Seriously. Why rant about morality? (I borrowed the word "rant" from Robert Becker's recent response to me.) Or why not to rant about morality?
Is morality irrelevant to what the majority of educated Americans consider "intelligent" and worthwhile analyses of current events? Does bringing up one's emotional response to certain current events or the subject of morality in application to them justify the label "rant" of one's blog or comment?
Seriously. The connotations of the word "rant" are negative and insulting -- full stop. Especially when that word is addressed to a woman from a man it can easily be regarded as patronizing and patriarchal even in 2013.
But leaving off that dimension, is focusing on morality and revealing one's emotional reponse in addition to one's intellectual analysis of a scenario naive and immature and overly-emotional and annoying and too sissy/girlie? Worthy of the "rant" label?
Imagining a conversion from a patriarchal paradigm of power/control/competition, win/lose, hyper-masculinity, violently-enforced authority to a humanist paradigm of win/win, humanitarian cooperation, diplomacy, partnership, empathy and peace is a moral vision.
To discount such a vision and those committed to it and communicating on its behalf I feel is dooming and contributing one's deadweight of passionless pragmatism to the voracious sociopathic controllers, to a lemming-worthy slippery slope of dangerous compromise with evil.
What say you?
-------------
I don't believe anyone's "identity" here at OpenSalon. Only our words have meaning, if we're telling the truth that they come from within. If we're not, they don't. Robert who?
Fair question.
I'm not a fan of what you call the patriarchal paradigm.
So, is the question about morality or is it about emotional reactions? I wouldn't equate the two. You might, now that I think about it, need both for what I'd characterize as a Rant, though. Speaking personally, when I rant, I think I mean a combination of both. Emotional reaction, certainly, but I think the subject matter usually is morality.
Now, is that preferable to what you call Passionless Pragmatism? I think that depends. I'd say it may depend on what pragmatism serves. If you're talking about Henry Kissinger and Realpolitik, then yeah, I have to agree with you. But what happens when pragmatism is used for the purpose of maximizing morality?
I ask that question because pragmatism supporting morality is exactly where I struggle to live on OS and OurS, question by question. Not person by person, question by question, a distinction that arouses a whole lot of passion here without anyone identifying that this distinction is what's behind a lot of the friction here.
Personally, I'm not passionless about my pragmatism at all; quite the opposite. If the object of morality is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the greatest population while avoiding the persecution of minority populations to do so (tyranny of the majority), my own opinion is that pragmatism is one of the most useful tools I have to further the most moral results. Because I'm looking to further a result or series of results, I attach more importance to persuasion than I do to self-expression, at least in the political realm. (The artistic realm is something else altogether.)
So, am I addressing your question? I'm trying to; I hope I'm not missing the boat here.
But I like the question.
I'm not a fan of what you call the patriarchal paradigm.
So, is the question about morality or is it about emotional reactions? I wouldn't equate the two. You might, now that I think about it, need both for what I'd characterize as a Rant, though. Speaking personally, when I rant, I think I mean a combination of both. Emotional reaction, certainly, but I think the subject matter usually is morality.
Now, is that preferable to what you call Passionless Pragmatism? I think that depends. I'd say it may depend on what pragmatism serves. If you're talking about Henry Kissinger and Realpolitik, then yeah, I have to agree with you. But what happens when pragmatism is used for the purpose of maximizing morality?
I ask that question because pragmatism supporting morality is exactly where I struggle to live on OS and OurS, question by question. Not person by person, question by question, a distinction that arouses a whole lot of passion here without anyone identifying that this distinction is what's behind a lot of the friction here.
Personally, I'm not passionless about my pragmatism at all; quite the opposite. If the object of morality is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the greatest population while avoiding the persecution of minority populations to do so (tyranny of the majority), my own opinion is that pragmatism is one of the most useful tools I have to further the most moral results. Because I'm looking to further a result or series of results, I attach more importance to persuasion than I do to self-expression, at least in the political realm. (The artistic realm is something else altogether.)
So, am I addressing your question? I'm trying to; I hope I'm not missing the boat here.
But I like the question.
I've written "great rant" and meant it without irony on a few OSer's pieces. You're right that it has some connotation of bile eruption or irrationality but it covers more ground than just that. I'd have to give more thought to the gender dynamics aspect.
If one were to think about the current situation between the haves and have-nots, "morality rants" are just about all the have-nots have to use against "the powers in combination" that Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke of a hundred years ago.
The Haves Call for more sacrifice, hardship and austerity measures [under the name "sequestration"] while filling their pockets with more, more more: money, free premium healthcare packages; generous pensions; cost of living increases, etc.., while the Response [the only toll those without Means have] is the beautiful and powerful Morality Rant. There are no other choices; the powerless can either point out the hypocrisy and double standards or stay silent.
Personally, I like hearing a good Morality Rant, especially one that raises questions such as:
Are certain imbecile ex-Presidents always going to be remembered as worse than the imbeciles who voted for him?
Will certain wars always be judged fiascos rather than good ideas?
Is being a functional alcoholic single mother of two, who also smokes, but has been working her ass off six days a week raising those kids on poverty wages better than being her boss, who stays sober, goes to church, is pro-life, and has been giving himself [stealing] her share of the corporation's ever-increasing Productivity Dividend for the past twenty years?
The Haves Call for more sacrifice, hardship and austerity measures [under the name "sequestration"] while filling their pockets with more, more more: money, free premium healthcare packages; generous pensions; cost of living increases, etc.., while the Response [the only toll those without Means have] is the beautiful and powerful Morality Rant. There are no other choices; the powerless can either point out the hypocrisy and double standards or stay silent.
Personally, I like hearing a good Morality Rant, especially one that raises questions such as:
Are certain imbecile ex-Presidents always going to be remembered as worse than the imbeciles who voted for him?
Will certain wars always be judged fiascos rather than good ideas?
Is being a functional alcoholic single mother of two, who also smokes, but has been working her ass off six days a week raising those kids on poverty wages better than being her boss, who stays sober, goes to church, is pro-life, and has been giving himself [stealing] her share of the corporation's ever-increasing Productivity Dividend for the past twenty years?
Hmm. I don't give the word *rant* a gender. Used about a man or woman, I just see it as a passionate monologue vs. dialogue.
But, I saw Kathryn's comment, and I do put *shrill* in the category of sexist language that doesn't do anything for communication other than make the person using it look like a throw back to the dark ages.
The issue of discussing morality for me is not whether it is logic based or emotional. Each process has it's merits and it's place. The problem for me is that morals and ethics are not universal. And people wonder why we all can't just get along...
Interesting topic!
/r.
But, I saw Kathryn's comment, and I do put *shrill* in the category of sexist language that doesn't do anything for communication other than make the person using it look like a throw back to the dark ages.
The issue of discussing morality for me is not whether it is logic based or emotional. Each process has it's merits and it's place. The problem for me is that morals and ethics are not universal. And people wonder why we all can't just get along...
Interesting topic!
/r.
If any time is ripe for open anger at the way society is being perverted to gobble all the best parts and dump them on the undeserving scoundrels now in charge, it is certainly now. You can label it as a rant, or as a growing tsunami that's time is well past due and hopefully it will roll over and drown the bastards who are destroying whatever remnants of democracy remains on the USA scene. The lack of vigorous response to the current US economic, social and military situation is the major tragedy of the country.
I love rants; both reading them and writing them.
Morality is not emotional. Morality is reason based understanding of what works best while being least harmful. One can add emotion to a rant on a moral matter or one can be icy cool in the discussion of a moral matter but emotion is not an intrinsic part of morality.
Morality has to do with right and wrong. Since parts of right and parts of wrong are not static but ever changing one person's "right" can be another's "wrong".
Right being that which ranges from not being harmful to being actively helpful. Wrong ranges from not being helpful to actively being harmful. Your notions of morality - not necessarily the same for reach person - guide you in your choices of when to go with right and when with wrong.
And if you make the wrong choice you get to feel bad about it and learn from it. If you make the right choice you get to be smug and well pleased with yourself.
(~grin~)
R
.
Morality is not emotional. Morality is reason based understanding of what works best while being least harmful. One can add emotion to a rant on a moral matter or one can be icy cool in the discussion of a moral matter but emotion is not an intrinsic part of morality.
Morality has to do with right and wrong. Since parts of right and parts of wrong are not static but ever changing one person's "right" can be another's "wrong".
Right being that which ranges from not being harmful to being actively helpful. Wrong ranges from not being helpful to actively being harmful. Your notions of morality - not necessarily the same for reach person - guide you in your choices of when to go with right and when with wrong.
And if you make the wrong choice you get to feel bad about it and learn from it. If you make the right choice you get to be smug and well pleased with yourself.
(~grin~)
R
.
Rants are good, gets all that crap out of your system! I went off on Rush in one post and got a huge number of rating and comments! Felt much better after I got that fat ignominious mendacious bastard of my chest. Al Franken called him a big fat liar sold a million books and got himself elected to the US Senate. Why not?
R&R Go get 'em gurrrrlll!!!
R&R Go get 'em gurrrrlll!!!
Stacey, thanks for your interesting response!
kosh, thanks so much for responding. Your question back is a good one -- is the question about morality or is it about emotional reaction?
I think both. Emotionalism -- and not when it is personalized and negatively aimed at someone in our own community but spontaneously linked to the subject matter -- I am speaking of.
And I think the topic of morality, basic moral laws of human decency, anti-sociopathic behavior, is too easily dismissed by a gamesmanship mentality and intellectual style of political analysis not only often here but out there by our leaders and commentators. Too readily emotional expressions about morality are dismissed as ideological or too unrealistic to be given attention. I am talking again basic stuff. DO NOT KILL, DO NOT LIE, DO NOT STEAL. DO UNTO OTHERS. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. RIGHT MAKES RIGHT, NOT MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!
There is a cynicism that prevails today, infects us all and we seem to quit our citizen identities and become passive consuming identity watchers which is exactly what our sociopathic overlords want! Sophisticated and/or indifferent and/or cynical and/or distracted and/or overly trusting on politicians and/or media.
With me the emotions come with my focus on morality since I feel outrage at conditions and policies I see that I feel deserve to be called out. Sometimes when I try to focus on obscene realities in our governance and in our world I feel I am shouting into a hurricane, especially when the truth I am unearthing is not the information being fed to my fellow citizens often because it is not from the mainstream media. Also, because it does not fit into an uber-intellectualization going on. For example, Charlie Rose and guests talk about war as if it is an enjoyable chess game and dying thousands are just a tiny pawn being knocked over in the game. No reflection of the horror behind the strategy discussed. Brrrrrrrr.
I think we live in a VERY patriarchal, anti-feeling society and the degree of the amorality of the ruling class and its corporate media reflects that. Anti-feeling as in anti-empathy.
I also feel like among the centrist Dems there is a superciliousness to feelings and to moral discourse that has tragically aided and abetted sociopathic ruling class members who have betrayed us by encouraging blind trust within team Dem. Being so busy looking down on the tea partiers and Fox newsies and their "histrionics" the so-called progressives have become disconnected from important feelings and sensibilities of empathy and humanitarianism.
We all have personalities that have various dimensions which is why we click with some and don't click with some in life including on open salon. Sometimes we are attracted to our opposites or to similar ones, sometimes more indifferent or repelled by those categories.
I am a very feeling oriented person and a very intuitive person, too. I am not as intense with sensation and thinking-oriented dimensions. I think to compensate for this I strive to snip my quotations from others as research to endorse my positions. To back up my own emotional stances feeling like if I don't I will be discounted as being overly emotional and easily dismissed.
I also want to share information with others but also to inspire feelings sometimes. Maybe that puts me more in a muckraking kind of citizen journalism mode than the classic reporting journalism. So be it.
I still cringe at the word "rant" and believe me, it is a sensitive word I am venturing to declare especially when a man delivers it to a woman.
When pragmatism is used for the purpose of maximizing morality? Hmmmm. During the health care debate I saw pragmatism being used against morality in my opinion. I kept hearing the "lesser evilism" argument back then, but then it was called, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Re public option when universal healthcare seemed the moral and healthy and wholesome answer for this country and progressives were back-pedaling on those of us working so hard to finally get universal health care. Hearing about insurance company CEOs earning $9000 an hour and health care services being withdrawn from the neediest Americans was sickening!
1 in 6 children in America live in food insecure homes I am hearing on Democracy Now right now and the harsh slashing of food stamps at the same time. We need to be angry on behalf of these kids and channel that anger where it will please God do some good!
I have to ponder your following assertion:
"I ask that question because pragmatism supporting morality is exactly where I struggle to live on OS and OurS, question by question. Not person by person, question by question, a distinction that arouses a whole lot of passion here without anyone identifying that this distinction is what's behind a lot of the friction here.
"Personally, I'm not passionless about my pragmatism at all; quite the opposite. If the object of morality is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the greatest population while avoiding the persecution of minority populations to do so (tyranny of the majority), my own opinion is that pragmatism is one of the most useful tools I have to further the most moral results. Because I'm looking to further a result or series of results, I attach more importance to persuasion than I do to self-expression, at least in the political realm. (The artistic realm is something else altogether.)"
I don't think I would label what you may be labeling as your "pragmatism" pragmatism. I need to hear more about this from you. Are you talking in terms of a measured and tolerant-heavy communication style rather than the substance of your beliefs?
best, libby
kosh, thanks so much for responding. Your question back is a good one -- is the question about morality or is it about emotional reaction?
I think both. Emotionalism -- and not when it is personalized and negatively aimed at someone in our own community but spontaneously linked to the subject matter -- I am speaking of.
And I think the topic of morality, basic moral laws of human decency, anti-sociopathic behavior, is too easily dismissed by a gamesmanship mentality and intellectual style of political analysis not only often here but out there by our leaders and commentators. Too readily emotional expressions about morality are dismissed as ideological or too unrealistic to be given attention. I am talking again basic stuff. DO NOT KILL, DO NOT LIE, DO NOT STEAL. DO UNTO OTHERS. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. RIGHT MAKES RIGHT, NOT MIGHT MAKES RIGHT!
