One of the more instructive things that has happened over the years as I am have found and followed blogs is that there are a lot of smart and well spoken people out there that are well and far away from any professional sort of "punditry" (which, frankly, serves us all better by being amongst friends). If you have read any of the blogs to the left or comments in the posts here over the years, you have met many of them. They are (on the whole) a rather seasoned and experienced group of observers (in some ways I suppose, a fancy way of saying that we are all "well aged"), so when a theme starts coming up among them, it catches my notice.
The theme that has come up this week is, for lack of a better term, a sort of break down in the art of conversation.
There are two different articles that this manifests in. The first, by Claire Wolfe (who is a top notch observer of things in general) is entitled Violence, fantasy, and reality: Where do we go from here? The other, by the very deep thinker (although he presents himself otherwise sometimes) Old AF Sarge is simply entitled Negative Waves. Both their blogs are listed over to the right; I will leave it to you review the articles as desired (and I highly recommend a follow for both).
The point of today's post is only tangential to the actual nature of their posts (and thus, appropriate for that form of discussion on those posts, not here). In summary of the posts, both note a different version of a similar issue: In Claire's, a rather decided turn by many people on all sides to begin openly discussing the exercise of violence in almost the most benign of conversations and tone of voice; in Sarge's the note that we have lost the ability to confine ourselves to the discussion at hand and too often seem to inflict larger issues upon the most innocuous of conversations.
In a thought, our ability to talk about things is becoming reduced and narrowed.
There have always been those that have seen the world only in the outlines of great historical movements or those who have seen things in the light of "us versus them (but mostly us)". And even in the confines of the political world, we have historically torn each other to (figurative) pieces - lest we think this sort of "uncivil discourse" is new, read the speeches of Demosthenes or Cicero: The Greeks and Romans were masters of hating each other long before we were. In that sense, we as a species have always had the ability to viciously attack each other with words.
But at least in my years, this narrowing is something new. We - it seems, almost the whole -are actively talking about the sorts of things that unmake systems, societies, and civilizations and coffee gatherings - and we insist on doing it in even the most unrelated of conversations. As I posted in a comment elsewhere, the concept of Cato the Elder ending every speech with "In my view, Carthage must be destroyed" sounds in theory, a man committed to a cause like a buffalo in a blizzard. In reality, it must have been rather annoying:
Senator I: "Marcus Porcius, which vintage do you recommend: The Attic or the Sicilian?"
Cato: "In my opinion, Carthage must be destroyed."
Senator I: <Uncomfortable silence>...."The Sicilian, then".
I know what (inevitably) someone will say: "Well, the other side (choose the side one is not on) is talking exactly that way. " And that is, more likely than not and given the times, quite likely true. But just because the other side does it - just because everyone does it - does not make it the right or wise thing to do.
My fear - and by fear, I mean "the thing that is manifesting itself directly in front of our eyes" - is that by narrowing the scope of our conversation and insisting on bringing certain subjects into every conversation, we thereby reduce our ability to actually converse, reach solutions to our actual problems, and build networks among people who may not believe like us in everything, but believe like us on the most critical and important things. It is like any relationship: when in the end all you are talking about is your differences and how much you dislike the other person and how they never meet any of your needs, you will find that a breakup or divorce is soon to follow.
Breaking up and divorces in relationships involve harsh words, hurt feelings, and sometimes things which are neither pleasant nor good to talk about or dwell on. Break-ups of societies, civilizations, and nations - at least from what history tells us - are at best no better, and often far worse.
If all we who have (up to this point, anyway) more life experience and education (of many kinds) find that we cannot control our language or conversation knowing - as most of us know - the results of where such language, feelings, and rhetoric leads, do we offer good service to the greater whole when we speak the same way? We - you, I - should be the voices of reason in such a situation, not the adding to the cacophony and clamor of a world which - if we are honest - is coming to speak only the language of hate, division, and death.
