View Full Version : Sine qua non
Mairead
02-01-2007, 07:16 AM
If I respond to the malicious gossip, I am “spinning” or “trying to get out of it.” If I don't respond, then I need to “toughen up” or not be “scared.” The charge of being “reactionary” and of my words being “red herrings” and based on “false premises” are not true merely because they are repeated and attempts are made to get others to agree with that. I was told that if I posted “sand would be thrown in my face” because it had been decided that my opinions were “unacceptable.” [taken from the "Mike may no longer be participating" thread.]
No matter what Mike does or doesn't, it's construed as further evidence that there's something wrong with him politically and personally.
This illustrates what I believe to be THE key problem for us, the solution of which is the sine qua non of effective political activity. It's a problem of human development, and therefore rears its ugly head everywhere. It even pollutes the hard sciences, which you'd think would be exempt if anything would be. It's been called out by people as diverse as mathematician Bertrand Russell, psychiatrist Eric Berne, economist J.K.Galbraith, organiser Saul Alinsky, and physicist Steven Jones.
It involves people selectively fitting the facts to support a predetermined conclusion. We see it in operation every day in politics, and we curse it too. It's the ultimate in dishonesty. DU, PI, et al. are stiff with it. We've all fled from it. But we do it, too.
I believe that unless we can solve this problem in ourselves, and recognise and thwart its operation in other people, we will make absolutely ZERO progress toward our political goals. If we use this place for nothing else, we should use it as the sandbox in which we solve this problem. Because if we don't solve this problem, we might as well all go home and avoid the rush by killing ourselves now--it'll be the most productive thing we can do.
If I respond to the malicious gossip, I am “spinning” or “trying to get out of it.” If I don't respond, then I need to “toughen up” or not be “scared.” The charge of being “reactionary” and of my words being “red herrings” and based on “false premises” are not true merely because they are repeated and attempts are made to get others to agree with that. I was told that if I posted “sand would be thrown in my face” because it had been decided that my opinions were “unacceptable.” [taken from the "Mike may no longer be participating" thread.]
No matter what Mike does or doesn't, it's construed as further evidence that there's something wrong with him politically and personally.
This illustrates what I believe to be THE key problem for us, the solution of which is the sine qua non of effective political activity. It's a problem of human development, and therefore rears its ugly head everywhere. It even pollutes the hard sciences, which you'd think would be exempt if anything would be. It's been called out by people as diverse as mathematician Bertrand Russell, psychiatrist Eric Berne, economist J.K.Galbraith, organiser Saul Alinsky, and physicist Steven Jones.
It involves people selectively fitting the facts to support a predetermined conclusion. We see it in operation every day in politics, and we curse it too. It's the ultimate in dishonesty. DU, PI, et al. are stiff with it. We've all fled from it. But we do it, too.
I believe that unless we can solve this problem in ourselves, and recognise and thwart its operation in other people, we will make absolutely ZERO progress toward our political goals. If we use this place for nothing else, we should use it as the sandbox in which we solve this problem. Because if we don't solve this problem, we might as well all go home and avoid the rush by killing ourselves now--it'll be the most productive thing we can do.
Sorry, I disagree totally and completely.
It is FINE to ask someone to defend their premise. It is also FINE to point out when they are changing the subject.
AND
It is also a BIG STEAMING PILE OF BULLSHIT that we have been some cohesive liberal mob attacking poor innocent members personally.
Further, Reaction is an OBJECTIVE term, not one that can be dumbed down to 'unacceptable.' Doing so is a manipulation of the dialogue, intended or otherwise.
FUCK THAT
Mairead
02-01-2007, 09:45 AM
You "totally and completely" missed my point, too.
No matter what Mike does or doesn't, it's construed as further evidence that there's something wrong with him politically and personally.
Construed by who? Mike. Perhaps by you too.
That does not make it so.
Mairead
02-01-2007, 10:10 AM
No matter what Mike does or doesn't, it's construed as further evidence that there's something wrong with him politically and personally.
Construed by who? Mike. Perhaps by you too.
That does not make it so.
And you continue to totally and completely miss my point.
No matter what Mike does or doesn't, it's construed as further evidence that there's something wrong with him politically and personally.
Construed by who? Mike. Perhaps by you too.
That does not make it so.
And you continue to totally and completely miss my point.
Seems to me this is the accusation, and point, you are making :
It involves people selectively fitting the facts to support a predetermined conclusion.
I plead not guilty, thanks.
anaxarchos
02-01-2007, 10:17 AM
And you continue to totally and completely miss my point.
Me, too...
"Totally and completely"...
Mairead
02-01-2007, 10:28 AM
I know, I know: it's always Someone Else's Problem. We ourselves are never less than perfect. Veritable paragons, in our own minds at least.
Raphaelle
02-01-2007, 10:29 AM
It is up to Mike--just as it was up to Tinoire.
I am fucking sick of his martyr act while he gets to kick us around.
damn egos.
I know, I know: it's always Someone Else's Problem. We ourselves are never less than perfect. Veritable paragons, in our own minds at least.
Well, point the errors out. Clearly and unmistakably. But they had better be errors of thinking. This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
Mairead
02-01-2007, 11:01 AM
This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
You reveal your emotional age--and your shallow politics. It's always the teenage "Master of the Universe" boys who have no patience with other people's feelings.
This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
You reveal your emotional age--and your shallow politics. It's always the teenage "Master of the Universe" boys who have no patience with other people's feelings.
I think you should be discussing psychology elsewhere.
The goal of this is not to stroke people's feelings. I understand you are sympathetic to Mike's feelings. Yet, how do you even know his are hurt?
Either we can discuss politics or we can discuss one another. I'm really only interested in the former. I don't need new friends.
Mairead
02-01-2007, 11:10 AM
This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
You reveal your emotional age--and your shallow politics. It's always the teenage "Master of the Universe" boys who have no patience with other people's feelings.
I think you should be discussing psychology elsewhere.
The goal of this is not to stroke people's feelings. I understand you are sympathetic to Mike's feelings. Yet, how do you even know his are hurt?
Either we can discuss politics or we can discuss one another. I'm really only interested in the former. I don't need new friends.
Oh, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry. :twisted:
This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
You reveal your emotional age--and your shallow politics. It's always the teenage "Master of the Universe" boys who have no patience with other people's feelings.
I think you should be discussing psychology elsewhere.
The goal of this is not to stroke people's feelings. I understand you are sympathetic to Mike's feelings. Yet, how do you even know his are hurt?
Either we can discuss politics or we can discuss one another. I'm really only interested in the former. I don't need new friends.
Oh, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry. :twisted:
My feelings are not hurt, nor do they matter.
Mairead
02-01-2007, 11:25 AM
This is not a place for feelings. Let me make this clear - FUCK EVERYONE'S FEELINGS.
You reveal your emotional age--and your shallow politics. It's always the teenage "Master of the Universe" boys who have no patience with other people's feelings.
I think you should be discussing psychology elsewhere.
The goal of this is not to stroke people's feelings. I understand you are sympathetic to Mike's feelings. Yet, how do you even know his are hurt?
Either we can discuss politics or we can discuss one another. I'm really only interested in the former. I don't need new friends.
Oh, did I hurt your feelings? I'm sorry. :twisted:
My feelings are not hurt, nor do they matter.
of course not.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.1.10 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.