There is a cynicism that prevails today, infects us all and we seem to quit our citizen identities and become passive consuming identity watchers which is exactly what our sociopathic overlords want! Sophisticated and/or indifferent and/or cynical and/or distracted and/or overly trusting on politicians and/or media.
With me the emotions come with my focus on morality since I feel outrage at conditions and policies I see that I feel deserve to be called out. Sometimes when I try to focus on obscene realities in our governance and in our world I feel I am shouting into a hurricane, especially when the truth I am unearthing is not the information being fed to my fellow citizens often because it is not from the mainstream media. Also, because it does not fit into an uber-intellectualization going on. For example, Charlie Rose and guests talk about war as if it is an enjoyable chess game and dying thousands are just a tiny pawn being knocked over in the game. No reflection of the horror behind the strategy discussed. Brrrrrrrr.
I think we live in a VERY patriarchal, anti-feeling society and the degree of the amorality of the ruling class and its corporate media reflects that. Anti-feeling as in anti-empathy.
I also feel like among the centrist Dems there is a superciliousness to feelings and to moral discourse that has tragically aided and abetted sociopathic ruling class members who have betrayed us by encouraging blind trust within team Dem. Being so busy looking down on the tea partiers and Fox newsies and their "histrionics" the so-called progressives have become disconnected from important feelings and sensibilities of empathy and humanitarianism.
We all have personalities that have various dimensions which is why we click with some and don't click with some in life including on open salon. Sometimes we are attracted to our opposites or to similar ones, sometimes more indifferent or repelled by those categories.
I am a very feeling oriented person and a very intuitive person, too. I am not as intense with sensation and thinking-oriented dimensions. I think to compensate for this I strive to snip my quotations from others as research to endorse my positions. To back up my own emotional stances feeling like if I don't I will be discounted as being overly emotional and easily dismissed.
I also want to share information with others but also to inspire feelings sometimes. Maybe that puts me more in a muckraking kind of citizen journalism mode than the classic reporting journalism. So be it.
I still cringe at the word "rant" and believe me, it is a sensitive word I am venturing to declare especially when a man delivers it to a woman.
When pragmatism is used for the purpose of maximizing morality? Hmmmm. During the health care debate I saw pragmatism being used against morality in my opinion. I kept hearing the "lesser evilism" argument back then, but then it was called, "don't let the perfect be the enemy of the good." Re public option when universal healthcare seemed the moral and healthy and wholesome answer for this country and progressives were back-pedaling on those of us working so hard to finally get universal health care. Hearing about insurance company CEOs earning $9000 an hour and health care services being withdrawn from the neediest Americans was sickening!
1 in 6 children in America live in food insecure homes I am hearing on Democracy Now right now and the harsh slashing of food stamps at the same time. We need to be angry on behalf of these kids and channel that anger where it will please God do some good!
I have to ponder your following assertion:
"I ask that question because pragmatism supporting morality is exactly where I struggle to live on OS and OurS, question by question. Not person by person, question by question, a distinction that arouses a whole lot of passion here without anyone identifying that this distinction is what's behind a lot of the friction here.
"Personally, I'm not passionless about my pragmatism at all; quite the opposite. If the object of morality is to maximize benefit and minimize harm to the greatest population while avoiding the persecution of minority populations to do so (tyranny of the majority), my own opinion is that pragmatism is one of the most useful tools I have to further the most moral results. Because I'm looking to further a result or series of results, I attach more importance to persuasion than I do to self-expression, at least in the political realm. (The artistic realm is something else altogether.)"
I don't think I would label what you may be labeling as your "pragmatism" pragmatism. I need to hear more about this from you. Are you talking in terms of a measured and tolerant-heavy communication style rather than the substance of your beliefs?
best, libby
"Especially when that word is addressed to a woman from a man it can easily be regarded as patronizing and patriarchal even in 2013. "
This very thought ran through my brain as I read the title. Good hook though!
This very thought ran through my brain as I read the title. Good hook though!
Yes, Abra, thanks. Appreciated the "great", the "rant" brought a wince I remember. The fact that you seem somewhat surprised that there is a gender issue is cuz you are a guy. A woman would get it immediately. Non-logical and emotional are accusations women have had to contend with since forever. Some more than others. Being emotional messaged akin to stupidity or irrationality. The fact that Maya in Zero Dark Thirty can participate in torturing without losing much of an emotional beat is in no way a victory for our gender though hollywood and other media selling the opposite! To me what some consider ranting should be the new norm.
There is an amoral zombie-ism permeating our consciousness thanks to corporate media, thanks to obscene corporate capture, thanks to Obama with style not substance, who talks the talk of a sensitive person, looks like a sensitive person, and perpetrates and enables moral and legal criminality along with most of our aging millionaires in the other two branches of the government. I only wish I were being hyperbolic.
Thanks for commenting!
best, libby
There is an amoral zombie-ism permeating our consciousness thanks to corporate media, thanks to obscene corporate capture, thanks to Obama with style not substance, who talks the talk of a sensitive person, looks like a sensitive person, and perpetrates and enables moral and legal criminality along with most of our aging millionaires in the other two branches of the government. I only wish I were being hyperbolic.
Thanks for commenting!
best, libby
ps to Abra, you know the schtick the 3 Stooges used to do with "Niagara Falls" as triggering words? Well substitute the word "rant" with me and you got it. "Slowly I turned ... step by step..." etc. best, libby :-)
toritto, thanks! but even when I feel I am not even close to ranting just explaining I get dismissed and called out as merely and annoyingly ranting? sigh. but when bringing up morality and pushing for using morality as a frame of reference and a blueprint for policy globally, nationally, locally is called out as pollyanna distracting from the grownup discussion of pragmatic reality is bottom line insulting. I watch the NewsHour and wish I could see one of those talking heads do a Jack Benny look and cheek slap at the camera and say, "What an a**hole!" about some bullshit pouring out of some Dem OR Republican liar!
For myself I seem to get caught between assuming people are simply ignorant of the facts and need to catch up and my frustration that they do know the facts and don't seem to care.
Big Banks laundering enormous amounts of Mexican drug money for years and profit without any serious punishment and regulation. US tax dollars funding al-Qaeda. Assassination by drone of US citizens without due process. Massive drone kills of innocents, like first responders or mourners of the victims at funerals. WTF? Obama appointing fraudsters like Pritzker to cabinet. Innocent starving Gitmo detainees force-fed as a kind of latest torture. Whistleblowers harshly being made examples to prevent leaks.
You don't have to look hard to find amorality!
best, libby
For myself I seem to get caught between assuming people are simply ignorant of the facts and need to catch up and my frustration that they do know the facts and don't seem to care.
Big Banks laundering enormous amounts of Mexican drug money for years and profit without any serious punishment and regulation. US tax dollars funding al-Qaeda. Assassination by drone of US citizens without due process. Massive drone kills of innocents, like first responders or mourners of the victims at funerals. WTF? Obama appointing fraudsters like Pritzker to cabinet. Innocent starving Gitmo detainees force-fed as a kind of latest torture. Whistleblowers harshly being made examples to prevent leaks.
You don't have to look hard to find amorality!
best, libby
Steve, I like the way you think and write! Especially:
"If one were to think about the current situation between the haves and have-nots, "morality rants" are just about all the have-nots have to use against "the powers in combination" that Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke of a hundred years ago."
That and $5 gets one a latte at Starbucks. Well, we can at least still afford the proverbial rant.
I totally agree with you about the grotesque exploitation of the Haves' power and influences. Cronyism helps dilute any shame or guilt, the same as when guys join in a gang rape, something they would not do alone but follow often the sickest and most treacherous member of the group.
I remember reading Scott Peck's description of the Ma Lai massacre and his remarking on along with the horror of the carnage was the participants' collective lack of a sensibility of having done something morally and legally horrific. It almost never even got reported to anyone.
Your final questions are quite compelling.
What can be done about the corporate capture of democracy to fascism? About the destruction of the middle class and crushing of the working and non-working under-classes, the destruction of the physical globe itself, the destruction of mankind for profit, the destruction of education and culture in the US and internationally. The list can keep on going and the items are profound!
We can't do anything to change things until we get a critical mass of people willing to fight and push back who are being exploited and/or who have a capacity for empathy of the victims of the monster of sociopathy. Who take it seriously enough. It's late in the game, and the "divide up and conquer" think right and left, not up and down, continues to work. For one thing, MSNBC media personality cult bubble keeps people in denial imho! Propaganda gallops on.
"The economy is improving" -- now bobble your head up and down with the talking head on the tube. Geeeez.
best, libby
"If one were to think about the current situation between the haves and have-nots, "morality rants" are just about all the have-nots have to use against "the powers in combination" that Oliver Wendell Holmes spoke of a hundred years ago."
That and $5 gets one a latte at Starbucks. Well, we can at least still afford the proverbial rant.
I totally agree with you about the grotesque exploitation of the Haves' power and influences. Cronyism helps dilute any shame or guilt, the same as when guys join in a gang rape, something they would not do alone but follow often the sickest and most treacherous member of the group.
I remember reading Scott Peck's description of the Ma Lai massacre and his remarking on along with the horror of the carnage was the participants' collective lack of a sensibility of having done something morally and legally horrific. It almost never even got reported to anyone.
Your final questions are quite compelling.
What can be done about the corporate capture of democracy to fascism? About the destruction of the middle class and crushing of the working and non-working under-classes, the destruction of the physical globe itself, the destruction of mankind for profit, the destruction of education and culture in the US and internationally. The list can keep on going and the items are profound!
We can't do anything to change things until we get a critical mass of people willing to fight and push back who are being exploited and/or who have a capacity for empathy of the victims of the monster of sociopathy. Who take it seriously enough. It's late in the game, and the "divide up and conquer" think right and left, not up and down, continues to work. For one thing, MSNBC media personality cult bubble keeps people in denial imho! Propaganda gallops on.
"The economy is improving" -- now bobble your head up and down with the talking head on the tube. Geeeez.
best, libby
Kate, what a wonderful and juicy comment. I thank you!!!!
I was hoping I would get a fellow woman totally getting what I am trying to say above!
Your "shrill" attribution reminds me of an old quote from .... who was it? ... I can't remember and can't quickly find it via google, but some savvy woman said something years ago about when a man starts a war he is considered "assertive", when a woman puts a man on hold on the phone she is considered a presumptuous "b*tch."
I was in a poetry group a good while back and a female Gen Xer after I read one of my poems with a whiff of feminism in it leaned over and said, "Boy, that was really mean of you!"
Huh? Really?
As you write: "And even if I was "shrill" when you have an army of lawyers up your ass and invading your blog and email account, you have a right to be shrill!"
Yes sirree!!!! You do have the right. And for a more respectful adjective, too!
I have a username that is gender identifiable. I bet that there are a lot more women than men who get accused of that word, "ranting"! Our social conditioning has a lot to do with such double standardism.
And as I confided to the last labeler when I see that word "rant" it is like a trapdoor slides out from under me and I drop drop drop. Or as if what I have just tried to say has been crumpled up into a ball and tossed into the trash with that one generalizing judgment -- "rant" messaging my emotionalism shows weakness and lack of savvy and sophistication and not worth seriously heeding.
Like when people accuse someone of being overly sensitive when it is they who are too insensitive!
Let's reframe it!!!
I love love love the poem! You write:
"Do not go gentle into that good rant,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the rant.
"Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night because
"they become trolls on Open.Salon"
HAH!!!! MY SIDE HURTS NOW FROM LAUGHING, KATE!
"Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the rant.
"Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good rant.
"Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the ignorance of man."
"Rant on, Libby, rant on!"
Kate! I may just tape this to the top of my laptop! You rock.
best, libby
xxxx
I was hoping I would get a fellow woman totally getting what I am trying to say above!
Your "shrill" attribution reminds me of an old quote from .... who was it? ... I can't remember and can't quickly find it via google, but some savvy woman said something years ago about when a man starts a war he is considered "assertive", when a woman puts a man on hold on the phone she is considered a presumptuous "b*tch."
I was in a poetry group a good while back and a female Gen Xer after I read one of my poems with a whiff of feminism in it leaned over and said, "Boy, that was really mean of you!"
Huh? Really?
As you write: "And even if I was "shrill" when you have an army of lawyers up your ass and invading your blog and email account, you have a right to be shrill!"
Yes sirree!!!! You do have the right. And for a more respectful adjective, too!
I have a username that is gender identifiable. I bet that there are a lot more women than men who get accused of that word, "ranting"! Our social conditioning has a lot to do with such double standardism.
And as I confided to the last labeler when I see that word "rant" it is like a trapdoor slides out from under me and I drop drop drop. Or as if what I have just tried to say has been crumpled up into a ball and tossed into the trash with that one generalizing judgment -- "rant" messaging my emotionalism shows weakness and lack of savvy and sophistication and not worth seriously heeding.
Like when people accuse someone of being overly sensitive when it is they who are too insensitive!
Let's reframe it!!!
I love love love the poem! You write:
"Do not go gentle into that good rant,
Old age should burn and rave at close of day;
Rage, rage against the dying of the rant.
"Though wise men at their end know dark is right,
Because their words had forked no lightning they
Do not go gentle into that good night because
"they become trolls on Open.Salon"
HAH!!!! MY SIDE HURTS NOW FROM LAUGHING, KATE!
"Good men, the last wave by, crying how bright
Their frail deeds might have danced in a green bay,
Rage, rage against the dying of the rant.
"Wild men who caught and sang the sun in flight,
And learn, too late, they grieved it on its way,
Do not go gentle into that good rant.
"Grave men, near death, who see with blinding sight
Blind eyes could blaze like meteors and be gay,
Rage, rage against the ignorance of man."
"Rant on, Libby, rant on!"