It is said that in this, as in a great many other ways I remain an Idealist and a rather foolish one, someone who clings to a belief system and view of the world that is at odds with the way things actually are and believes that reason and words should only be abandoned as a very last measure. That is most likely a true statement. It being true, it does not bend my will or aim in this matter. It may be that I - and hopefully you - remain the last voices of reason in a world gone increasingly mad, even as it plunges into chaos. It may be that we cannot halt the universal plunge, but at least let us be the last to speak only of it.
(Post Script: To new commenters: I try and keep an atmosphere of tolerance and reasoned discussion here. Be forewarned that unkindness, a lack of respect, threats of actual violence, or just plain profanity will ensure your post is not published.)
A thought provoking observation, as usual, TB. Here's my 2 cents (or do we get a nickle's worth due to inflation?)
ReplyDeleteSpiritual timeline theory:
1) I think people sense "something" is happening, so there is a growing undercurrent of stress, uncertainty, and fear that is taking its toll. Very few of us are at our best when things feel out of control.
2) Matt. 24:12, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
Those that are dubious about a spiritual timeline may relate better to the cornered animal analogy, i.e. that a docile animal will become hostile and aggressive when it finds itself caged or cornered. Even when it's for "their own good."
Leigh, I have to be honest with you that even when I feel compelled to write these sorts of things (and believe me, compelled is the word sometimes), I always get nervous. I do not like controversy (see the comment below) and will most likely spend the day agitated and bothered about what is there. But it sill needs to be said.
DeleteSpiritual timeline - Matthew 24:2 is indeed a very good reference and reminder ("Wars and rumors of wars also comes to mind"). Perhaps in my very real attempt to avoid exercising "End Times Fever" I veer too much to the other side.
People do not like out of control - heavens, we do not like it when our coffee is late - and it has been a very stressful two years. But perhaps this points to the shallowness of what has become our religious beliefs, philosophical beliefs, and culture, that only two years creates this (on the whole, apparently, none of us would have survived earlier than the 19th Century on the whole).
I would agree that many feel cornered by various circumstances. My fear is that we are allowing that feeling to drive our actions, instead of reason.
I like your 2 cents Leigh! ☺
DeleteI do too Rain. And they are always so welcome.
DeleteJustin_O_Guy: I am in receipt of your comment. Unfortunately, you broke two of my rules: Profanity and the threat of violence. I do not publish those. But, since you know the scope of your comment, I will respond here:
ReplyDelete1) Your initial comment about bouncing things off someone you know is the same sort of opinion gathering that I effectively performing: You know someone; I follow any number of people, read, and listen. Let us assume, for the moment, that all of them are honest, valid, and credible. The fact that I continue to hear, with greater and greater urgency and frequency, not just a cry to "right wrongs and change the course" but "Wash the streets with blood and skulls", is a matter of concern. I dare, as they say, because I care.
2) The second half of your commentary - the "Them" portion, about how the opinions they hold ignore the laws of reality - really proves my point, in my mind. Failure to actually follow the science - I believe you will find back in the archives I had significant issues with the nature of the limited clinical data provided for the trials. Wagging a finger at those who decry effective deterrence of crime? Again, I believe you would find that this is a fairly second amendments friendly blog (although to be fair, we do not touch on it often). Social choices? Again, these have been discussed before.
The difference is, and I think it is an important one, they are discussed. As opposed to the overall tone of your comment, which is "If you believe any of that, I have neither the time nor patience for you".
There are people - I know them, talk to them, that are aware that things are not quite right in the world. They are at the point of seeing the policies they thought they embraced being enacted. They have questions. They are wondering.
And then, out of nowhere the response is not "Well, let us consider that, and who supports it, and how to make things better" but rather "You are wrong, and let me tell you in excruciating detail how you are wrong, you fool" (A tactic, I might note, that those you are opposed to regularly employ). Minds are changed by discussion and relationship, not (frankly) by threats and making people and their thoughts, opinions, and feelings small - which is precisely what you are accusing the other side of doing.
I do appreciate you taking the time to comment (even if we apparently disagree). I will note here I am happy to publish further discussions, but I do have rules about language and tone, and we will abide by them.
