posted on January 19, 2001 10:26:58 PM new
Evening All - Just a quick note to get something off my chest.
As many of you know - I'm trained as a Sociologist and now work in an Agricultural business, dealing with international projects. As part of my job and of my life, I see many cultures and have taken the time to try to understand a lot of alternative world views.
As part of my daily life I have to deal with a number of animal activists and their organizations. One of the most common things that comes up is the use of one person's views or farm, and using it by extrapolation as if it represented the whole animal production system and all farmers.
I actually have a few folks that I know from PETA - they are kind and well meaning and we get along fine. We do chose to DISAGREE. However, many in their leadership have the Moral Certainty that they are correct and that their views are the only possible source of truth.
Now
Since the junkheap-dogs-breakfast version of an election - the threads have been hot and heavy about politics. God help us that so much sulfur and brimstone have been expended on two of the biggest duds that have ever run for the office of President.
What concerns me about this, and when Clinton was elected for the first time, is that while the parties have changed, the level of grim and hateful retoric has increased.
When one one person or group develops a passion for an idology - be it liberal or conservative - it can mutate into something very dark - a belief in an idology to the exclusion of everything else, can lead to the assumption that you or your group is morally superior to others around them. Their moral certainty leads to the assumption that opposing views from theirs are WRONG. It is not that they have different viewpoints, or that they disagree - No - they are WRONG.
No smear too outragous - no spin too tight - whatever it takes to distroy that person is Ok because the ends justify the means to acheive it. To help cause this ruin is morally justifiable because that person is WRONG.
I say this, because I hear things about the new president and his team that MIRROR the horrible and hateful things said about Clinton when he was first elected. The levels of venom can distroy all and the act of smearing leaves a stain and stink on both.
I feel that the idology of either party - if taken in PURE form - is likely poisonous. American is - in the end - about the common good - not the extreme of one party or the other.
Blanket statements about entire groups as if they hold monlithic views cannot pass muster in the light of common sense and the varity of viewpoints in this country. (All Democrats think . . All Republicans feel . . The "Gun Lobby" says . . Southern Whites are . . ) It is a continuum of viewpoints that make up all groups - you have to take people, one at a time.
I'll sit here in the center - focusing on a very well founded and healthy suspicion of BOTH sides.
I'm sure that many will disagree with me - and that is fine because I'd like to think that honest disagreements and dialog are what made this society one of the greastest on earth.
posted on January 19, 2001 10:32:20 PM new
find blanket statements as you describe with:
"Blanket statements about entire groups as if they hold monlithic views cannot pass muster in the light of common sense and the varity of viewpoints in this country. (All Democrats think . . All Republicans feel . . The "Gun Lobby" says . . Southern Whites are . . ) It is a continuum of viewpoints that make up all groups - you have to take people, one at a time".
posted on January 20, 2001 06:06:47 AM new
krs - Sorry the man is right. Your posts have such a strong certainty that if you don't say ALL it echoes from the context. We don't read that someone is spawn of the devil and ruination of the country and then walk away with the thought that surely the writer had some reservations.
I agree with nutspec that there are far too many who have stopped listening if they ever knew how. From the perpective of someone like him who has to deal with really DIFFERENT cultures and thoughts the two political parties are so alike that it is hard to understand why they even exist. It is like two churches in a little town who have split over some obscure theological point and if you moved to town and attended each you would say I sat through both services and they did the same things and advocated the same actions - why are they split? But if you asked them they would be horrified. "Oh no, we baptise with the right hand, and those others that split off babtise with the left hand so you see why we don't hold with that."
To me competition has value. I like to see it operating in the market place. But I don't see what value it has in politics where the other side is made to be villains like other nations are made out as not human in war time. Then when it is all over the rank and file are supposed to forget the propaganda and accept them as buddies again. Doesn't work.
KRS if you doubt look at your picture of ayatolla Ashcroft. That is straight out of a war time propaganda poster. I am not saying it is wrong. If you really want no room for comprimise it is great.
The way we are headed is incivility at the moment but it is so close to the edge I can see it resulting in assasination as a logical step for a few nuts when they don't win or for real fighting in the streets. The security measures they are taking for the inauguration today reflect this mood. I would be ashamed to go down Pennsylvania Ave. as the winner if to do so I had to admit I was not safe from my own people unless everyone is body searched. How soon before the President can not even appear in public?
There. Let's leave off the subject of my partiality with the posting of that site, shall we? After all, if I posted it then I must believe in it, and the ideas presented must be my own, right? By the reasoning of too many here that is the case, but now I've posted a site which presents a diametrically opposite position than any I've posted previously.
As if my partiality, were it to exist, is a valid subject of discussion or hyperbole as in the post above.
Why is it that I am the point for those who support the result of this election, while the result, in all ramifications, is the point for those who do not?