Kate! I may just tape this to the top of my laptop! You rock.
best, libby
xxxx
onislandtime, good comment. thanks.
jan, thank you for putting it that way. I read a book years ago, The Dance of Anger, and the author wrote about the under-functioning of a person or a group can make a corresponding person or group over-function to compensate. So much amoral zombie-ism in our society. "learned helplessness" or "narcissism" or "propagandized ignorance" or ....
sky, that was very well put! thanks!
jmac, thanks for adding this. anger certainly does energize one. what scares me is when I get despairing. It happens more often these days. maybe I should be grateful I got triggered by the word, eh? I figure enough people are calling out the Republican scum. I feel duty bound to go after the Dem scum that has been "lesser evilized" and given an undeserving pass! I got really angry when Jon Stewart, the last person to lecture America on civility btw, went into his "civility" lecturing. I saw and see something dangerous about his cultivating the like-ability of some really dangerous political characters as he normalized and normalizes what they had and have done and are doing and let them be playful with him on the screen to boost their pr cred. Forget their character and illegal heinous acts. Like Condi Rice for example, etc. Okay, like the American Judas himself, BO. Sure JS called out important stuff during the Bush days and some during Obama but now respecting the personality cult bubble at all times. I'm thinking the time for chuckling over amorality is so over.
V-thanks for the validation on that one!
best, libby
jan, thank you for putting it that way. I read a book years ago, The Dance of Anger, and the author wrote about the under-functioning of a person or a group can make a corresponding person or group over-function to compensate. So much amoral zombie-ism in our society. "learned helplessness" or "narcissism" or "propagandized ignorance" or ....
sky, that was very well put! thanks!
jmac, thanks for adding this. anger certainly does energize one. what scares me is when I get despairing. It happens more often these days. maybe I should be grateful I got triggered by the word, eh? I figure enough people are calling out the Republican scum. I feel duty bound to go after the Dem scum that has been "lesser evilized" and given an undeserving pass! I got really angry when Jon Stewart, the last person to lecture America on civility btw, went into his "civility" lecturing. I saw and see something dangerous about his cultivating the like-ability of some really dangerous political characters as he normalized and normalizes what they had and have done and are doing and let them be playful with him on the screen to boost their pr cred. Forget their character and illegal heinous acts. Like Condi Rice for example, etc. Okay, like the American Judas himself, BO. Sure JS called out important stuff during the Bush days and some during Obama but now respecting the personality cult bubble at all times. I'm thinking the time for chuckling over amorality is so over.
V-thanks for the validation on that one!
best, libby
There seems to be an element here that always tries to shame those who express passion. I love writing and reading rants. Some are artless and some are artful and stirring. There seems way too little of it as opposed to too much. Ranting about how one hates rants is both comical and hypocritical. I disagree with you on one major thing: Your use of words such as "patriarchal" and pardigm seem too received language. Women are just as guilty of such actions, especially on OS, and I see smart and open minded men embracing whatever is right, a lot of the times. Recently, a strange bedfellow of mine became men's groups. They hate feminism and yet often rail against all women too. I am convinced that humanism is the only answer. The enemy of morality is bad people and gender is irrelevant. Still, I aware that words like shrill are used due to that framework.... lousy people will incorporate any stance to win an argument they should have no desire to win. Keep ranting on Libby!
`
I rant. But, I prefer venting.
That to be passionate. Feel.
Many are Threatened by it.
`
Passion is heart felt Caring
Care is same/same Courage.
If we don't vent we Pass Gas.
`
We'll explode. It's to Convey.
If we repress we go so Mute.
We'll simmer and Pop Cork
`
Speak
`
The inner being may dry up.
WE pause, be quiet, ` Speak.
Stinky pundits are insecure.
`
Calm
I rant. But, I prefer venting.
That to be passionate. Feel.
Many are Threatened by it.
`
Passion is heart felt Caring
Care is same/same Courage.
If we don't vent we Pass Gas.
`
We'll explode. It's to Convey.
If we repress we go so Mute.
We'll simmer and Pop Cork
`
Speak
`
The inner being may dry up.
WE pause, be quiet, ` Speak.
Stinky pundits are insecure.
`
Calm
Considering the past behavior of the public in general in protesting openly over meaningless wars, miserable government reaction to deep economic and other basic problems the American public has become strangely docile and compliant to the monstrous misbehavior of the current presidential regime and it is most appropriate to indulge in a bit of emotional screaming to awaken the sleeping giant when the giant is being attacked and dosed regularly with propagandistic tranquilizers and social poisons. There is quiet murder going on of the basic rights of the country and a bit of open panic is quite in order.
Libby,
To answer your question, I don't view pragmatism as a communications style, though one of the reasons I adopt my communications style is pragmatic, which is to say it works for me. It gets me respected, it gets me taken seriously, it means I don't get dismissed out of hand by too many people, and all of these get me the ability to get what I think is important listened to. Not necessarily agreed with, but listened to, and that's the first step, because without that step, arguments turn into pissing contests, and the trouble with pissing contests is that one has nearly zero opportunity to persuade the opposition of anything, at which point the arguing turns into mere posturing, which is unproductive. Contrary to what you might think, I am not knocking rants by saying this. I do rant from time to time; I called one of my posts a rant. However, my overall point isn't to say "I am outraged," it is to show that something about the status quo is so unreasonable that an average reader will be outraged by reading it; not to express outrage, but to elicit outrage.
My pragmatism is not the same as the President's pragmatism. I view a failure to advocate as phony pragmatism, and I see some of that in him, particularly when it comes to the inequality of resource distribution, which may be what outrages me most because of how extreme it has become. A lot of what I've written about economics is coming up with ways of illustrating just how extreme, or how counterproductive, which helps illustrate why extreme is a bad thing. But this doesn't answer your question. For me, pragmatism is about answering this question:
Now that I know what I want, what's the best way to get the most actually done?
It's about moving the needle in the right direction and minimizing its movement in the wrong direction. It is less about the What than about the How.
What do we want? Peace!
When do we want it? Now!
That's great, and I'm old enough to have chanted that (barely), but the real question, which I'm afraid doesn't chant so easily, is
How do we get it?
And That's what I mean by pragmatism. Show me the path. It's all about the path.
I write a whole lot about how wildly inequitable distribution is bad for business. This isn't because I care more about business than I do about who is being exploited and how; actually, I don't (though I do care about the collapse of our economy because of how many millions will be hurt). I write about it because I see that as the most promising sales pitch to a portion of the population that currently supports policies that encourage unequal distribution, and I want them on our side of the question, because there are a lot of them and they have influence and money. If a lot of business people develop impatience with how little the President is advocating redistribution that moves downward instead of upward, he is more likely to respond in a useful manner than he is now.
As angry as we are, as awful as things are, we still have to win the chess game. Losing it and screaming our outrage may be cathartic, but not helpful. Pragmatism, as I practice it, is all about winning the chess game. Why I want to win it is basically for the same reason you do.
To answer your question, I don't view pragmatism as a communications style, though one of the reasons I adopt my communications style is pragmatic, which is to say it works for me. It gets me respected, it gets me taken seriously, it means I don't get dismissed out of hand by too many people, and all of these get me the ability to get what I think is important listened to. Not necessarily agreed with, but listened to, and that's the first step, because without that step, arguments turn into pissing contests, and the trouble with pissing contests is that one has nearly zero opportunity to persuade the opposition of anything, at which point the arguing turns into mere posturing, which is unproductive. Contrary to what you might think, I am not knocking rants by saying this. I do rant from time to time; I called one of my posts a rant. However, my overall point isn't to say "I am outraged," it is to show that something about the status quo is so unreasonable that an average reader will be outraged by reading it; not to express outrage, but to elicit outrage.
My pragmatism is not the same as the President's pragmatism. I view a failure to advocate as phony pragmatism, and I see some of that in him, particularly when it comes to the inequality of resource distribution, which may be what outrages me most because of how extreme it has become. A lot of what I've written about economics is coming up with ways of illustrating just how extreme, or how counterproductive, which helps illustrate why extreme is a bad thing. But this doesn't answer your question. For me, pragmatism is about answering this question:
Now that I know what I want, what's the best way to get the most actually done?
It's about moving the needle in the right direction and minimizing its movement in the wrong direction. It is less about the What than about the How.
What do we want? Peace!
When do we want it? Now!
That's great, and I'm old enough to have chanted that (barely), but the real question, which I'm afraid doesn't chant so easily, is
How do we get it?
And That's what I mean by pragmatism. Show me the path. It's all about the path.
I write a whole lot about how wildly inequitable distribution is bad for business. This isn't because I care more about business than I do about who is being exploited and how; actually, I don't (though I do care about the collapse of our economy because of how many millions will be hurt). I write about it because I see that as the most promising sales pitch to a portion of the population that currently supports policies that encourage unequal distribution, and I want them on our side of the question, because there are a lot of them and they have influence and money. If a lot of business people develop impatience with how little the President is advocating redistribution that moves downward instead of upward, he is more likely to respond in a useful manner than he is now.
As angry as we are, as awful as things are, we still have to win the chess game. Losing it and screaming our outrage may be cathartic, but not helpful. Pragmatism, as I practice it, is all about winning the chess game. Why I want to win it is basically for the same reason you do.
I love this thread! How enlightening!
An effective Morality Rant is also, in my opinion, very hard to pull off: lean too far towards emotion, and you sound like a sissy; lean too hard on dry fact, leave the reader cold. Furthermore, the overall effect of a less the perfect rant often stirs the flames of contempt, rather than the warm glow of compassion and a deeper understanding.
Yet that said, I do believe Morality Rants are very worth the time and effort, and, even more importantly, it should be understood that that those of us who have an emotion-based outlook seem to be able to "see" something that logic-based thinkers cannot, something that is important, missing in the Mainstream, and very much a needed key ingredient, nay, probably, the cornerstone ingredient, that humanity, without, would be nothing more than cold and soulless savages with a value system measured only in Dollars and Cents, rather than Compassionate Sense.
An effective Morality Rant is also, in my opinion, very hard to pull off: lean too far towards emotion, and you sound like a sissy; lean too hard on dry fact, leave the reader cold. Furthermore, the overall effect of a less the perfect rant often stirs the flames of contempt, rather than the warm glow of compassion and a deeper understanding.
Yet that said, I do believe Morality Rants are very worth the time and effort, and, even more importantly, it should be understood that that those of us who have an emotion-based outlook seem to be able to "see" something that logic-based thinkers cannot, something that is important, missing in the Mainstream, and very much a needed key ingredient, nay, probably, the cornerstone ingredient, that humanity, without, would be nothing more than cold and soulless savages with a value system measured only in Dollars and Cents, rather than Compassionate Sense.
If we don't have morality, what is left? I am a BIG fan of the patriarchal model you talk about. The fact that some readers aren't shows their ignorance. Anthropologists have clearly proven this as well as any observational science can be proven in the study of Bonobo vs Chimpanzee societies with one being matriarchal and the other patriarchal. Bonobos solve issues peacefully, being matriarchal. Chimpanzees use violence being patriarchal. Of course, if you have a completely flat society, which is a stateless world, both models are irrelevant. The world would be a better place without the state. But, that isn't likely to appear anytime soon.
I love Steve's question about the mother and morality. It is spot on and shows how class perpetuates violence using covert methods and the subconscious ego's shadow. The ego can rationalize anything. But Jesus of Nazareth or the Buddha or ancient Yogis would recognize the plight of the mother as being someone who was exploited and victimized by a system of evil and corruption. She would recognized as worthy.
I don't know who the person is you are referring to in your post but let me say this. In the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America, Daniel Ellsberg's attorneys didn't want any white, professional males on his jury. There was a simple reason. Ellsberg had a crisis of conscience or an awakening to his ego-motive and turned against a corrupt and evil system that once made him wealthy, powerful and famous. White, male professionals in the system had given up their morality in exchange for success, power fame. Thus, would never empathize or see the world through the eyes of someone who had chosen to stand to account rather than sell his soul to the proverbial devil as they had. No ego ever wants to be held to account or be personally responsible. The ego will do anything to avoid both. To make someone driven primarily by an outsize ego confront their own rationalizations of morality and justice and virtue is nearly impossible without first creating a nonconfirming crisis of the ego as Ellsberg had experienced. Or, to put it in terms most people und3erstand, this is what the Wachowski brothers were trying to show in the movie, The Matrix. Neo, who was in the matrix, experienced his own crisis of the ego when he was pulled out of the system and made to view truth and reality. Only then did he have his own crisis of the ego and its perceptions and rationalization.
Dare I say the vast majority of people never awaken to reality until the world around them forces an awakening. The ego is driven by fear and control. It will never awaken on its own. It must be essentially shocked into resetting and reconnecting to our higher power and the recognition of mindfulness and awareness and discovery.
The person who called you out for ranting about morality is likely to be Neo or the white, professional male whose ego has sold himself into the system.
I love Steve's question about the mother and morality. It is spot on and shows how class perpetuates violence using covert methods and the subconscious ego's shadow. The ego can rationalize anything. But Jesus of Nazareth or the Buddha or ancient Yogis would recognize the plight of the mother as being someone who was exploited and victimized by a system of evil and corruption. She would recognized as worthy.
I don't know who the person is you are referring to in your post but let me say this. In the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America, Daniel Ellsberg's attorneys didn't want any white, professional males on his jury. There was a simple reason. Ellsberg had a crisis of conscience or an awakening to his ego-motive and turned against a corrupt and evil system that once made him wealthy, powerful and famous. White, male professionals in the system had given up their morality in exchange for success, power fame. Thus, would never empathize or see the world through the eyes of someone who had chosen to stand to account rather than sell his soul to the proverbial devil as they had. No ego ever wants to be held to account or be personally responsible. The ego will do anything to avoid both. To make someone driven primarily by an outsize ego confront their own rationalizations of morality and justice and virtue is nearly impossible without first creating a nonconfirming crisis of the ego as Ellsberg had experienced. Or, to put it in terms most people und3erstand, this is what the Wachowski brothers were trying to show in the movie, The Matrix. Neo, who was in the matrix, experienced his own crisis of the ego when he was pulled out of the system and made to view truth and reality. Only then did he have his own crisis of the ego and its perceptions and rationalization.