As a note, it is responses like yours that make me very chary of posting anything remotely controversial at all. It might make a good consideration - for all of us, first myself - how our immediate reactions and words might shut down discussion and and alienate the very people we are hoping to reach.
I'll start by thanking you for replying even though my post fell short of your, wants, needs, desires.. So, thank you..
DeleteIt's been a while and frankly I Don't remember..
But I read your reply carefully and got a bit out of that..
Keeping in mind your reasonable conditions for being acceptable for publication, I'm gonna take a swing at a point made in this post.
Matt. 24:12, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
And how would that be reasonably attached to the events of today?
Could it possibly be reasonably interpreted to help understand the lack of acceptance between people of different political ideology?
Is it not Lawlessness when they abuse the law? Okay, not America Yet, but people who donated to the truckers having their bank accounts frozen?
The people who are blessed with the ability to not feel frustrated by watching their neighbors bankrupted because of the response to the virus, I kinda appreciate.
I'm not one of them. I watched America spiral down. I was in second grade when they killed JFK. That did not line up.
My parents would lay the Sunday paper on a chair I would pass by as a left. I would spend a few minutes reading the front page of the Houston morning paper..
Seeing the
Priest so and so is moving to a new post as punishment for molesting the boys
Seriously caused me to look carefully at what was going on.
Seriously? No cops are Reading this?
Fifth grade,, obvious evidence that if my dad ran his business like the government??? Jail,baby..
I watched the education system get sabotaged.
Doubt it was accidental?
Charlotte Iserbyt.
Check her out.
The Deliberate Dumbing Down of America..
She was just second in command of education.
I despise her because she should have stopped it.
Point is
Matt. 24:12, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
Why? Why would anyone cease to be loving? Why would anyone find themselves feeling unable to continue to work towards peace?
Could it possibly have anything to do with watching the presentation of facts be dismissed? Could it be that the
Compromises made, trying to find common ground,watching That never be enough and more pressure for more changes following.
The trajectory is and has been obvious. The nature of those people who are doing the pushing is obvious.
The people who are trying to live decent lives, are diminished, mistreated, Hated by the Inclusive crowd.
Matt. 24:12, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
You can feel however you need to about what I say.
If it's Raining four inches an hour upstream from you, I'm not CALLING FOR you to be flooded. But I can predict it. I don't Want it for you. For anyone, but the Bible doesn't shy away from the truth, and the Bible IS a story that is full of violence against the Enemy. Wisdom to see who the enemy is? The Bible addresses wisdom.
I'm not CALLING for violence.
Oold,crippled and unable to even travel well,,, I'm not a threat to anyone who doesn't come down my drive...
But I'm not blind.. And the reasonable discourse, honestly trying to find solutions benefit the People, it's dead. And I don't see it changing. I see a very distressing future for America. I DON'T want it . I'm not Promoting it, but this summer, wildfires in California will again destroy homes. I'm not championing the fires. I'm just saying
That is going to happen.
Matt. 24:12, "And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold."
The gentle ways I spoke to, Them, as I offered objective evidence?
Years,, so many years.. I'm not aware of opening more than one person up to seeing the world through p different lens.
Meh,,maybe planted some seeds, who knows?
The people who are pushing America to be more open to accepting Everything that the Bible says is wrong,
Need to see God.
Justin - First of all - And sincerely - thanks for adhering to rules. That means a lot.
DeleteIt is fair, I think, to be able to say "There is a storm coming". But just to say that is not to necessarily communicate with those whom one wishes to communicate with. Some people respond to texts. Some people respond to weather maps. Some people may not respond at all. But are we trying to save people, or are we just putting in the "A storm is coming" and then upset that somehow they did not hear us?
If the point is repentance, how did Jesus do it? "A bruised reed He will not break and a smoldering candle he will not extinguish." I have confronted people - and never gotten my message across. I have tried to listen and talk to people where they are - and sometimes they at least acknowledge my point. That is what I am trying to do, plant seeds to get people to think.