No competition in politics? What an idylic storybook reality you must enjoy.
posted on January 20, 2001 07:42:57 AM newWhy is it that I am the point for those who support the result of this election, while the result, in all ramifications, is the point for those who do not?
I did not support the results of this election, throughout my lifetime I have voted about as liberal as you can get, with a very few exceptions. And I am focusing on the results. I saw enough rabid, mean spirited rhetoric from the conservatives during the Clinton debacle to make me puke, and now I am seeing enough rabid, mean spirited rhetoric from liberals to make the bucket overflow. It is not confined to one side and the fact that a lot of people don't think for themselves and see through the rhetoric frightens me.
posted on January 20, 2001 07:45:00 AM newkrs I have not been reading the Roundtable for very long, but the links and pictures I can remember you posting have all presented only one side of the particular issue.
One tends to assume (yes, I know, ass*u*me)you hold the views you present.
I have also gotten the impression from reading your posts, that if someone doesn't agree with you, then they must be unable to see the truth and your mission is to enlighten the non-belivers.
These perceptions may be totally wrong, but they are still there.
Please, do not take this as a personal attack, but as an observation from someone who has read your recent posts here in RT and participated in a few.
As to posting the free republic link, you would have been much more creditable if you had linked to an actually article with an opposing view point.
posted on January 20, 2001 08:30:14 AM new
The most insightful comment so far on this thread is ...Opinions are like a**holes, everyone has one. IMHO of course.
nutspec, you yourself seem "morally certain" that other posters here should be notified of the inadvisability of their "moral certainty", such moral certainty of those posters to be determined by your opinion or reasonable judgement of course.
I've never inferred from any of krs' posts or links that he agrees with any blanket summarization of any group on this planet. In fact knowing the man I'd say to the contrary he doesn't view people that way, he's very concious of their individuality and value as human beings.
My own humble opinion is that krs enjoys discussing controversial topics and these posts or links are designed to be conversation 'starting points' to kick off a discussion, not necessarily beliefs or labels that he slavishly applies to others. I would also apply this very same conclusion to your own starting post in this thread, nutspec.
JMHO as always. I guess it's all in how you view something, including other's opinions.
posted on January 20, 2001 08:40:51 AM new
You're absolutely right, dear.
gisi,
"you would have been much more creditable if you had linked to an actually article with an opposing view point".
Certainly I could have taken almost any article from the free republic site and posted it, and gee, maybe I should have done so in order that I might have been much more creditable in your eyes; but don't you see what you've just said? The site stands by itself, here, open to exploration by anyone, or not, as THEY chose. What has MY credibility to do with that? It ain't my site. Or is it that you want me to take a side so that you can disagree with me?
posted on January 20, 2001 09:33:02 AM new
The idea that competition should have it's limits is not a naive vision of reality I have, I know that it not what exists now.
It is my belief that there should be limits to competition. I reflect that in how I conduct business. winning at any cost leads to unbridled behavior, war and revolution.
Industrial spying and sabotage. At our level of life it may be using eBay to have another's auctions canceled. Dirty tricks.
I am not a hand wringing old lady. I have shot people when their behavior when outside the envelope I could tolerate. They had the bad taste to shoot first and unforgivably miss. I try not to put myself in the position to need to respond like that.
It is scary to see political parties attack each other with such hate that one worries the more emotional individuals of the group may go beyond speech and we will end up living in constant fear of violence in public places like so many do in other parts of the world. I like being able to go out without worrying that I will be stopped on the street and questioned about who I support, or be afraid to go into public buildings and markets because of bombers. It is in human nature to be capable of that behavior and I don't want to see it happen here.
posted on January 20, 2001 05:59:41 PM new
Hey ya all...is that like telling a tale about New Yorkers and how they all would act in a given circumstances,
Of all the people I have read posts from here at AW, I read Ken's comments as the least likely to be about "all" of a group. Is he bringing debatable subjects here for all of us to discuss...you bet your ass he is. And has been since he got here. Does he play devil's advocate...yes, but he is not the devil himself.
I believe Ken sold "guns" on eBay, yet have seen him mention gun control several times recently. I have absolutely no idea on where Ken personally stands on the issue of gun control, but since he has been here he has caused me to question my own beliefs both for and against it.
I enjoy the fact that a person can debate and discuss issues intelligently from several angles. I like that he is not so narrow minded that he cannot see another side. And I like that he calls what he thinks.
Nutspec, in a way I agree with what you say. I voted for Al Gore for a number of reasons, but I don't think that GWB is the cretin some believe. I do have a great problem with the way he was chosen President, but I do accept that he is the President of my country. I believe in the constitutional assurance of the separation of powers...has nothing to do with political parties, but there are those who cannot comprehend this. Being the polital animal I am I spent the day watching TV.
