Response to Skyla's post

Her response post is here http://skylasreality.blogspot.com/2012/11/post-2.html

In Skyla's blog post she commented on my idea of people who advocate for issues without being critical thinkers. I used the example of the LGBTQ community and she took it in another direction, one which I did not originally consider. Skyla considered this concept with people and politics. She used the example of her being raised in a democratic household and then having both political parties to her. She uses the idea of people who vote without knowing the issues; this is something I had not originally considered. However, it is very true that we cannot accurately take part in the voting process or in politics if we do not critically think. The issues which we are voting on and for are ones that we need to be able to understand in full and think about without a party bias. 

Considering this, I think it is important to realize that we must critically think if we truly want to make a difference and not vote just to say we voted. Today the stakes in politics become higher and higher, and as voters and citizens, if we choose to take part in this process we need to be critical thinkers. I believe firmly that we cannot ignore being a critical thinker if we want to fight for issues that matter or vote or advocate for different things.

Response to Avery's Post

His post is here http://asfcr2012f.blogspot.com/2012/11/positive-isms.html

Avery's post in response to my one from last week was another interesting idea that I had not initially thought of when discussing the idea of ending negative isms. Avery brought up the fact that by eliminating these negative isms, we also get rid of positive isms like feminism, which depending in your opinion is considered a positive ism.  However, these isms arrive because of negative ones. For example, feminism arrived in response to sexism. There begins the cycle of eliminating negative and positive isms.

It would interesting if eliminating isms in general happened, because I believe it would be better if we got rid of isms all together; that way there are no negative or positive connotations to one party. That way everyone can remain equal in all senses. After reading Avery's response I was able to consider that idea. I had not initially thought of it as an elimination of both sides of the ism spectrum. I think perhaps that is the resolution to the problem of isms that are created by a lack of critical thinking. If we did think critically we could do away with all forms of isms because we would be able to look at people and groups of individuals without a basis or without a preconceived judgement.