I really struggled with this post for some reason. I'm not sure why so if I misread anything, please excuse me. I think I'm in agreement that there is a segment of our population that narrows the conversation unnecessarily. But I think there is another segment that refuses to focus on a single narrow aspect and instead tries the throw the kitchen sink at it and see what sticks approach. Neither segments I particularly care for. I prefer to narrow the focus on a discussion into some sort of digestible bite to chew on. Very few people can do that, at least that I've met in person. Blogger ups the odds though. But I also try to look at the big picture of any discussion to try and keep the track I'm laying from straying side to side.
ReplyDeleteI guess to sum up things in a big picture kind of way, I'm not sure I'm convinced that this is any different than 100 or 1000 years ago. I'm sure all these segments of people existed then as they do now and probably not in any different proportions. I rather think changing technologies has just brought different aspects into focus that might not have been in focus 100 or 1000 years ago. Or perhaps I'm just an optimist as has been established in the past.
Ed - No apologies are necessary; this is a difficult subject to write on and to be fair, by prose can sometimes be turgid.
DeleteThe segment you refer to was in some ways the first group (narrowing the conversation) that I was speaking of. Agreed that there is in fact another segment, the "Throw the kitchen sink" segment which just as much seems like an attempt to provoke a response as to come up with a solution . What I suppose is bothersome to me is that we are devolving into the groups as quickly as we can, it seems.
I would agree that blogs up the odds, perhaps even more than opinion websites, even of those that might be in alignment with positions I hold. Most of those websites (with few exceptions) hold a sort of orthodoxy in their opinions, to which bringing in a counterpoint at best is like being looked upon as the village idiot from the neighboring village and at worst, someone who needs to be corrected or expelled (see segment 1 above). Their privilege as it is their website of course; it does not, however, lead to the sort of discussion and change that they seem to desire.
I do not inherently it is worse than 100 years ago or even 2000 years ago; I do think our ability to instantly exchange communications and opinions does make things accelerate much more quickly. The more things accelerate, the more people try to react quickly and often without thinking. And the more people try to react quickly and often without thinking, the more likely it becomes that bad things happen.
It seems the sides are like Maori, doing a haka to intimidate and dominate the other. Or, are like reasonable people, attempting to use facts and statistics to intellectually sway the overly emotional "other side".
ReplyDeleteI have come to believe that both sides are religious and are rather like two diamonds with multiple facets. One diamond is "conserving the principles of the American founding fathers" and the other is "progressive, socialist, humanist, my feelings, my feelings". As the subjects of their disagreements vary, different facets face each other. But there isn't any movement in ideology, converts to the other side.
Man is inherently religious. It's how we are built. And we NEED to worship. Some worship God, others worship whatever they feel comfortable with. In the years that we have written God out of our society, one group worships "sameness", and another worships "founding principles". It is a religious "war" now. Each has their faith, their saints, their doctrine. And religious wars are exceedingly brutal and terrible. Conversion by force never works. And the sides are so entrenched, conversion seems impossible.
Preparing for war, by necessity, means you have to "other" the side opposite. See the Nazi's calling undesirable elements rats, vermin, disease. Or the Japanese calling the Chinese "logs" as they experimented on them. I remember NVA being called "hotdogs" and "hamburgers".
Like it or not, we are in a run-up. Each "race car" is revving, preparing to launch with all speed to the finish line. And our "leaders" are fomenting these divisions as much as they can, thinking they can more easily dominate us if they can separate us first. Storm clouds are building.
"This world is not my home, I'm just passing through.
My treasures are laid up, somewhere beyond the blue.
The angels beckon me from Heavens open door.
I can't feel at home in this world anymore."
Kind of off topic to your fine screed, STxAR… but there is another faction involved, perhaps the biggest of all: the posturing fops that sit on the sidelines and put on airs of moral and intellectual superiority as they snipe at both sides. Ironically it’s the Christians that are the worst for this, in my experience, followed closely by the libertarians. It’s moral and intellectual cowardice and they aren’t fooling anyone.
