caught up in them as to warrant an ignorance of reality and an inherent laziness in critical thought is no better than an ‘alt-right’ person using IQ and other historically-backed ‘facts’ or ‘simple-arguments’ (arguments that really can’t be argued against, either for scientific or rhetorical reasons (though usually a confident mix of both)) to reason equally ridiculous claims, for equally ignorant or lazy reasons (like the one that says because ‘races’ inherently cannot ‘get along’ they should not interact; lots of us seem to interact with no issue, and, more importantly, the reality is that people of different races do interact; people choose to interact or to not interact, no one can control that; the ‘fact’ isn’t the whole story, statistics don’t control what people do, and they can change with time).

This brings up an important modern paradigm in the way humans interact (regardless of race ;D): some people are analytical, and others continental (‘continental’: more intwined with the emotions needed to create new art (rather than perfecting established artistic quality (equally needed))).

Facts and emotions are equally important aspects in the ways humans perceive reality. Without ‘facts’, we have no way of understanding what happens in space and time, and without ‘emotions’, we cannot move in them, as we might as well be robots with no sense of time or how it relates in-time with the consciousness interacting both with it, without it, and as the context for it. To argue that humans should be ‘less emotional’ is akin to arguing that the person with cancer should just ‘get over it’: it’s a personal plight, and support both emotional and technical (‘factual’ in my terminology here) if possible (like if you invented chemo therapy, for example) is of course greatly appreciated. On the flip side: why arguing against ‘fact’ is stupid I feel is self explanatory (how are you even reading this if ‘reading’ isn’t a factually existent thing?)

Arguing either-or is inherently non-sensical because the reality is that, as far as we currently know regarding the nature of consciousness (which is admittedly minimal, but that’s why we DO THINGS THAT HAVE COMPLEX THOUGHT INVOLVED), they are both needed, as they both exist, and predetermine almost everything we perceive after space and time. It’s the process within reason which substantiates reason as existent in itself, because without the capability for emotion, coupled with its closest ontological opposite: the understanding of a ‘fact’, reason would, again as far as we know, be ‘left in the background’ so to speak: we wouldn’t be able to see it (kind of like a fourth dimension)). You’re not going to ‘get over your emotions’ any quicker than you’re going to ‘change the facts’; changing facts requires new research, just as ‘changing emotions’ (or ‘getting over it) requires new insight. That’s both complicated, and obvious; it’s about the closest two Forms can get without turning into the same thing (making it more dialectically transparent, and therefore inherent in reason as reason deals with a inherently dialectical thought process), and as a result is inherent in the very idea of consciousness itself, if the idea that consciousness is the culmination of the possibility of an infinite transgression of an infinite amount of interacting Forms may have any merit (which it may not, I’m just going off a tune here).

This is important in any understanding of how humans react with the world, let alone with each other, but, as it’s quite complex and potentially difficult to understand, as it involves a high degree of critical thought, it has especially heinous results when applied to power politics, which aims to use critical thought for its own advantage.

Liberals want me to believe that my emotional reaction to their (frankly wrong) facts regarding this situation at the border should trump the fact that we live in an equally emotionally perceived world as a factual one and as such should let my emotions run wild, thinking about suffering families, for example (which I cannot stress enough, is obviously terrible; Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez I think a very good point regarding this (amidst a very long slew of them, I’ll admit (first link was the one there))) for reasons on which I can only speculate. Conservatives want me to believe that because the facts are what they are, there is only a certain, very particular, and relatively small, set of conclusions or decisions I can reasonably make, because when ‘fact’ is the only thing dictating my thought process, my decisions have essentially already been made for me (ironic that this is the side more prone to argue ‘free-will’ propositions, as opposed to ‘determinist’ one??). Both lead to a world where I am unable to understand reality in full, as I am ignoring half of my basic cognition which makes my perception of it it possible, and am therefore in need of somebody else to help me out, and if I have no capacity for either fact or emotion, I won’t even know ‘how’ that person even possibly could ‘help me out’, as, again, half of my basic cognitive capacity which makes the understanding possible is either ignored or fatally underdeveloped.

The situation at the border has serious questions attached to it, but if we’re all too busy YELLING at each other, we’re going to miss the opportunity to learn something, and at such a critical time (lots going on right now), that’s a risk we can’t afford. I don’t care what your thoughts or your feelings may or may not be, or even whether or not they’re even there; if you’re not willing to listen to somebody else, on the premise, conscious or not, that you’re smarter or better than anyone (for ‘factual’ reasons or otherwise), then the ‘criminal’, or the ‘dictator’, or the ‘totalitarian government’, or the ‘idiots who don’t know the basic tenants of how reality works yet think they deserve to run the world because they ‘feel more than the rest of us’ have already won.

Now there’s a story for MSNBC.