Security has been overwelming for more than just today. It is not a new thing. For crying out loud, there are missles protecting the white House. Yes, there is sarcasm about Bush, about Clinton, their wives, etc. This is not new either.
As far as Ashcroft goes...I am frightened of the man. I am sorry if that offends anyone. I do not believe he is an appropriate choice for the AG of the US because I do not believe that he can be unbiased given his personal belief system. And it causes me quite a bit of concern that the President of MY country would think that this choice was a good one.
I think that a comment made about some of a group was interpreted as being about all of the group. The originator of the comment attempted to clarify what he intended to communicate and some chose for whatever reason to think they know more about what he "meant" than he does himself. This seems to me to be a break down of communication because the message being received is not the one being sent. So, should we hang the sender of the message? Or the receiver?
Meanwhile KRS, I enjoy your fodder for debate. Did you ever come up with more good ideas to ease the buyers concerns regarding increased postage?
And where the heck are all of your cute little gifs.
posted on January 20, 2001 08:08:29 PM new
I'm intrigued by the term moral certainty and whether it should be considered a good or bad state. Also, what the alternative positions would be. Immoral certainty? Moral uncertainty? Amoral certainty? Amoral uncertainty?
posted on January 20, 2001 08:25:28 PM new
guilty grannyfox - Someone might conclude that I think ALL New Yorkers are rude and pushy. Just to set the record straight I have gotten on the subway before without being elbowed in the kidneys. I even had a Bellhop say Thank You Sir when I tipped him. Once I found a cab driver who spoke a language I knew, even if it was not English. It has been pretty good at times. The City can be exciting. You can buy ANYTHING. Find any cuisine on earth. I will take it over a lot of places.
posted on January 20, 2001 08:33:38 PM new
Ah, but NYC is only a small geographical portion of NYS. The rest is Upstate. So...there are "some" people even in the city who are noy "rude & pushy". And there are a whole hell of us that aren't in the city. But New Yorkers are very frequently spoken of as a "group"
All I can tell ya is a bunch of folks in Texas kept tellin' us "Ya sure don't look like New Yorkers". To this day...I don't know what a "New Yorker" looks like.
Guy in Missouri said he could tell I was from NY cuz I walked so fast.
posted on January 21, 2001 09:12:00 AM new
If I'm understanding this right, "moral certainty" is nothing new and certainly is not unique to politics.
It has led to wars through the ages.
It's what, still today, contributes to the hate between and death of Catholics and Protestants in Ireland.
It's how the radical pro-lifers justify their threatening, maiming and killing of those who work within the law of the land.
I have no patience with or any room in my life for anyone who is so close-minded that they cannot separate each individual, regardless of their beliefs. Nor should (the collective) you.
It is beyond me why anyone would close themselves off to another human being who could enrich their lives, just because they have differing views.
--------
I'm not sure how the original post led to
krs, but why is it his responsibility alone to champion both sides of an issue?
It's not expected of the rest of us.
krs does an excellent job of playing devil's advocate. He throws it out there for the rest of us. It makes us talk, which forces us to see all sides of an issue; it makes us think; it attracts some of the best and brightest people I've had the pleasure of "meeting". And that, in my opinion, makes for an excellent chat board.
posted on January 21, 2001 03:39:59 PM new
Issues such as politics tend to polarize people. Such polarization leads to distortion. Persons with a more liberal view are seen as tree hugging, heathen whiners. Conservatives are viewed as machine gun carrying, bible thumping racists. Neither is the case. I think 99% of us lean much farther to the middle on both sides. The problem is that if you acknowledge the validity of a view from the other side of the aisle it is sometimes percieved as weakening your position. Even if that perception is only in ones own mind. Just my opinion but what do I know, I bought Atari stock!
posted on January 21, 2001 04:12:21 PM new
Well, I am definately polarized...not a fence strattler by any stretch
of the imagination. But I don't believe that my views are distorted.
Maybe distorted from your viewpoint?
I do believe that there is a tendency to make generalizations such
as you mentioned. But there is some truth in those generalizations.
Recently, my relatives from Mississippi came by to visit me, on their
way to tour the White House. During their visit, I discovered that
they were all carring guns! Each woman in the group had a gun in her
pocketbook. They probably had a Bible in there also.
Needless to say, I discouraged them from their planned vist to the White House.
These people voted for Bush! And you might call them gun toting,
Bible thumping racists and they would be proud of it! Can you imagine
that.
They probably see me as an atheist, non racist, bleeding heart liberal
I can see no distortion in their view of me and I can see no distortion
in my view of them.
I just wonder if 99% of Americans are leaning as much as you may think.
posted on January 21, 2001 04:32:36 PM new
Helen - You made a good point and I retract the 99% thing. I've known more than a few nuts on both sides. How about 75%?