DeleteSTxAR - A Haka. Interesting thought. And actually, a pretty accurate one.
DeleteI agree with your (very) profound thought that each side has essentially become a religion (just as, to be fair, the other options of libertarianism and anarchism have. They have doctrine, purity of belief, a world view, and dogma.
"Othering" - the making of individuals less human - is something that, as you point out, multiple societies have done and have always done in history - is something that groups or states do in preparation for ill treatment or worse. To the extent that all groups, including governments, are enabling this, probably reveals more about where we seem to be than anything else.
There is one additional point which you addressed which is not something I dealt with above (but perhaps should have): The fact that at least for Christians, this is not our home. Ultimately we will be judged on how we acted with not just with an eye towards the temporal, but also the eternal. It cuts both ways of course: sacrificing Christian principles for the sake of "saving" something is right out, just as sacrificing Christian principles because "we need to just like the world" are equally wrong. Like it or not, we are called to a higher standard.
Sigh. Glen, you make a great point. Hopefully I am not one of those people. But one of the great annoyances are the people (largely they seem to be "intellectuals") who cannot be bothered to engage at all in the conversation because we are all too "stupid" to get what they are trying to accomplish.
DeleteIt's the wrong message for the wrong people - delivered the wrong way. I know you don't mean to - but when you speak like this, it sounds like you are minimalizing and dismissing the pain and hurt of folks that have taken real lumps.
DeleteYears ago in church we had the same thing. The guest pastor wanted to speak about responsibility and how important it is for our young men to be prepared to take it on. He talked about our single women, and said the reason they were single wasn't their fault - it was because their men were acting like boys and wouldn't 'man up'. Four young men got up in the audience and walked out. I knew exactly what was going on (I yam a VIP Blabber) and I left with them and took them to lunch. Two of them had just gone to the cleaners in divorce court, and swore they'd never come back to our church. What you and Claire are doing is similar to that. The old preacher saw the battle of the sexes as a non-issue; but those young men had had their lives destroyed or at least seriously disrupted - and the pastor was blaming them for it even though that was not what the message he wanted to convey. He was out of his element just as you and Claire are. You aren't wrong, but if you pull back to see the big picture, you have to be careful you don't lose the important small details.
Duly noted Glen - but if true, then people like myself have no ideological home at all, belonging to neither side. Which, perhaps, is as it really is.
DeleteWe’ve fought about this many times, old friend. The idealist in you has to get past the realist in me - and neither of us get anywhere. SIgh. En guarde!
ReplyDeleteI grew up on the other side of this culture war. I know how those guys think. I spent my life trying to talk to them. They don’t want to talk, TB. Their idea of a discussion is where you shut up and listen respectfully while they lecture. If you think that I did it all wrong and you can do better - go for it. Start with the social justice warriors on Twitter or Facebook. Go ahead, I’ll wait.
For me… I’m done talking. I was done 10 years ago. During that time, the social and cultural warriors won every battle they fought, we never fired a shot… and they get ever angrier and crazier with each passing day. A conversation takes two people. If you can reach these people… now would be a good time to do it, folks.
The times remind me more of Nero, going up to fiddle on the roof as his peers prattled in the Forun and his city burned and died around him. I had always thought he was a moron… but I understand him now and even respect that a little bit, somehow.
We can’t go on like this. Something is going to give, and if the idealists survive, it will be because of the realists. Hopefully it’s over fast, and we all can go on to be better people afterward.
Indeed we have, old friend. Sword to the ready!
DeleteWe do have different experiences Glen - and are dealing with different realities. In my case, I have people around me - a surprising amount - looking around at a world they effectively agreed to by voting it in, seeing the ramifications of those choices, and wondering why such things happened.
I have tried in the past to "discuss" things more forcefully, but I have never (not once) changed a mind or advanced what I considered to be my side. In fact, it shut down discussion on anything even tertiary to the subject for years, if not forever. For that reason, I abandoned that strategy.