Dare I say the vast majority of people never awaken to reality until the world around them forces an awakening. The ego is driven by fear and control. It will never awaken on its own. It must be essentially shocked into resetting and reconnecting to our higher power and the recognition of mindfulness and awareness and discovery.
The person who called you out for ranting about morality is likely to be Neo or the white, professional male whose ego has sold himself into the system.
i live to rant. and i pity people who mistake idealistic passion for unrealistic drama. not an uncommon occurrence, in our overmedicated overanalyzed society.
keep on fighting the good fight, and yes, fuck the patriarchy that tells us to calm down while it poisons the entire planet, and the men in charge say sure, go ahead, dominion is ours.
cheers, libby.
keep on fighting the good fight, and yes, fuck the patriarchy that tells us to calm down while it poisons the entire planet, and the men in charge say sure, go ahead, dominion is ours.
cheers, libby.
Libby,
Forgot to reply to something in your last comment to me, just because I think you'll understand this:
I'm an ESTJ married to an INFP. (I learned that stuff because of my wife's occupation.)
Forgot to reply to something in your last comment to me, just because I think you'll understand this:
I'm an ESTJ married to an INFP. (I learned that stuff because of my wife's occupation.)
I've never seen a 'pragmatic' injustice nor 'realistic' pollution nor 'workable' inequality. There's no choice but to fight for what's right.
For me there are two kinds of rants: one that lays out the facts of the offense with little or no loaded words and phrases, and one that almost obscures the facts of the offense by using too many loaded words and phrases.
For you, Libby, the word "rant" is loaded. For me it's not, although I am a woman who is normally concerned about sexist (and all other "ists") language. Many of my posts are called "rants" by people I know are not in any way using the term in a sexist way. I am most apt to write rants of the "little or few loaded words or phrases" variety, so I never interpret the characterization of my post as a rant as being sexist.
For me, the fewer descriptors that smack of judgment, the better I like it. It allows me to see the facts of the offense clearly and to reach my own conclusions about the relative morality of it.
I used to be quick to anger; in fact, I still am. What I have changed in my older age, however, is what I decide to write about those angry feelings as opposed to what I write about the facts of the source of my anger. I have found since doing so that I have much better luck getting my points across. Anger obscures them.
Lezlie
For you, Libby, the word "rant" is loaded. For me it's not, although I am a woman who is normally concerned about sexist (and all other "ists") language. Many of my posts are called "rants" by people I know are not in any way using the term in a sexist way. I am most apt to write rants of the "little or few loaded words or phrases" variety, so I never interpret the characterization of my post as a rant as being sexist.
For me, the fewer descriptors that smack of judgment, the better I like it. It allows me to see the facts of the offense clearly and to reach my own conclusions about the relative morality of it.
I used to be quick to anger; in fact, I still am. What I have changed in my older age, however, is what I decide to write about those angry feelings as opposed to what I write about the facts of the source of my anger. I have found since doing so that I have much better luck getting my points across. Anger obscures them.
Lezlie
I don't understand the distinction you draw concerning who speaks the word and whom they speak it to . . .
how heartening to get more great comments to enjoy, learn from, get energy and comfort from (I went from mojo-losing despair to confusing emotional tailspin this week). thanks. All this is unexpected and seriously helping me get my mojo back. am on my way to work but I hope will get to address comments during dinner/coffee break later! best, libby
Fernsy, I groove on passionate blogs written from the heart and from experience calling out injustice! I so often appreciate your heartfelt blogs.
We need that real and basic style of communication desperately in our society. Especially in a culture that seems to ignore and avoid expressing empathy and championing justice. A media that only gives attention for the sake of short-lived titillation. Unwilling to really look at what is happening to people with the present economic terrorism because of corporate cronyism with our government reps who stopped being that a long time ago. Encouraging its viewers to have consumer not citizen identities. Encouraging them to be passive and to over-identify with the young percent and not relate and support their fellow lower 99%ers! The 1 percent along with our political reps are all in on the rigged game against the 99%ers.
Re the communications in bloggingville, I do think there are temperaments that are kindred or similar and expression of strong feelings with ideas and assertions enhance communication-speak for such people, and for others the emotionalism actually threatens or worse annoys them getting the point, which is not only frustrating for the listener but for the communicator. So be it, I guess. Different strokes. I have to stop being so surprised when I hit the glass wall of communication. I feel these people are supported by a "suck it up" anti-feeling society that encourages an overly intellectual and detached mindset!
You write:
"Ranting about how one hates rants is both comical and hypocritical."
Hah! Great point. Sometimes those accusing someone of over-emotionalism are covering up their own emotionalism and their own emotional triggers. The attack the messenger scenario.
I missed what you are saying about a patriarchal paradigm. The use of those words? I borrowed them from Marion Woodman who writes about yin vs yang spirit, patriarchal vs humanist spirit, masculine and feminine modes of relating (not biologically determined or gender-based but styles of relating -- masculine is about power and competition, feminine about partnership and cooperation). I agree that there are a lot of fabulous feeling and intuition oriented men who give and deserve support out there and on our website.
Thanks for commenting!
best, libby
We need that real and basic style of communication desperately in our society. Especially in a culture that seems to ignore and avoid expressing empathy and championing justice. A media that only gives attention for the sake of short-lived titillation. Unwilling to really look at what is happening to people with the present economic terrorism because of corporate cronyism with our government reps who stopped being that a long time ago. Encouraging its viewers to have consumer not citizen identities. Encouraging them to be passive and to over-identify with the young percent and not relate and support their fellow lower 99%ers! The 1 percent along with our political reps are all in on the rigged game against the 99%ers.
Re the communications in bloggingville, I do think there are temperaments that are kindred or similar and expression of strong feelings with ideas and assertions enhance communication-speak for such people, and for others the emotionalism actually threatens or worse annoys them getting the point, which is not only frustrating for the listener but for the communicator. So be it, I guess. Different strokes. I have to stop being so surprised when I hit the glass wall of communication. I feel these people are supported by a "suck it up" anti-feeling society that encourages an overly intellectual and detached mindset!
You write:
"Ranting about how one hates rants is both comical and hypocritical."
Hah! Great point. Sometimes those accusing someone of over-emotionalism are covering up their own emotionalism and their own emotional triggers. The attack the messenger scenario.
I missed what you are saying about a patriarchal paradigm. The use of those words? I borrowed them from Marion Woodman who writes about yin vs yang spirit, patriarchal vs humanist spirit, masculine and feminine modes of relating (not biologically determined or gender-based but styles of relating -- masculine is about power and competition, feminine about partnership and cooperation). I agree that there are a lot of fabulous feeling and intuition oriented men who give and deserve support out there and on our website.
Thanks for commenting!
best, libby
Art, that, too, I may tape on top of my laptop! Thanks for the wisdom and poetry and humor. best, libby
Couldn't every editorial be described as a mild rant? To me a rant is an opinion run amok. And a moral stance is usually at the heart of every editorial. I don't think you can separate morals from emotions. The "basic stuff" you refer to: DO NOT KILL, DO NOT LIE, DO NOT STEAL. DO UNTO OTHERS. TWO WRONGS DON'T MAKE A RIGHT. RIGHT MAKES RIGHT, NOT MIGHT MAKES RIGHT! all elicit strong emotional responses. Morality wouldn't even exist without emotions.
I'm not sure we all define rant the same way. I think a rant is more about presentation and anger than validity of content.
Hmmmm....interesting Lib. Simply put, if I find something to be over written to the point of losing topic , to me, I consider it to be *long winded* and I become bored. For me a rant could also be long winded but when directed toward one particular topic and not over written can be quite amusing and fun to read. As an example, I find some of the comments here to be extremely long winded yet I would not consider them rants... but just....well..boring. No I am NOT going to point fingers! :-) As Kosh said we all view the word rant in a different light. So rant, or long wind, your heart away and don't worry about making anyone else happy but you. So what was the question?
Jan, you write:
"... the American public has become strangely docile and compliant to the monstrous misbehavior of the current presidential regime and it is most appropriate to indulge in a bit of emotional screaming to awaken the sleeping giant when the giant is being attacked and dosed regularly with propagandistic tranquilizers and social poisons. There is quiet murder going on of the basic rights of the country and a bit of open panic is quite in order."
Jan. Once again you nail it most eloquently and pointedly. When some of us see it so clearly or see just the surface of what is happening and the real scope is even more horrifying.
For the levels of amorality our government system has sunk to, there is profoundly minimal citizen blowback still.
We are dealing with two dimensions of horror, in fact. There is our justified horror over the levels of mass evil being perpetrated by our leadership and the even greater horror of those in distracted denial (who are suffering among the trees of harsh US life and can't see the entire forest is also now on fire) and the more betraying and willful denieres who simply won't heed the cognitive dissonance because they have no strong sense of citizen responsibility or empathy for fellow humans, not foreign or fellow Americans, or who are lost to "authoritarian following" Pavlovian loyalty that rank has its privilege and can do ANYTHING. Murder, steal, torture, defy constitutional laws, etc.
I talk about the 5 stages of grief post the first Obama election, but this has gone beyond the beyond in terms of that arc. Bargaining phase and then what? Depression and then acceptance? We really don't have that kind of time. When Obama won the second time and people stubbornly refused to entertain wholesome options for leadership, many because those options were not endorsed by the magic box, corporate propaganda. 6 mega-conglomerates primarily determine the NEWS that is released on the tv. I remember the wall screens in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451!
Yes, the slowness of mass citizen outrage is due to the incredible 24/7 seductive corporate propaganda that with its misdirection and misinformation and incompetence and amorality and deliberate and willful and evil-choosing collusion normalize and encourage amorality and PASSIVITY.
Cronyism of the evil cog people makes them rationalize their participation in massive evil -- specialization Scott Peck identifies it as -- and those people justify their own participation by the numbers of others participating -- so majority rules so to speak. I think of the expression "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong." But they were.
And then there are the "Good Germans" who are not front line participants but are accessories in enabling the conditions of amorality and injustice in America. And chillingly, are willing even to push their own children into harm's way either militarily or environmentally or career-wise or other dimensions to protect their own jingoistic mythology of what constitutes "normal" and "praiseworthy" citizenship and even when they see evidence of tragedy among their own children and the children of others -- the doom of physical or psychological or economic tragedy -- they carry on enabling the mythology and the lies. Keeps away any serious sense of guilt and responsibility. I think of Cindy Sheehan as a parent who got it and PUSHED AND STILL PUSHES BACK!
I wondered how Hitler's Germany happened. I no longer wonder. It is happening around us in the U.S.
Jan, the fact that this blog has garnered so much interest does give me some hope. And does make me think there is more of a momentum readying itself at open salon than I believed. I wonder. I feel we keep bumping our noses against granite rock denial or even profound minimization a/k/a "lesser evilism" but maybe there is some awareness. We have more and more colossal evidence by Obama et al. of the escalation of fascism happening all about us.
3 kinds of people. Those who make things happen. Those who watch things happen. And those who ask very late "WTF happened?" We need people to move into stage one, whether in stage 3 or stage 2. Myself included too often in the stage 2 seat!
best, libby
"... the American public has become strangely docile and compliant to the monstrous misbehavior of the current presidential regime and it is most appropriate to indulge in a bit of emotional screaming to awaken the sleeping giant when the giant is being attacked and dosed regularly with propagandistic tranquilizers and social poisons. There is quiet murder going on of the basic rights of the country and a bit of open panic is quite in order."
Jan. Once again you nail it most eloquently and pointedly. When some of us see it so clearly or see just the surface of what is happening and the real scope is even more horrifying.
For the levels of amorality our government system has sunk to, there is profoundly minimal citizen blowback still.
We are dealing with two dimensions of horror, in fact. There is our justified horror over the levels of mass evil being perpetrated by our leadership and the even greater horror of those in distracted denial (who are suffering among the trees of harsh US life and can't see the entire forest is also now on fire) and the more betraying and willful denieres who simply won't heed the cognitive dissonance because they have no strong sense of citizen responsibility or empathy for fellow humans, not foreign or fellow Americans, or who are lost to "authoritarian following" Pavlovian loyalty that rank has its privilege and can do ANYTHING. Murder, steal, torture, defy constitutional laws, etc.
I talk about the 5 stages of grief post the first Obama election, but this has gone beyond the beyond in terms of that arc. Bargaining phase and then what? Depression and then acceptance? We really don't have that kind of time. When Obama won the second time and people stubbornly refused to entertain wholesome options for leadership, many because those options were not endorsed by the magic box, corporate propaganda. 6 mega-conglomerates primarily determine the NEWS that is released on the tv. I remember the wall screens in Bradbury's Fahrenheit 451!
Yes, the slowness of mass citizen outrage is due to the incredible 24/7 seductive corporate propaganda that with its misdirection and misinformation and incompetence and amorality and deliberate and willful and evil-choosing collusion normalize and encourage amorality and PASSIVITY.
Cronyism of the evil cog people makes them rationalize their participation in massive evil -- specialization Scott Peck identifies it as -- and those people justify their own participation by the numbers of others participating -- so majority rules so to speak. I think of the expression "50 million Frenchmen can't be wrong." But they were.
And then there are the "Good Germans" who are not front line participants but are accessories in enabling the conditions of amorality and injustice in America. And chillingly, are willing even to push their own children into harm's way either militarily or environmentally or career-wise or other dimensions to protect their own jingoistic mythology of what constitutes "normal" and "praiseworthy" citizenship and even when they see evidence of tragedy among their own children and the children of others -- the doom of physical or psychological or economic tragedy -- they carry on enabling the mythology and the lies. Keeps away any serious sense of guilt and responsibility. I think of Cindy Sheehan as a parent who got it and PUSHED AND STILL PUSHES BACK!
