“Don’t care”, “don’t give a sh*t”, “mind your own business” is the motto of some, who take those very upset guys that look and feel like they had been beaten all their lives, and ‘help them out’. They attribute their trouble to caring for another or others, and coax them to only to only look after themselves, at the expense of others.
And if you think that’s what I mean when I coax you to chill out, it’s just a matter of language. I really don’t.
If you’re part of a group or a relationship or something like that and you agree to support each other, and you only support yourself while you oppose the rest, you’re not free of trouble. You are trouble.
And how folks wind up ‘chilling out’ in such a selfish way (and never quite making it), is by caring for and fighting against non extant things.
What’s problematic about a problem is that it isn’t what it seems.
So you care to take down liberalism to help the poor and bring justice to the world, while another cares to keep it running. No side knows that we don’t even have any liberalism, in the first place, but only partially so. The theory just doesn’t reflect onto events. And Jefferson would be appalled at what some call liberalism today and would need to re-educate his own party.
And the same happens with ‘caring’. What the hell does it mean? Does it mean to sit and suffer? No no it means quite the opposite. To give your blood so as to help those in need could be caring indeed, but only in a condition of emergency. And ironically, although I keep hearing about caring for the poor so often, and people arguing about it, there are still poor, I hear. How come, after all this fuss? The problem(s) talked about are twisted and not true –particularly their sources. Consequently the solutions don’t solve them either. So then somebody says (after he’s been told to) “to hell with the poor, I work hard for my own wealth, no commie is going to take it from me.”
It appears both have been taught that without communism, the poor shouldn’t/wouldn’t have money. How much money did they have during communism? And why were those guys in the Soviet Union arrested, tortured and brainwashed for pointing out that regime was not like Marx had described it? Politics is a web of lies, if you try to backtrack it. And one can’t but freak out about it. And if that is so, I couldn’t but assume since presidents take most of the blame, they must be among the most innocent of all, no matter how guilty they might have been. At least they -goodly or badly- get elected. What about the rest who don’t?
The average reporter puts you to choose from a narrow array of presidential candidates, and soon after he comes by your side and throws tomatoes at them coaxing you to do the same. What a caring guy taking your side, you think. Why did he present them to you in the first place so you can choose from? Eventually, most everybody throws a variety of fruits and vegetables at each other, but nobody throws any at the reporter. But the reporter will still care to show the ‘widespread violence’ that occurs, as if by magic, afterwards. It must be man’s evil nature, one could think (after he’s been told so). Well, no. There is some stupidity involved nevertheless, as nobody sees nor addresses the most obvious source his problem, but sits and tries to figure out and argue with others, instead. Well the most basic source is not the reporter either, you see. It’s himself who bought into whatever was being said –not only bought into it, but also participated in the fight himself. And so he can pull himself out of it, the way he put himself into it, in the first place.
It takes some stupidity to have a problem. You might be clever enough to not be oblivious to a problem while another is being a problem. However, the problem is not the truth. Problems are man made.
To chill out doesn’t mean oblivion. Oblivion comes after problems. The drugged guy who is not aware what problems he causes to others is not chilled out at all. He needs to try hard (with drugs) to keep his cool. To chill out means to not buy into lies, to not put out lies yourself to buy into, and to have no problem. It could also mean to do the same for others too, but not at the expense of buying their problems, as you wont be able to help them then.
And I’d much rather see more guys handing out pizzas to the homeless, than those reporters humiliating the homeless to the world, then patting them on the back telling them how sorry they feel for them, and how cruel life is to them. Why don’t they organize a charity with all the influence they have over their viewers? Well, such a thing would obviously not bring in money from advertisements.