Social Media - to be fair, it goes both ways. Twitter and The Book of Face are examples of one side, even as the now-expired Parler and Blab (as you so accurately name it) are to the other side. Which, I think is my point: two sides being unwilling to talk to each other means two sides that are never going to be able to communicate on anything and thus are headed for at best a separation and worst, a fight (hopefully in the relational area, legal or verbal only).
(See, I can be a realist!)
Do I think that the times resemble Nero fiddling? I do, but as much for the fact that an entire generation of individuals of every political stripe and belief have learned to kick their problems - mostly economic - down the road. It is not a question of it, but when. And when that issue comes to bear, a great deal of what we are dealing with now will pale in comparison.
To your final point, if in fact the realists make a different world but we become better people afterwards, it may be due to the idealists as well. Circle of life and all.
(In all fairness to everyone else, this is exactly how these sorts of conversations are supposed to work. Glen and I are very old skirmishers in this and although we disagree on things, we can discuss them in a civilized manner. This is exactly what needs to happen.)
Swine! You take that back about Blab!!!😡
DeleteOh gawd… Blab….!!! I KNEW those guys would get me in trouble!!! HAR HAR HAR! 😆👍 Good point I suppose. I have too many kindred spirits over there and we all sit in that big green tent, smelling our own farts and getting high off our own supply. But - there is some incredible intellect over there too, amongst the poop jokes and rude memes. It’s fascinating commentary if you know where to look.
What rankles me is the intellectual dishonesty in all this. I just gave it to Claire with both barrels too. Mom can end fights by telling everyone to shut up and she doesn’t care who started it or why. That won’t work for you guys. In the real world, for adults, ‘who started it’ is very important. His reasons for doing so are even more so. In the real world, that will dictate how you negotiate and compromise toward a peace. That requires a detailed deep dive into the issues, and blow-by-blow political debate. What is your intent here, TB? To work toward a workable peace?
Or just to virtue signal and preach to the choir?
It matters, because - how do you sell this to a small business owner who just watched his life’s dream get burnt out by a BLM mob? Or the mom whose daughter just got raped in the washroom by a ‘transgendered’ boy? That is what I mean by being a realist, TB. For people that have caught a few bullets in this culture war, have skin in the game and shed real blood and real tears… it’s kind of insulting. I know you don’t mean any of it that way… but we can’t talk either. You don’t want to delve into the icky politics which is what entirely what this flap is based on. Nor do you have any skin in it.
That is exactly how we got here too. Nobody wants to grab the bull by the horns. The politicos are doing what you are: confining the issue to broad generalities rather than dealing with the specific friction points. Unless that changes, we are going to war and no bones about it. Rightfully so, too.
Glen - Ha! We can still laugh. We have that, at least.
DeleteI have not been to Blab except very briefly once upon a time - a little too...excitable...for me. That said, I am sure there are brilliant people there, as there on any other social media platform, even those folks whom we disagree with (along with, I am sure, the...profundities... of which you speak).
You gave examples - real ones, good ones - so I will offer two that have just come out in today's news in return. The first being that the Mayor of San Francisco, a last year "De-funder of law enforcement" has suddenly become a "Funder" of law enforcement. Two: A letter from several major CEOs and corporate leaders that someone needs be done about the large scale crime sprees we are seeing.
Now it is quite likely that I share virtually no other beliefs with these people, and may never do so. I have two choices. I can 1) Ignore this action and continue to complain or demand that as they have done this they should come clean on everything else I disagree with or 2) Applaud that one effort, watch the crime rate come down, and then help the people that see these actions draw the logical conclusions.
The most condescending thing I have read in many years actually came from a commenter over at a Website I occasionally peruse but can never really stand due to the fact that they are so Anti-Former Occupant they ignore everything else in the world. In their view - and this commenter's view - the very first thing before they would effectively agree to discuss any actual solutions was, effectively, repentance or even disavowal of all previous considerations. I found it offensive, I find it offensive, and even though I go back from time to time, I can only take about five minutes of reading before the pomposity of their self righteousness shines through. For the sake of their being "right", they willingly sacrificed the ability to help make change and are left penning articles about how things should be without making any real effort to build alliances or bridges or tribes to make it happen. They have become an echo chamber, one that (it seems to me) is being recreated across the Western World.