I wondered how Hitler's Germany happened. I no longer wonder. It is happening around us in the U.S.
Jan, the fact that this blog has garnered so much interest does give me some hope. And does make me think there is more of a momentum readying itself at open salon than I believed. I wonder. I feel we keep bumping our noses against granite rock denial or even profound minimization a/k/a "lesser evilism" but maybe there is some awareness. We have more and more colossal evidence by Obama et al. of the escalation of fascism happening all about us.
3 kinds of people. Those who make things happen. Those who watch things happen. And those who ask very late "WTF happened?" We need people to move into stage one, whether in stage 3 or stage 2. Myself included too often in the stage 2 seat!
best, libby
Kate, I was giving you credit for doing some tweaking of DT! No? Should I look it up? ... been a long time since I read it. Did you just substitute rant for good night? Well, it sure worked for me!!! :-)
Kosh, thanks for coming back and expanding on your response to this blog. You write:
"To answer your question, I don't view pragmatism as a communications style, though one of the reasons I adopt my communications style is pragmatic, which is to say it works for me.
"It gets me respected, it gets me taken seriously, it means I don't get dismissed out of hand by too many people, and all of these get me the ability to get what I think is important listened to.
"Not necessarily agreed with, but listened to, and that's the first step, because without that step, arguments turn into pissing contests, and the trouble with pissing contests is that one has nearly zero opportunity to persuade the opposition of anything, at which point the arguing turns into mere posturing, which is unproductive."
end of quote
Yes, kosh. I seriously hear you on this and appreciate what you are saying. And what you do and try to do at open salon. Keeping the exchanges going.
And there are styles of communication here based on goals and based on temperaments of each one of us. And payoffs and losses with chosen styles and subjects for communication.
Also, I ask but I don’t think you could get it being a guy, how far being a quiet voiced female on this website discussing my very strong political view would have gotten me in terms of being listened to. But setting that dimension aside, ...
Sometimes -- often -- there is the seduction of "cronyism" and the gravity of “group-think” in such a role as you describe for yourself, too. Especially in a day and age of ours where "personality over principle" is such a factor in sensibility thanks to a media that brands and highlights and manipulates the power of "personality" and does not celebrate the attributes of character and the overall realistic conditions of all Americans and that extends rationalizations of "lesser evilism" and frames way too much in that light.
In such a world where such colossal levels of evil are corrupting our welfares as citizens. We are not talking pockets of corruption any more in upper government, the military, the courts, the media. We are talking the whole enchilada. Kucinich did his own over-compromising at times, but with him gone and men like Russ Feingold, who are we left with? I just saw Frank and Dodd on Charlie Rose taking bows for Dodd-Frank bill the toothless excuse for regulation. I don't see that as a step in the right direction. I see that as ONE MORE CON!
We obviously have different degrees of trust in our governance, kosh.
I wish I felt that there was a Democratic path to recovery. But the Democratic Party with Obama jumped the shark in terms of trustworthiness. They are corporate captured. Bipartisanship is a con from Obama's lips. This is how I see it and how I feel compelled to describe it.
You write:
"My pragmatism is not the same as the President's pragmatism. I view a failure to advocate as phony pragmatism, and I see some of that in him, particularly when it comes to the inequality of resource distribution, which may be what outrages me most because of how extreme it has become.
“A lot of what I've written about economics is coming up with ways of illustrating just how extreme, or how counterproductive, which helps illustrate why extreme is a bad thing. But this doesn't answer your question. For me, pragmatism is about answering this question:
"Now that I know what I want, what's the best way to get the most actually done?
"It's about moving the needle in the right direction and minimizing its movement in the wrong direction. It is less about the What than about the How.
"What do we want? Peace!
"When do we want it? Now!
That's great, and I'm old enough to have chanted that (barely), but the real question, which I'm afraid doesn't chant so easily, is
How do we get it?"
end of your quote
You want the path you write.
I want people on the same page of AWARENESS and then together we can find the path. A tremendous awareness of a sensibility of morality and our outrage of the awareness of what disgraceful and colossally amoral things have been done will build a collective power. A force. A MOVEMENT as there have been MOVEMENTS before. I was sorry Obama was too young to be around for the Vietnam War protests. He did not experience the HOPE AND COMMITMENT from those committed to the fight then. I also say here that those of us in that generation DROPPED THE BALL SERIOUSLY COLLECTIVELY.
I keep blogging about the details of the evil that are happening that the mainstream media WON’T DISCLOSE OR WON’T EMPHASIZE so thus distort. Our enabling Al Qaeda???? All the sweetheart deals our craven politicians make with the oligarchs. Our major banks with their win/win deals with DRUG CARTELS????? WTF????
I learned in the 12 step rooms the 3 As. AWARENESS to ACCEPTANCE to ACTION.
I know some of my writings -- THE TONE OF THEM -- are off-putting (it is hard for me to discuss Gitmo without being full out angry and I know that doesn’t get me hits or ratings) and I will continue to grow and learn by blogging. I have lost my potential to communicate with some perhaps and that is too bad and I know I am a humble human being finding herself and her voice always in this adventure of life. I come from a unique background that influences my sensibility of my world and my fellow humans. We all do.
You write:
"I write a whole lot about how wildly inequitable distribution is bad for business. This isn't because I care more about business than I do about who is being exploited and how; actually, I don't (though I do care about the collapse of our economy because of how many millions will be hurt). I write about it because I see that as the most promising sales pitch to a portion of the population that currently supports policies that encourage unequal distribution, and I want them on our side of the question, because there are a lot of them and they have influence and money.
"If a lot of business people develop impatience with how little the President is advocating redistribution that moves downward instead of upward, he is more likely to respond in a useful manner than he is now."
"As angry as we are, as awful as things are, we still have to win the chess game."
end of your quote
I appreciate what you have said and it may simply come down to different audiences for us, too. I am born of the working class and being female never been in the boys' elite club despite having a college education I was so very lucky to acquire.
I hope you respect me more than assuming I write my blogs so frequently and rigorously to share what I am learning and not just for catharsis. Sometimes there is that, or at least something for me to actually do to try to fight the quicksand I feel all of us citizens are entrapped in. Sometimes I feel like Cher in the movie Moonstruck who slaps Nicholas Cage across the face and yells, SNAP OUT OF IT!!!
I feel the lost to cronyism capitalists are willing to rearrange deck chairs on our Titanic and then self-congratulate or let a whoring media do it for them. I think most if not all of them are incapable of truly empathizing with ordinary working people. I think there is a tragic and colossal collective exceptionalism of those in the gated community of privilege and here I am not just talking about the 1%. Like those in the south who did not own slaves but happily socialized with the plantation owners -- guilt free.
FDR and Eleanor were exceptional in being in power and "getting it", what was happening to ordinary Americans. How rare they were and how powerful they were, though many of their pro-working people justice-enabling contributions are being and have been undone by the Clinton and Bush and Obama elites and opportunistic and patriarchal crowd (along with Reagan and others before them).
We are not talking now about empathy for foreign peoples even. The murders, mass murders, going on with foreign peoples. We are talking about the slower economic murder and terrorism via withdrawing health care and living wage jobs for regular Americans and in your face corporate criminality Obama smiles and enables.
You talk about "losing it"? Do you think I am "losing it", kosh?
I think a lot of people are "losing it" and by it I mean a sensibility of morality. And if they had it they would be joining me in my OUTRAGE!
You talk about a chess game? I talk about the gamesmanship of politics that is so rigged and creepy and that the media gets so very hyped about which doesn't touch our welfares, save to worsen them.
There is advice to women in alanon -- it tells them to leave their enabling circle of futility game. It says it is not about winning a LOSING game, it is about stopping playing the game with the addict.
The greed addicts, the war addicts, the power and control and fame and money addicts. The amoral.
And their sycophants. Their enablers. The parasites that live off the parasites of our former democracy.
I am tired of them all playing games that put my welfare and the welfares of the family of men and women and children, globally, on the table.
I appreciate this exchange, kosh. thank you.
best, libby
"To answer your question, I don't view pragmatism as a communications style, though one of the reasons I adopt my communications style is pragmatic, which is to say it works for me.
"It gets me respected, it gets me taken seriously, it means I don't get dismissed out of hand by too many people, and all of these get me the ability to get what I think is important listened to.
"Not necessarily agreed with, but listened to, and that's the first step, because without that step, arguments turn into pissing contests, and the trouble with pissing contests is that one has nearly zero opportunity to persuade the opposition of anything, at which point the arguing turns into mere posturing, which is unproductive."
end of quote
Yes, kosh. I seriously hear you on this and appreciate what you are saying. And what you do and try to do at open salon. Keeping the exchanges going.
And there are styles of communication here based on goals and based on temperaments of each one of us. And payoffs and losses with chosen styles and subjects for communication.
Also, I ask but I don’t think you could get it being a guy, how far being a quiet voiced female on this website discussing my very strong political view would have gotten me in terms of being listened to. But setting that dimension aside, ...
Sometimes -- often -- there is the seduction of "cronyism" and the gravity of “group-think” in such a role as you describe for yourself, too. Especially in a day and age of ours where "personality over principle" is such a factor in sensibility thanks to a media that brands and highlights and manipulates the power of "personality" and does not celebrate the attributes of character and the overall realistic conditions of all Americans and that extends rationalizations of "lesser evilism" and frames way too much in that light.
In such a world where such colossal levels of evil are corrupting our welfares as citizens. We are not talking pockets of corruption any more in upper government, the military, the courts, the media. We are talking the whole enchilada. Kucinich did his own over-compromising at times, but with him gone and men like Russ Feingold, who are we left with? I just saw Frank and Dodd on Charlie Rose taking bows for Dodd-Frank bill the toothless excuse for regulation. I don't see that as a step in the right direction. I see that as ONE MORE CON!
We obviously have different degrees of trust in our governance, kosh.
I wish I felt that there was a Democratic path to recovery. But the Democratic Party with Obama jumped the shark in terms of trustworthiness. They are corporate captured. Bipartisanship is a con from Obama's lips. This is how I see it and how I feel compelled to describe it.
You write:
"My pragmatism is not the same as the President's pragmatism. I view a failure to advocate as phony pragmatism, and I see some of that in him, particularly when it comes to the inequality of resource distribution, which may be what outrages me most because of how extreme it has become.
“A lot of what I've written about economics is coming up with ways of illustrating just how extreme, or how counterproductive, which helps illustrate why extreme is a bad thing. But this doesn't answer your question. For me, pragmatism is about answering this question:
"Now that I know what I want, what's the best way to get the most actually done?
"It's about moving the needle in the right direction and minimizing its movement in the wrong direction. It is less about the What than about the How.
"What do we want? Peace!
"When do we want it? Now!
That's great, and I'm old enough to have chanted that (barely), but the real question, which I'm afraid doesn't chant so easily, is
How do we get it?"
end of your quote
You want the path you write.
I want people on the same page of AWARENESS and then together we can find the path. A tremendous awareness of a sensibility of morality and our outrage of the awareness of what disgraceful and colossally amoral things have been done will build a collective power. A force. A MOVEMENT as there have been MOVEMENTS before. I was sorry Obama was too young to be around for the Vietnam War protests. He did not experience the HOPE AND COMMITMENT from those committed to the fight then. I also say here that those of us in that generation DROPPED THE BALL SERIOUSLY COLLECTIVELY.
I keep blogging about the details of the evil that are happening that the mainstream media WON’T DISCLOSE OR WON’T EMPHASIZE so thus distort. Our enabling Al Qaeda???? All the sweetheart deals our craven politicians make with the oligarchs. Our major banks with their win/win deals with DRUG CARTELS????? WTF????
I learned in the 12 step rooms the 3 As. AWARENESS to ACCEPTANCE to ACTION.
I know some of my writings -- THE TONE OF THEM -- are off-putting (it is hard for me to discuss Gitmo without being full out angry and I know that doesn’t get me hits or ratings) and I will continue to grow and learn by blogging. I have lost my potential to communicate with some perhaps and that is too bad and I know I am a humble human being finding herself and her voice always in this adventure of life. I come from a unique background that influences my sensibility of my world and my fellow humans. We all do.
You write:
"I write a whole lot about how wildly inequitable distribution is bad for business. This isn't because I care more about business than I do about who is being exploited and how; actually, I don't (though I do care about the collapse of our economy because of how many millions will be hurt). I write about it because I see that as the most promising sales pitch to a portion of the population that currently supports policies that encourage unequal distribution, and I want them on our side of the question, because there are a lot of them and they have influence and money.
"If a lot of business people develop impatience with how little the President is advocating redistribution that moves downward instead of upward, he is more likely to respond in a useful manner than he is now."
"As angry as we are, as awful as things are, we still have to win the chess game."
end of your quote
I appreciate what you have said and it may simply come down to different audiences for us, too. I am born of the working class and being female never been in the boys' elite club despite having a college education I was so very lucky to acquire.
I hope you respect me more than assuming I write my blogs so frequently and rigorously to share what I am learning and not just for catharsis. Sometimes there is that, or at least something for me to actually do to try to fight the quicksand I feel all of us citizens are entrapped in. Sometimes I feel like Cher in the movie Moonstruck who slaps Nicholas Cage across the face and yells, SNAP OUT OF IT!!!
I feel the lost to cronyism capitalists are willing to rearrange deck chairs on our Titanic and then self-congratulate or let a whoring media do it for them. I think most if not all of them are incapable of truly empathizing with ordinary working people. I think there is a tragic and colossal collective exceptionalism of those in the gated community of privilege and here I am not just talking about the 1%. Like those in the south who did not own slaves but happily socialized with the plantation owners -- guilt free.
FDR and Eleanor were exceptional in being in power and "getting it", what was happening to ordinary Americans. How rare they were and how powerful they were, though many of their pro-working people justice-enabling contributions are being and have been undone by the Clinton and Bush and Obama elites and opportunistic and patriarchal crowd (along with Reagan and others before them).
We are not talking now about empathy for foreign peoples even. The murders, mass murders, going on with foreign peoples. We are talking about the slower economic murder and terrorism via withdrawing health care and living wage jobs for regular Americans and in your face corporate criminality Obama smiles and enables.
You talk about "losing it"? Do you think I am "losing it", kosh?
I think a lot of people are "losing it" and by it I mean a sensibility of morality. And if they had it they would be joining me in my OUTRAGE!
You talk about a chess game? I talk about the gamesmanship of politics that is so rigged and creepy and that the media gets so very hyped about which doesn't touch our welfares, save to worsen them.
There is advice to women in alanon -- it tells them to leave their enabling circle of futility game. It says it is not about winning a LOSING game, it is about stopping playing the game with the addict.
The greed addicts, the war addicts, the power and control and fame and money addicts. The amoral.
And their sycophants. Their enablers. The parasites that live off the parasites of our former democracy.
I am tired of them all playing games that put my welfare and the welfares of the family of men and women and children, globally, on the table.
I appreciate this exchange, kosh. thank you.
best, libby
Libby,
I really appreciate the exchange.
Let me be a little more clear about the chess game. It's not that I want to play, it's that the chess game is the opportunity there is to beat the people who are doing this to us. We don't currently have the ability to upend the board.
I should take an aside and cover some of the personal stuff, such as gender, class, background, etc., just so you understand where I come from so I can return the favor of your giving me your background. The voice I would characterize as most shrill on OS does not belong to a female. I do not base who I respect on gender. At All. On the flip side: the voice on OS most capable of getting me to question myself rather than simply assuming I'm right does not belong to a male. I did not grow up with college educated parents (my mother went to college when I was a kid, my father didn't at all). I don't belong to an old boy network and never have. I don't base what I say on OS on what the people I like or often agree with say; I base what I say on what I observe and what I believe. I've taken plenty of heat from both sides of the spectrum. Put another way, my political opinions do not have a social component. Some are shared, but that is coincidental, not motivating. I call it as I see it. I'm just putting the personal stuff out there so you understand who you're dealing with, given that you might believe we have some differences that we actually don't. This is a tangent out of courtesy.
It's not that I have a great deal more faith in what Democrats will do than you do, though I have more faith in what some of them would rather be doing. Their choices are shrinking like ours are. The role of money in politics has expanded by so much that political flexibility is rapidly disappearing. Chase money or leave office. Chasing money means you both have to take the time away from your job to chase money and you end up becoming more beholden to money. Thank you, Citizens United.
So, we need mechanisms to gain control of a political system that is clearly failing. Where do we find them? How do we do it?
We need people. We need allies. We need them to understand what needs to be done and why. We need them to be listening when we talk so that we actually have the opportunity to convey those messages.
What I see in you is a tremendous amount of frustration. You see all this awful stuff happening and ask Why The Hell Isn't It Obvious To Everyone What These People Are Doing To Us????
So, if it isn't obvious to everyone, what do we do about it?
We inform. We illustrate. Most of all, we teach. We worry less about, as I said earlier, expressing outrage than about eliciting outrage. It's not even about presenting the data; it's more about framing it.
When someone says: Income is too polarized, and here are the numbers!, people might see it, but that doesn't mean they get it. A million, a billion, a trillion, they're all big numbers, what's the difference? When, as I saw on a petition the other day, someone says: the poorest 42% of America's families don't have as much money combined as the Walton family does, that says "OK, I knew things had gotten bad, but I didn't know they'd gotten That bad." If enough people read something like that, believe it, and understand it, they begin to realize something has to happen, that we aren't being unreasonable, but that reality is being unreasonable and it's time to acknowledge that and fix it, as in: We are protecting the wealth of families who own more money than 2/5 of America's population rather than trying to protect the money of that 2/5 of America's population??? What, does the pledge say "and to the billionaires for whom it stands?" It also helps to explain how and why, because if we do that, it's not our word against someone else's, it's This is how the process actually works, and so when they see opposing opinions, those we teach ask the same questions we would.
But the thing about teaching is that in order to do that effectively, we can't treat questions as stupid. As a pragmatist, I'll answer anything thrown at me if I can, no matter how off the wall. I once talked to someone, someone incidentally who is quite articulate, about why his racism couldn't be based on science. I eventually posted about it in case other people thought the same way. Our first impulse is to dismiss this person as a racist, but what that accomplishes is making him think "These liberals are afraid of tackling the tough questions, preferring to dismiss them as immoral rather than actually facing them." I understand that some of the people I need to reach to build numbers are going to assume a whole lot of things that I don't, and I need to reach them on their terms. Even if I can't get them to agree with me, I can get them to stop demonizing me, and that, in the current political climate, is half the battle. There are a lot of conservatives here on OS who disagree with me but very few think I'm an idiot, and just as few think I'm unreasonable.
So, how do we get change? Do we go after the people in office and say: This is what you need to support and this is what you need to oppose for the good of the country? Do we go after various constituencies and say: What the opposition wants is worse for you and here is why? Do we say: We have to get these people out of office because nothing else will help?
We have a sales job to do, of some sort. One thing I can tell you about sales is that whatever you're selling has to fix something your customer thinks is wrong. Not that you think is wrong, that your customer thinks is wrong. Not even what your customer Should think is wrong, what your customer Does think is wrong.
You might hate sales. You might think that sales Shouldn't be necessary. You might think that how awful everything is is intrinsically obvious, and that everyone who doesn't see it is stupid. Do you know what that means? It means you have to be prepared to sell to stupid people.
Sometimes I'm the stupid person. Start with me. Address my stupid questions. I argue pretty strangely: I will very often tell you exactly what you need to accomplish to win me over. That's not a trap, because I do not assume you can't. Frankly, I'll learn more if you do.
Maybe selling isn't fun. Maybe playing chess isn't fun. However, in order to save our country, our world, whatever you want to save, we need political power, and that means converting people.
I really appreciate the exchange.
Let me be a little more clear about the chess game. It's not that I want to play, it's that the chess game is the opportunity there is to beat the people who are doing this to us. We don't currently have the ability to upend the board.
I should take an aside and cover some of the personal stuff, such as gender, class, background, etc., just so you understand where I come from so I can return the favor of your giving me your background. The voice I would characterize as most shrill on OS does not belong to a female. I do not base who I respect on gender. At All. On the flip side: the voice on OS most capable of getting me to question myself rather than simply assuming I'm right does not belong to a male. I did not grow up with college educated parents (my mother went to college when I was a kid, my father didn't at all). I don't belong to an old boy network and never have. I don't base what I say on OS on what the people I like or often agree with say; I base what I say on what I observe and what I believe. I've taken plenty of heat from both sides of the spectrum. Put another way, my political opinions do not have a social component. Some are shared, but that is coincidental, not motivating. I call it as I see it. I'm just putting the personal stuff out there so you understand who you're dealing with, given that you might believe we have some differences that we actually don't. This is a tangent out of courtesy.
It's not that I have a great deal more faith in what Democrats will do than you do, though I have more faith in what some of them would rather be doing. Their choices are shrinking like ours are. The role of money in politics has expanded by so much that political flexibility is rapidly disappearing. Chase money or leave office. Chasing money means you both have to take the time away from your job to chase money and you end up becoming more beholden to money. Thank you, Citizens United.
So, we need mechanisms to gain control of a political system that is clearly failing. Where do we find them? How do we do it?
We need people. We need allies. We need them to understand what needs to be done and why. We need them to be listening when we talk so that we actually have the opportunity to convey those messages.
What I see in you is a tremendous amount of frustration. You see all this awful stuff happening and ask Why The Hell Isn't It Obvious To Everyone What These People Are Doing To Us????
So, if it isn't obvious to everyone, what do we do about it?
We inform. We illustrate. Most of all, we teach. We worry less about, as I said earlier, expressing outrage than about eliciting outrage. It's not even about presenting the data; it's more about framing it.
When someone says: Income is too polarized, and here are the numbers!, people might see it, but that doesn't mean they get it. A million, a billion, a trillion, they're all big numbers, what's the difference? When, as I saw on a petition the other day, someone says: the poorest 42% of America's families don't have as much money combined as the Walton family does, that says "OK, I knew things had gotten bad, but I didn't know they'd gotten That bad." If enough people read something like that, believe it, and understand it, they begin to realize something has to happen, that we aren't being unreasonable, but that reality is being unreasonable and it's time to acknowledge that and fix it, as in: We are protecting the wealth of families who own more money than 2/5 of America's population rather than trying to protect the money of that 2/5 of America's population??? What, does the pledge say "and to the billionaires for whom it stands?" It also helps to explain how and why, because if we do that, it's not our word against someone else's, it's This is how the process actually works, and so when they see opposing opinions, those we teach ask the same questions we would.
But the thing about teaching is that in order to do that effectively, we can't treat questions as stupid. As a pragmatist, I'll answer anything thrown at me if I can, no matter how off the wall. I once talked to someone, someone incidentally who is quite articulate, about why his racism couldn't be based on science. I eventually posted about it in case other people thought the same way. Our first impulse is to dismiss this person as a racist, but what that accomplishes is making him think "These liberals are afraid of tackling the tough questions, preferring to dismiss them as immoral rather than actually facing them." I understand that some of the people I need to reach to build numbers are going to assume a whole lot of things that I don't, and I need to reach them on their terms. Even if I can't get them to agree with me, I can get them to stop demonizing me, and that, in the current political climate, is half the battle. There are a lot of conservatives here on OS who disagree with me but very few think I'm an idiot, and just as few think I'm unreasonable.
So, how do we get change? Do we go after the people in office and say: This is what you need to support and this is what you need to oppose for the good of the country? Do we go after various constituencies and say: What the opposition wants is worse for you and here is why? Do we say: We have to get these people out of office because nothing else will help?
We have a sales job to do, of some sort. One thing I can tell you about sales is that whatever you're selling has to fix something your customer thinks is wrong. Not that you think is wrong, that your customer thinks is wrong. Not even what your customer Should think is wrong, what your customer Does think is wrong.
You might hate sales. You might think that sales Shouldn't be necessary. You might think that how awful everything is is intrinsically obvious, and that everyone who doesn't see it is stupid. Do you know what that means? It means you have to be prepared to sell to stupid people.
Sometimes I'm the stupid person. Start with me. Address my stupid questions. I argue pretty strangely: I will very often tell you exactly what you need to accomplish to win me over. That's not a trap, because I do not assume you can't. Frankly, I'll learn more if you do.
Maybe selling isn't fun. Maybe playing chess isn't fun. However, in order to save our country, our world, whatever you want to save, we need political power, and that means converting people.
Steve, more sweet deep wisdom. You write:
"An effective Morality Rant is also, in my opinion, very hard to pull off: lean too far towards emotion, and you sound like a sissy; lean too hard on dry fact, leave the reader cold. Furthermore, the overall effect of a less the perfect rant often stirs the flames of contempt, rather than the warm glow of compassion and a deeper understanding.
"Yet that said, I do believe Morality Rants are very worth the time and effort, and, even more importantly, it should be understood that that those of us who have an emotion-based outlook seem to be able to "see" something that logic-based thinkers cannot, something that is important, missing in the Mainstream, and very much a needed key ingredient, nay, probably, the cornerstone ingredient, that humanity, without, would be nothing more than cold and soulless savages with a value system measured only in Dollars and Cents, rather than Compassionate Sense."
end of your quote
YES! Thanks for expressing that so well!!! I know I am uneven when I put forward my perspective, missing the mark more than making it. Reaching a tone and message that inspires and convinces. But morality in this spiritual dark age needs desperately to be addressed. Also, talking that talk is far easier than walking the walk. Gandhi and his "be the change you want in the world" messaging.
I grew up outnumbered by non-feelers and non-intuiters at times. Getting emotional or asserting suspicions and predictions brought me accusations of being irrational and weak and/or crazy or unbalanced at times. My history triggers more defensiveness in me at times than I would like.
I think intuiters are in a minority (and you can have intuiters feelers or intuiter thinkers both and more power to both groups) and they can trouble thinkers/sensors putting out strong pronouncements without appealing to their familiar language of thinking or even sensing. A spiritual acumen at times that can carry important and astute visions. (I think Nader is an intuiter/thinker).
When MLK decided he was going to be "all in" when it came to going against the Vietnam War along with civil rights injustices so many of his colleagues were upset and frustrated with him. They were making headway with the Dem leadership and knew he would alienate the top Dem, LBJ, who was helping so with civil rights measures. He would feel betrayed re King's angry Vietnam stance. They pragmatically knew that to lose LBJ's backing would make them lose momentum and even ground.
MLK knew that evil is evil and evil of the Vietnam War had to be included. His moral vision was inclusive for all peoples, GLOBALLY. The USWarmachine had to be stopped. He called it out. MLK as an intuitive visionary leader could not and would not cherrypick his targets for moral battle.
MLK took some punishment from his cronies. God bless him, he was willing to take on "cronyism" at that point, too.
Soon enough he was assassinated. As a messenger for such a powerful moral vision he was killed. But his moral vision continues on, thank God for that, too.
Appreciate your thoughts on this, Steve. Triggered more of mine.
best, libby
"An effective Morality Rant is also, in my opinion, very hard to pull off: lean too far towards emotion, and you sound like a sissy; lean too hard on dry fact, leave the reader cold. Furthermore, the overall effect of a less the perfect rant often stirs the flames of contempt, rather than the warm glow of compassion and a deeper understanding.
"Yet that said, I do believe Morality Rants are very worth the time and effort, and, even more importantly, it should be understood that that those of us who have an emotion-based outlook seem to be able to "see" something that logic-based thinkers cannot, something that is important, missing in the Mainstream, and very much a needed key ingredient, nay, probably, the cornerstone ingredient, that humanity, without, would be nothing more than cold and soulless savages with a value system measured only in Dollars and Cents, rather than Compassionate Sense."
end of your quote
YES! Thanks for expressing that so well!!! I know I am uneven when I put forward my perspective, missing the mark more than making it. Reaching a tone and message that inspires and convinces. But morality in this spiritual dark age needs desperately to be addressed. Also, talking that talk is far easier than walking the walk. Gandhi and his "be the change you want in the world" messaging.