What am I a trying to accomplish, Glen? Well, first of all what we are doing here, right now - talking. But the second, perhaps less defined goal for me is perhaps actually getting people to decide that they actually want to see the changes they talk about. The reality is that while such changes can be introduced by a minority and perhaps enforced for a time, they will only exist when the majority accepts them. Castigating people for what they have voted for, believed, or practiced in the past or demanding that they pass a 25 point ideological test is not the way to do it, at least that I can see. It just leads, really, to where we are today.
Gandhi is credited with the saying "Be the change you want to see in the world". If I want a world where people talk more, figure out the things they can agree on, and build consensus towards the things I hold dear, it has to start with me. Even if I am the only one.
And, I notice, you got a direct response from Claire. Look at you, you commentor you.
DeleteA little off track from the point of your post, perhaps... but I feel true conversations consist of two elements: speaking (reasonably) AND listening. The latter seems to be a difficult thing for many to do. Maybe we need lessons from the Benedictines.
ReplyDeleteKelly - It is not off track at all. That is, I suppose, inherent to the point (certainly in my comment above to the now-deleted comment). A conversation is both listening and speaking.
DeleteHowever, I can understand that frustration. From both sides, conversation now seems to consist primarily of 1) Getting your points in as quickly as possible, no matter what the actual topic is; and 2) Running over any commentary that they other person makes.
It is likely not a recipe for understanding.
As to your second point, that's one reason why many folks aren't listening. They're too busy planning in their mind how they're going to respond to (discredit) what you're saying.
DeleteHold on, I am constructing a response to your response....
DeleteOf course you are right, Kelly. When we value being - or at least feeling - right, that is all that matters.
The left /right has long been the dividing line, every effort to separate by race, class or sex have simply deposited people on one side or the other -
ReplyDeleteThe great wild card is the coof jab- which has for the first time cracked the wall-we now see bitter divisions among people irrespective of the traditional L/R separation. Families of conservative belief who eject a member of the clan because of State Induced fear, etc- A new fracture line has appeared.
This has been a very successful experiment in social psychology, and an extremely frightening one. The fear card has been played many times, guns, crime, climate change, "them", but never has it resulted in such dramatic change in peoples behavior.
Now that they know how well it works, we can expect a replay with enhancements.
Raven - What an interesting (and at least to me, previously unconsidered)thought. You are right, of course - the question of The Plague and all the ramifications thereof has preformed a cross-cut on previous division lines. Nor do I think is isolated to this area - my sense is that (for example) in the question of women's sports, there is a great deal of "under the table" arguing going on (although very little of it has risen to the surface yet lest the idea of united front break).
DeleteAnd you are quite correct - anything that works once will be reused multiple times.
A concern is that with people waking up, the complacency could be inverted against them. For example-
Delete"CRY COVID"! Cry Covid!" cry covid"! cry smallpox.....
This occurs to me- please pardon the off topic detour-
The problem we face on a strategic level is that whether we end up with a tyrannical police state, or a glorious revolution, the powers that be, still win- because the main goal is to reduce the USA and it's inconvenient freedoms to insignificance. Whether it be by plague, famine, war,economic collapse, or simple retreat into rural enclaves of peace, is irrelevant- the force the USA represents is gone.
There is our dilemma. How to fight, when fighting itself may destroy us.
Nevertheless, I will still opt for Churchill's last measure if circumstances warrant. It is better to fight with no hope of victory, than to be a slave.
There are glimmerings of hope-I live in an azure land- the looks I get now when venturing into the public eye, maskless, do not seem to be with as much fear filled anger as previously- no hissed "mask!" many act as if they might be slightly envious. People are not recoiling.