I grew up outnumbered by non-feelers and non-intuiters at times. Getting emotional or asserting suspicions and predictions brought me accusations of being irrational and weak and/or crazy or unbalanced at times. My history triggers more defensiveness in me at times than I would like.
I think intuiters are in a minority (and you can have intuiters feelers or intuiter thinkers both and more power to both groups) and they can trouble thinkers/sensors putting out strong pronouncements without appealing to their familiar language of thinking or even sensing. A spiritual acumen at times that can carry important and astute visions. (I think Nader is an intuiter/thinker).
When MLK decided he was going to be "all in" when it came to going against the Vietnam War along with civil rights injustices so many of his colleagues were upset and frustrated with him. They were making headway with the Dem leadership and knew he would alienate the top Dem, LBJ, who was helping so with civil rights measures. He would feel betrayed re King's angry Vietnam stance. They pragmatically knew that to lose LBJ's backing would make them lose momentum and even ground.
MLK knew that evil is evil and evil of the Vietnam War had to be included. His moral vision was inclusive for all peoples, GLOBALLY. The USWarmachine had to be stopped. He called it out. MLK as an intuitive visionary leader could not and would not cherrypick his targets for moral battle.
MLK took some punishment from his cronies. God bless him, he was willing to take on "cronyism" at that point, too.
Soon enough he was assassinated. As a messenger for such a powerful moral vision he was killed. But his moral vision continues on, thank God for that, too.
Appreciate your thoughts on this, Steve. Triggered more of mine.
best, libby
TL, so nice to see you. Appreciate this:
"If we don't have morality, what is left?"
I love hearing anthropological support for a matriarchal or humanist society being far more wholesome and successful than patriarchies.
Wow, you say,
"The ego can rationalize anything."
ABSOLUTELY, TL. I remember reading in Eckart Tolle's book A New Earth about how countries can have toxic collective egos. That issue with "exceptionalism" and denial and minimization. And group-think, gang-think among collections of people that reinforces incompetence and evil and escalates it. The Bush cabal. Anyone who disagreed never got invited back for the next meeting. The Obama cabal.
You write:
"But Jesus of Nazareth or the Buddha or ancient Yogis would recognize the plight of the mother as being someone who was exploited and victimized by a system of evil and corruption. She would recognized as worthy."
This is certainly interesting, too. You write:
"In the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America, Daniel Ellsberg's attorneys didn't want any white, professional males on his jury. There was a simple reason. Ellsberg had a crisis of conscience or an awakening to his ego-motive and turned against a corrupt and evil system that once made him wealthy, powerful and famous.
"White, male professionals in the system had given up their morality in exchange for success, power fame. Thus, would never empathize or see the world through the eyes of someone who had chosen to stand to account rather than sell his soul to the proverbial devil as they had. No ego ever wants to be held to account or be personally responsible.
"The ego will do anything to avoid both. To make someone driven primarily by an outsize ego confront their own rationalizations of morality and justice and virtue is nearly impossible without first creating a nonconfirming crisis of the ego as Ellsberg had experienced.
"Or, to put it in terms most people und3erstand, this is what the Wachowski brothers were trying to show in the movie, The Matrix. Neo, who was in the matrix, experienced his own crisis of the ego when he was pulled out of the system and made to view truth and reality. Only then did he have his own crisis of the ego and its perceptions and rationalization."
end of your quote
Wow, TL, this stuff is so powerful!!! CRISIS OF THE EGO. God, I wish Obama were strong enough to undergo a crisis of ego or as you say was forced to have a crisis of the ego to leave off that false personality and touch down on real feelings and human vulnerability. He slid in so callowly to the job of chief executive and judging from his shamelessness and recklessness (supported by so many other ego-toxic others) at dismantling the constitution and exploiting the power of the presidency he is not ripe for a season of conscience, tragically.
You write finally:
"Dare I say the vast majority of people never awaken to reality until the world around them forces an awakening. The ego is driven by fear and control. It will never awaken on its own. It must be essentially shocked into resetting and reconnecting to our higher power and the recognition of mindfulness and awareness and discovery.
"The person who called you out for ranting about morality is likely to be Neo or the white, professional male whose ego has sold himself into the system."
end of your quote
My friend bleue puts this forward wisely. Not until people hit their bottom do they finally get "it". Their part of the human condition and connection and their prior egoism follies.
TL, you validate my view point and like others above including the recent Steve you go even farther to help me expand my sensibility with incredible EMOTIONAL and intellectual intelligence! Thank you for sharing your wisdom!!!!
best, libby
"If we don't have morality, what is left?"
I love hearing anthropological support for a matriarchal or humanist society being far more wholesome and successful than patriarchies.
Wow, you say,
"The ego can rationalize anything."
ABSOLUTELY, TL. I remember reading in Eckart Tolle's book A New Earth about how countries can have toxic collective egos. That issue with "exceptionalism" and denial and minimization. And group-think, gang-think among collections of people that reinforces incompetence and evil and escalates it. The Bush cabal. Anyone who disagreed never got invited back for the next meeting. The Obama cabal.
You write:
"But Jesus of Nazareth or the Buddha or ancient Yogis would recognize the plight of the mother as being someone who was exploited and victimized by a system of evil and corruption. She would recognized as worthy."
This is certainly interesting, too. You write:
"In the documentary The Most Dangerous Man in America, Daniel Ellsberg's attorneys didn't want any white, professional males on his jury. There was a simple reason. Ellsberg had a crisis of conscience or an awakening to his ego-motive and turned against a corrupt and evil system that once made him wealthy, powerful and famous.
"White, male professionals in the system had given up their morality in exchange for success, power fame. Thus, would never empathize or see the world through the eyes of someone who had chosen to stand to account rather than sell his soul to the proverbial devil as they had. No ego ever wants to be held to account or be personally responsible.
"The ego will do anything to avoid both. To make someone driven primarily by an outsize ego confront their own rationalizations of morality and justice and virtue is nearly impossible without first creating a nonconfirming crisis of the ego as Ellsberg had experienced.
"Or, to put it in terms most people und3erstand, this is what the Wachowski brothers were trying to show in the movie, The Matrix. Neo, who was in the matrix, experienced his own crisis of the ego when he was pulled out of the system and made to view truth and reality. Only then did he have his own crisis of the ego and its perceptions and rationalization."
end of your quote
Wow, TL, this stuff is so powerful!!! CRISIS OF THE EGO. God, I wish Obama were strong enough to undergo a crisis of ego or as you say was forced to have a crisis of the ego to leave off that false personality and touch down on real feelings and human vulnerability. He slid in so callowly to the job of chief executive and judging from his shamelessness and recklessness (supported by so many other ego-toxic others) at dismantling the constitution and exploiting the power of the presidency he is not ripe for a season of conscience, tragically.
You write finally:
"Dare I say the vast majority of people never awaken to reality until the world around them forces an awakening. The ego is driven by fear and control. It will never awaken on its own. It must be essentially shocked into resetting and reconnecting to our higher power and the recognition of mindfulness and awareness and discovery.
"The person who called you out for ranting about morality is likely to be Neo or the white, professional male whose ego has sold himself into the system."
end of your quote
My friend bleue puts this forward wisely. Not until people hit their bottom do they finally get "it". Their part of the human condition and connection and their prior egoism follies.
TL, you validate my view point and like others above including the recent Steve you go even farther to help me expand my sensibility with incredible EMOTIONAL and intellectual intelligence! Thank you for sharing your wisdom!!!!
best, libby
`
This is a great Athens Greece 21st century Forum.
I noticed Russ Feingold was mentioned. I wonder?
I handed Feingold, Sarbanes, and others my briefs.
`
I could mention other names. One was a lawyer that?
Never Mind. Shame.
No mention names?
I arrested in a bank.
I proved Fraud etc.,
The FBI agent help?
He said hands tied.
`
Bush's gang of crook.
Chertoff, and on on . . .
`
I tried to go yesterday.
At 3:00 PM gathering.
Dan Ellsburg spoke.
`
I spoke with Mr. Ellsburg
ref S. Bryan Wilson and
How he Lost Two Legs,
One Ear, and a bit of hip.
Concord Weapon Depot
The Contra Drug Scandal
`
consortiumnews.com
`
Gary Webb's demise
&
RobertParry `
`
I ought to hand carry?
I carry 'outhouse' too?
This is so informative.
Check out consortium?
I might contact Them?
This is a great Athens Greece 21st century Forum.
I noticed Russ Feingold was mentioned. I wonder?
I handed Feingold, Sarbanes, and others my briefs.
`
I could mention other names. One was a lawyer that?
Never Mind. Shame.
No mention names?
I arrested in a bank.
I proved Fraud etc.,
The FBI agent help?
He said hands tied.
`
Bush's gang of crook.
Chertoff, and on on . . .
`
I tried to go yesterday.
At 3:00 PM gathering.
Dan Ellsburg spoke.
`
I spoke with Mr. Ellsburg
ref S. Bryan Wilson and
How he Lost Two Legs,
One Ear, and a bit of hip.
Concord Weapon Depot
The Contra Drug Scandal
`
consortiumnews.com
`
Gary Webb's demise
&
RobertParry `
`
I ought to hand carry?
I carry 'outhouse' too?
This is so informative.
Check out consortium?
I might contact Them?
I say - "rant" is passion. However, I'm extremely biased and prejudiced when using this one particular word. My emotional response to individuals like Beck, Limbaugh etc. is that they are ranting with little to no real fact to back it up. Ranting against injustice and human suffering I consider to be moral fervor. You have right rant Lib.
`
I forgot why I commented.
Ellsburg spoke near the Wall.
`
Former PA Governor spoke at
The Black Granite Vietnam Wall.
I small group gathered elsewhere.
We could see ` Tom Ridge. Hush.
`
I hand carried my outhouse briefs.
No lawyer would dare touch my case
`
Arthur James v Commonwealth of PA
`
The District Attorney has since died.
My probation officer died. Maybe?
Maybe all death were natural causes.
I hope . . .
Tom Ridge said he'd Give Briefs to Bush.
I handed Mr. Ridge my Briefs at the Wall.
I probably forgot to include some Briefs.
No one helped - Ridges Law Firm Ignored.
I dropped Briefs - Lawyers sent back Briefs.
Trial was in Chambersburg - No Jury Trial!
I forgot why I commented.
Ellsburg spoke near the Wall.
`
Former PA Governor spoke at
The Black Granite Vietnam Wall.
I small group gathered elsewhere.
We could see ` Tom Ridge. Hush.
`
I hand carried my outhouse briefs.
No lawyer would dare touch my case
`
Arthur James v Commonwealth of PA
`
The District Attorney has since died.
My probation officer died. Maybe?
Maybe all death were natural causes.
I hope . . .
Tom Ridge said he'd Give Briefs to Bush.
I handed Mr. Ridge my Briefs at the Wall.
I probably forgot to include some Briefs.
No one helped - Ridges Law Firm Ignored.
I dropped Briefs - Lawyers sent back Briefs.
Trial was in Chambersburg - No Jury Trial!
daisyjane, you so rock! thank you for those words. i may be an iconoclast, but I am not a rebel without cause! :-) best, libby
kosh, I am an ENFP. We have our "E"s in common. Extroverts! My E used to be extreme but now it is closer to the cusp with "I". Anyway, I love that you communicate about this temperament stuff. And your wife with such a close configuration to mine. You must have learned a lot from each other!!! Bravo on the communication that must have been profound between such different configurations! Wow again. To be continued! best, libby :-)
AndNowForSomething ... brilliantly put. I will repeat it:
"I've never seen a 'pragmatic' injustice nor 'realistic' pollution nor 'workable' inequality. There's no choice but to fight for what's right."
Should be the official slogan against "lesser evilism" group-think! Thanks!!
best, libby
"I've never seen a 'pragmatic' injustice nor 'realistic' pollution nor 'workable' inequality. There's no choice but to fight for what's right."
Should be the official slogan against "lesser evilism" group-think! Thanks!!
best, libby
L, late to meet a friend. Will start here when I get back! Thanks for commenting! best, libby
Lezlie,
Thanks for your message. I get it. Less is more. Staying away from the personal and the loaded is wise.
Sometimes I do want to shock with facts. I may over-do connecting the dots myself when I don't have to work that hard. Especially emotionally heavily adding to the dot connecting when my reader is hopefully capable of it.
Yes, I have a "sexism" and "historical" trigger re the label "rant." "When it is hysterical it is historical" as they say in 12 step rooms. My old pain that was evoked when I was trying to communicate from my feelings-intuition-oriented temperament to others not of that temperament who minimized or ignored my earnest communications.
I think in my recent case I was earnestly trying to add to the discussion and felt that familiar skewed line temperament crossing communication and it triggered the old disappointment and frustration.
That added to my own sense of weariness. Trying to blog so often about incidents and facts that are not covered in the mainstream media and how scary and troubling this is for me. I have not only lost trust for some time in the Obama administration but in the mainstream media.
Also, the morality issue to me is key to what is so seriously wrong with our governance and media analyses, and when it is minimized I feel genuinely angered by such reductionism and pseudo-intellectualism I call it (feeling angry just talking about it).
Again, I know that "less is more". I appreciate your feedback and agree with it that the facts can carry the message themselves and the reader when given the room by the blogger can connect the dots.
I want to write from who I am, the temperament I am, but I also need to be savvy and self-controlled enough to do the best I can to communicate to as many as I can.
Nice to see you on this thread. Thanks.
best, libby
Thanks for your message. I get it. Less is more. Staying away from the personal and the loaded is wise.