Clerks do not back away. A small sign, but encouraging.
Raven - Perhaps we live now on the cusp of a change. I do think that the longer this continues, the more people begin to question the utility of measures, especially if they are perceived to make no difference at all. But whether that can be spun into other areas remains to be seen, I suppose.
DeleteAs Churchill is said to have remarked, "When going through Hell, keep going."
Hi TB :) I always enjoy your thoughts, though I admit a lot of the times, I don't always follow lol...maybe I have one of those minds that wander...or sometimes I can only seem to focus on one idea or one word written and I start to think about that rather than absorb the entire post...(and I love to write run-on sentences lol).
ReplyDeleteIf I just think about your title "the inability to speak reasonably"...to me, this is how most of society has evolved. I always love to blame the internet and social media for the breakdown of conversation, and I think that people have become really inept at discussion. With information so readily available at the tip of your finger, people have no need to really think about much, and I think this also makes people very impatient. If they can't get what they want right away, they just go to the next website. So if you think of these people during conversations, they get impatient if they hear what they want to hear immediately. I've been around too many people who rush my conversation and even say rude things like "get to the point"...well, my point is conversation right?
Rain - Thank you, although to be fair, I do not always follow myself when I am writing either!
Delete"This is how most of society has evolved"...What an interesting thought. I think, upon consideration, you have a point. People have always been impatient but in some was - given our 24/7/365 society with information literally at our fingertips (as you say), we have little patience for a lack of immediate gratification (I say this as being someone who suffers from this as well!). There is a balance, I suppose - in some conversations information is the point (as in a work exchange, for example), but in other areas - discussion, even dare we say blogging? - the conversation is the point. Or, I suppose, the destination is the journey.
Thank you for your post. It has buoyed me immeasurably.
I'm glad you followed my ramblings lol...I do see your point about information exchange, but to me it's assumed that, at the beginning of the dialogue. When it comes to conversation, I like to think that someone might be interested in my thought process instead of jumping to the end of the idea/blog post or conversation! The worst part of the inability to speak reasonably is the look of boredom on some people's faces as you speak! Hard to see through blogging, but sometimes the comment shows how uninterested a person was reading a blog post! Reasonable to me also means exchanging ideas, being interested in what the other person says and being respectful of opinions without it turning into anger, drama or worse humiliation! (Kind of remembering my family when I say that!) You can't reason with the unreasonable so why bother. If a person can't have a decent, mature and respectful conversation with me I'm just not interested! Okay I have to take my blueberry muffins out of the oven now and give my brain a rest lol! ☺☺
DeleteAh, the "look". I know it well.
DeleteThought processes are an interesting thing, of interest (it seems to me) only when one cares about the person and their opinion of how they got there. More often than not - to your point - people do not care. What you believe is what matters and they can then attend do or move away from you as needed.
Respectful attitudes - and kindness - are critical to any actual true exchange. I would argue that both "sides" have been guilty of this. And it does discourage communication, to the point that I will just not longer speak.
I hope your blueberry muffins were delicious!
Ooh they were good and I made a big foot long diameter chocolate chip cookie too! :)
DeleteThat sounds quite delicious as well!
DeleteYou can not have a conversation with people who don't share the same language. The current "betters" have hijacked the language just as much as William of Normandy took the language of the Saxons and Angles away from them. The Normans were not French, as many falsely assume, but Scandinavian with an Old French dialect attached to their court. Yet the peasants continued with their local dialects, which in England can vary from street to street. The problem is that they didn't see themselves as equals, and that persists into our great American experiment. Our "betters" see us as chattel slaves and always have. The time has come for us to rattle our chains again.
ReplyDeleteWe do indeed speak a different language any more, Just So. And concept have been marvelously hijacked (and turned on their heads in some cases).
DeleteIt is interesting - Ultimately the Normans in Ireland all became more Irish than the Gaelic Irish, unlike England where there was a greater degree of separation.
It really does seem that Our Political And Social Betters (OPASB) see us as nothing more than a large body destined for a social experiment.