Sometimes I do want to shock with facts. I may over-do connecting the dots myself when I don't have to work that hard. Especially emotionally heavily adding to the dot connecting when my reader is hopefully capable of it.
Yes, I have a "sexism" and "historical" trigger re the label "rant." "When it is hysterical it is historical" as they say in 12 step rooms. My old pain that was evoked when I was trying to communicate from my feelings-intuition-oriented temperament to others not of that temperament who minimized or ignored my earnest communications.
I think in my recent case I was earnestly trying to add to the discussion and felt that familiar skewed line temperament crossing communication and it triggered the old disappointment and frustration.
That added to my own sense of weariness. Trying to blog so often about incidents and facts that are not covered in the mainstream media and how scary and troubling this is for me. I have not only lost trust for some time in the Obama administration but in the mainstream media.
Also, the morality issue to me is key to what is so seriously wrong with our governance and media analyses, and when it is minimized I feel genuinely angered by such reductionism and pseudo-intellectualism I call it (feeling angry just talking about it).
Again, I know that "less is more". I appreciate your feedback and agree with it that the facts can carry the message themselves and the reader when given the room by the blogger can connect the dots.
I want to write from who I am, the temperament I am, but I also need to be savvy and self-controlled enough to do the best I can to communicate to as many as I can.
Nice to see you on this thread. Thanks.
best, libby
desert_rat. You write:
"I don't understand the distinction you draw concerning who speaks the word and whom they speak it to . . ."
end of quote
I am not clear what you are asking on this. Maybe you can elaborate.
I am sensitive to the word "rant" especially when I did not feel I was being discordant with the flow of a discussion but apparently what I said was not considered relevant or useful by the person I had earnestly shared with. What I prioritize is so little prioritized by the person communicated to.
best, libby
"I don't understand the distinction you draw concerning who speaks the word and whom they speak it to . . ."
end of quote
I am not clear what you are asking on this. Maybe you can elaborate.
I am sensitive to the word "rant" especially when I did not feel I was being discordant with the flow of a discussion but apparently what I said was not considered relevant or useful by the person I had earnestly shared with. What I prioritize is so little prioritized by the person communicated to.
best, libby
Spencer,
You write:
"I think a rant includes personal attacks, petty vindictiveness, anger and loss of perspective. If you see those elements in a post, then it's a rant. The best posts may still be passionate but are objective."
YES, YES, YES! Thank you for this.
best, libby
You write:
"I think a rant includes personal attacks, petty vindictiveness, anger and loss of perspective. If you see those elements in a post, then it's a rant. The best posts may still be passionate but are objective."
YES, YES, YES! Thank you for this.
best, libby
Margaret,
I think this thread is de-sensitizing me to the word "rant". A good thing.
Some with my appreciated good will toward me are actually celebrating and congratulating my "ranting" using that label.
Hah! There you are, libby!
This is helpful. You write:
"Couldn't every editorial be described as a mild rant? To me a rant is an opinion run amok. And a moral stance is usually at the heart of every editorial."
Yes. Steve Kenny writes above about the balance of emotional/morality writing. Opinion run amok is interestingly put.
And these points are helpful and interesting:
" I don't think you can separate morals from emotions."
"Morality wouldn't even exist without emotions."
Thank you for the wisdom.
best, libby
I think this thread is de-sensitizing me to the word "rant". A good thing.
Some with my appreciated good will toward me are actually celebrating and congratulating my "ranting" using that label.
Hah! There you are, libby!
This is helpful. You write:
"Couldn't every editorial be described as a mild rant? To me a rant is an opinion run amok. And a moral stance is usually at the heart of every editorial."
Yes. Steve Kenny writes above about the balance of emotional/morality writing. Opinion run amok is interestingly put.
And these points are helpful and interesting:
" I don't think you can separate morals from emotions."
"Morality wouldn't even exist without emotions."
Thank you for the wisdom.
best, libby
Seer, thanks for joining the discussion!
Yes, one person's "morality" may not be the next's. And of course one such as me likes to embrace her sensibility of morality as frame of reference for all others. But clearly, much contributes to an individual code of morality.
Interesting you talk about matriarchal (or humanist) paradigm. Was matriarchal that during the 60s pre-Reagan with pro-peace and pro-civil rights, pro-women movements.
Pendulum swung with Reagan and thereafter up to now to patriarchal, though I think Obama gives off a faux-"humanist" veneer with a very patriarchal policy-making (dangerously, fascistically so) beneath which enrages me frankly.
You write:
"However.. at some point it is to be hoped that the lack of fear is tempered with awareness of there being more than one point of view, and a recognition that one's own moral compass is centered on due north from one's own personal position - another's position has a different due north, even if only fractionally.
"Finally there needs to be acknowledgment that everyone - every single one - has determined that their morality is THE morality."
Now, also Seer, this is really something to heed!!! You write:
"The real question is not "What is morally right?" The real question is "Who gets to decide what is moral?""
And this is very deep:
"And then there's this : **Morality is reason based understanding of what works best while being least harmful.** I'm not sure of how accurate an identification of moral Sky's definition is, but it's likely appropriate for your intent. What works best while being least harmful.. and still, who decides? The vegan over the meat eater? The one who would turn the other cheek at the expense of self-defense over the one who would protect their family at all costs? The monotheist over the pantheist over the atheist? The democracies over the regimes over the simple people who just want to live their lives and feed their families? I'm afraid that at the very bottom of it you want simple answers, and there aren't any."
end of your quote
Yes. You expand a lot for me. I know I challenge in some of my blogs because I assume and expect a sensibility similar to mine and want to understand why there is such a gap, and, yes, presume that my sensibility in particular cases would renew social dysfunction.
Thanks so much for the food for thought, including the humble pie. :-)
best, libby
Yes, one person's "morality" may not be the next's. And of course one such as me likes to embrace her sensibility of morality as frame of reference for all others. But clearly, much contributes to an individual code of morality.
Interesting you talk about matriarchal (or humanist) paradigm. Was matriarchal that during the 60s pre-Reagan with pro-peace and pro-civil rights, pro-women movements.
Pendulum swung with Reagan and thereafter up to now to patriarchal, though I think Obama gives off a faux-"humanist" veneer with a very patriarchal policy-making (dangerously, fascistically so) beneath which enrages me frankly.
You write:
"However.. at some point it is to be hoped that the lack of fear is tempered with awareness of there being more than one point of view, and a recognition that one's own moral compass is centered on due north from one's own personal position - another's position has a different due north, even if only fractionally.
"Finally there needs to be acknowledgment that everyone - every single one - has determined that their morality is THE morality."
Now, also Seer, this is really something to heed!!! You write:
"The real question is not "What is morally right?" The real question is "Who gets to decide what is moral?""
And this is very deep:
"And then there's this : **Morality is reason based understanding of what works best while being least harmful.** I'm not sure of how accurate an identification of moral Sky's definition is, but it's likely appropriate for your intent. What works best while being least harmful.. and still, who decides? The vegan over the meat eater? The one who would turn the other cheek at the expense of self-defense over the one who would protect their family at all costs? The monotheist over the pantheist over the atheist? The democracies over the regimes over the simple people who just want to live their lives and feed their families? I'm afraid that at the very bottom of it you want simple answers, and there aren't any."
end of your quote
Yes. You expand a lot for me. I know I challenge in some of my blogs because I assume and expect a sensibility similar to mine and want to understand why there is such a gap, and, yes, presume that my sensibility in particular cases would renew social dysfunction.
Thanks so much for the food for thought, including the humble pie. :-)
best, libby
ThroughMyEyes: So grateful to see you here. Thanks.
I appreciate this in particular:
"For me a rant could also be long winded but when directed toward one particular topic and not over written can be quite amusing and fun to read."
I like that. Long-winded but not over-written sounds like quite the balance and gives me hope -- to someone who is as loquacious as me. And this is appreciated encouragement:
"As Kosh said we all view the word rant in a different light. So rant, or long wind, your heart away and don't worry about making anyone else happy but you. So what was the question?"
end of your quote:
Hah! What was the question? Good one. You know i needed to appeal to fellow saloners on this and I got what i needed which was maybe not what I thought I needed originally or more accurately maybe I got what I needed and much more.
I am grateful. I think I often write with a chip on my shoulder and I think the chip has shrunk from the discussion but I also have permission to honor the chip that is left.
:-)
best, libby
I appreciate this in particular:
"For me a rant could also be long winded but when directed toward one particular topic and not over written can be quite amusing and fun to read."
I like that. Long-winded but not over-written sounds like quite the balance and gives me hope -- to someone who is as loquacious as me. And this is appreciated encouragement:
"As Kosh said we all view the word rant in a different light. So rant, or long wind, your heart away and don't worry about making anyone else happy but you. So what was the question?"
end of your quote:
Hah! What was the question? Good one. You know i needed to appeal to fellow saloners on this and I got what i needed which was maybe not what I thought I needed originally or more accurately maybe I got what I needed and much more.
I am grateful. I think I often write with a chip on my shoulder and I think the chip has shrunk from the discussion but I also have permission to honor the chip that is left.
:-)
best, libby
Art,
What hard frustrating times it sounds like you have endured. "Arthur James v Commonwealth of PA"? Cryptic story teller, you.
Best, libby
`
What hard frustrating times it sounds like you have endured. "Arthur James v Commonwealth of PA"? Cryptic story teller, you.
Best, libby
`
IceRune! Thanks for stopping by! I appreciate your shares so much. Appreciate what you write:
"I say - "rant" is passion. However, I'm extremely biased and prejudiced when using this one particular word. My emotional response to individuals like Beck, Limbaugh etc. is that they are ranting with little to no real fact to back it up. Ranting against injustice and human suffering I consider to be moral fervor. You have right rant Lib."
end of your quote
Thanks so much. Yes, moral fervor far preferable to me than word "rant". :-) Thanks for that!
Presenting real facts, taking responsibility for that, and some emotional dots connecting, though not too heavy handed.
Take care of your precious self!
best, libby
"I say - "rant" is passion. However, I'm extremely biased and prejudiced when using this one particular word. My emotional response to individuals like Beck, Limbaugh etc. is that they are ranting with little to no real fact to back it up. Ranting against injustice and human suffering I consider to be moral fervor. You have right rant Lib."
end of your quote
Thanks so much. Yes, moral fervor far preferable to me than word "rant". :-) Thanks for that!
Presenting real facts, taking responsibility for that, and some emotional dots connecting, though not too heavy handed.
Take care of your precious self!
best, libby
I worked hard on getting Elizabeth Warren elected among other things, one other thing being medical marijuana and continued healthcare in Massachusetts. What exactly did you do?
I worked hard on getting Elizabeth Warren elected among other things, one other thing being medical marijuana and continued healthcare in Massachusetts. What exactly did you do?
`
Libby.
Thanks.
If I told?
`
FBI haul me off to a Loon Farm.
I decides to be a calm lion heart.
It's not worth being a dead dog.
`
My whole Life has been wild. You're is too. Great.
I handed a constitutional lawyer my layman briefs.
I swear some folk are just plain vain and very ill/ale.
I recall right? You the daughter of a Vietnam Veteran?
You'd be fun to speak to inside a Amish Wagon Wheel.
William Shakespeare mentions this` as in ` Get Close.
The Idea is to be face-to-face. Be honest. Keep passion.
Respect.
Poor * Kim Doan and family. I sponsored her Family.
The Doan's came to the USA in 1993. I volunteered.
She was 'dumped-off' in East Saint Lewis. John Baca
and I rented a Van and rescued her from City Jungle.
`
The Waynesboro Magistrate mentioned How Wild!
Bankers, lawyer Seller, and Mike Fisher's Solicitor:
`
He is a PA lawyer who wrote a 'deed' for a lawyer.
Crammer - I have so many Law Correspondences.
Who'd Rob a former Barefoot Peasant of`Home,
Laundromat, and apartments? Who? Lawyers.
Who's call Police Officers at a scheduled Meet.
I met the Loan Officer. He Quit. Call Nice Cops.
The Police mentioned? Get rid of all lawyers:
`
Nice Police Officers quoted W. Shakespeare.
Handcuffs are tight as one gets in a`Cop Car.
Magistrate mentioned ` It a Dangerous Case.
`
I can't tell all.
Ah! No woes.
N woe is me.
`
I still alive
I no quit
Courage
it's Care
`
Libby.
Thanks.
If I told?
`
FBI haul me off to a Loon Farm.
I decides to be a calm lion heart.
It's not worth being a dead dog.
`
My whole Life has been wild. You're is too. Great.
I handed a constitutional lawyer my layman briefs.
I swear some folk are just plain vain and very ill/ale.
I recall right? You the daughter of a Vietnam Veteran?
You'd be fun to speak to inside a Amish Wagon Wheel.
William Shakespeare mentions this` as in ` Get Close.
The Idea is to be face-to-face. Be honest. Keep passion.
Respect.
Poor * Kim Doan and family. I sponsored her Family.
The Doan's came to the USA in 1993. I volunteered.
She was 'dumped-off' in East Saint Lewis. John Baca
and I rented a Van and rescued her from City Jungle.
`
The Waynesboro Magistrate mentioned How Wild!
Bankers, lawyer Seller, and Mike Fisher's Solicitor:
`
He is a PA lawyer who wrote a 'deed' for a lawyer.
Crammer - I have so many Law Correspondences.
Who'd Rob a former Barefoot Peasant of`Home,
Laundromat, and apartments? Who? Lawyers.
Who's call Police Officers at a scheduled Meet.
I met the Loan Officer. He Quit. Call Nice Cops.
The Police mentioned? Get rid of all lawyers:
`
Nice Police Officers quoted W. Shakespeare.
Handcuffs are tight as one gets in a`Cop Car.
Magistrate mentioned ` It a Dangerous Case.
`
I can't tell all.
Ah! No woes.
N woe is me.
`
I still alive
I no quit
Courage
it's Care
`
No comments:
Post a Comment