OT: and we wonder why there is so much anger.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=FlyerInHi]Haha.. That’s funny. Harvey is right, focusing on issues and productively engaging with other parties is very appropriate when at the negotiation table. That’s going high and when others go low. Very admirable.
[/quote]

Except that’s not what he said. Here’s what he said:

[quote=harvey]Political debate can be worthwhile when we focus on issues and candidates.

Making generalizations about arbitrarily-defined groups is counter productive.[/quote]

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Rich Toscano]

Except that’s not what he said. Here’s what he said:

[quote=harvey]Political debate can be worthwhile when we focus on issues and candidates.

Making generalizations about arbitrarily-defined groups is counter productive.[/quote][/quote]

I took Harvey’s comment to be in the context of a discussion/negotiation where people of different ideologies can come to something productive.

In the context of making obsevations about society, it’s hard to avoid generalizations without being politically correct and prefacing with notes of caution. Last night, I watched the PBS coverage of the convention. Judy woodruff said that Trump supporters are generally non college educated Whites. She cautioned the observation may be viewed as condescending. I had a chuckle because my understanding is that real folks don’t like politically correct.

[Rich Toscano]

[quote=FlyerInHi]I took Harvey’s comment to be in the context of a discussion/negotiation where people of different ideologies can come to something productive.
[/quote]

Here’s the entire quote:

[quote=harvey][quote=FlyerInHi]Is it fair to say that liberals want police reform and conservatives want the status quo ante all the cameras? I think generally, yes.[/quote]

The point was that there really are no liberals and there are no conservatives. Only shades of grey with no delimiters.

Of course some people self-identify into these groups and they are free to do that. If one wants to call themselves a liberal or conservative I’m not going to dispute the label they give themselves.

Political debate can be worthwhile when we focus on issues and candidates.

Making generalizations about arbitrarily-defined groups is counter productive.[/quote]

There’s no mention of negotiating. It seems pretty clear to me that he is talking about YOUR tendency to “make generalizations about arbitrarily-defined groups.”

I could go back just through this thread alone and find multiple instances of you doing that. I could find many hundreds if I went through your past posts. I once banned you from the site for doing it so relentlessly, despite my repeated requests to stop.

So your response demonstrates a lack of self-awareness of almost bearishgurl-like proportions.

I wonder if it would be possible to get you two into some kind of infinite loop…

[Anonymous]

[quote=Rich Toscano]bearishgurl-like proportions.[/quote]

I’ve often wondered if the time I’ve spent on this site was a complete waste of time.

The laugh I got from that one phrase makes it all worthwhile.

[njtosd]

[quote=Rich Toscano][quote=njtosd]
I think it probably works as well as other dichotomies, such as extrovert/introvert feeling/thinking or the other Myers Briggs categories. [/quote]

I don’t agree with that because, taking introvert vs extrovert for example, it’s just a linear spectrum between two extremes regarding one issue.

“Conservative” vs. “liberal” means a million different things, depending on what issue you are talking about… that’s why it’s useless to argue based on “teams” as seems to be peoples’ general tendency. Each issue should be debated on its own merits, not what two (just two, for a million issues!!) teams think about it.

I think the Scientific American article is cool and the thing about innate tendencies sure seems plausible. But I do not agree that “liberal” vs “conservative” is anything like a single topic, linear spectrum such as “introvert” vs. “extrovert.”[/quote]

I see your point – I think perhaps what people are getting at is “the people who more often than not vote for the Democratic candidate” vs. “the people who more often than not vote for the Republican candidate”. I come from very Irish roots – relatives had a tendency toward knee jerk allegiance to a particular party (can you guess?) and that was often in conflict with many opinions that I saw bandied around. In the end there is a “chicken or pasta” sort of decision to make and most people choose one or the other even though they would rather have guac and chips (or whatever).

It would be more fun if we had the variety of political parties that other countries have – and I think there is room for a party that supports those who try to balance economic practicality with support for social issues. I used to think it would be difficult for such a group to get donations – but Bernie did a great job getting smallish donations from a large number of individuals. . . So, maybe.

[zk]

[quote=harvey][quote=Rich Toscano]bearishgurl-like proportions.[/quote]

I’ve often wondered if the time I’ve spent on this site was a complete waste of time.

The laugh I got from that one phrase makes it all worthwhile.[/quote]

That was funny, but this:
[quote=Rich Toscano]
I wonder if it would be possible to get you two into some kind of infinite loop…
[/quote]

was even better.

I tried to picture said loop, but I got woozy after only about 0.75 seconds of that, so I stopped.

[Rich Toscano]

Well, I’m glad someone finds my little rants amusing… (besides me 😉

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=Rich Toscano]
There’s no mention of negotiating. It seems pretty clear to me that he is talking about YOUR tendency to “make generalizations about arbitrarily-defined groups.”
[/quote]

Of course he is. And as he put it, the remarks are counter productive; he didn’t say to what, but i assume to people liking me. That’s why I agreed. I wasn’t trying take the high road to be “productive” . I was making observations about anger and pushing back against the notion of symmetrical jerkiness.

The anger against police abuse is easily understandable. However, the anger against the anger requires more explanation.

[FlyerInHi]

[quote=njtosd][quote=harvey]You’re both wrong.

Any argument based on the notion that everyone fits nicely into thought groups like ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ – and that membership in these groups is mutually exclusive – is just lame.[/quote]

I think it probably works as well as other dichotomies, such as extrovert/introvert feeling/thinking or the other Myers Briggs categories. Yes, we are all as different as snowflakes but generalities seem to be accepted by those who study these issues. I thought this one was interesting: http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/calling-truce-political-wars/
[/quote]

That’s an interesting article.

It got me thinking about the free markets which conservatives support. But in some contexts, a mercantilist regulated system would be considered conservative and free makets of billions of enterpreuners liberal.

What about political correctness which is a form of politeness? Some people say they hate political correctness and they want “tell it like it is” at the risk of hurting feelings. Historically, conservatives value politeness and proper etiquette.

So issues are not static and flip flop between conservatives and liberals over time. And even political parties redefine themselves.

It really comas down to fear of change or embracing of change. Not long term change such as climate change, but change to the lifetyles and certainties one is used to.

[bearishgurl]

At least I have actually made considerable contributions to this forum. Whether the reader considers them informational or valuable … or not … is up to them. If I saw a poster who was asking for help/advice and I saw it and had the time to offer it in attempt to help them, I did. Whoever doesn’t want to read my posts is free to block me.

All I can say as to the flippant comments of other posters (ie zk and harvey [aka pri_dk]) re: MY posts is to “consider the source.” Good L@rd! Pot meet kettle, lol ….

[bearishgurl]

FIH, there is nothing wrong with Americans who were born here and continued to live in the area they were born into adulthood and who trained for jobs in industries in their region/area and who went to work in that industry decades ago to have the expectation that they can remain in that same industry (if competent) and retire from that industry.

Yeah, a run-on sentence … I know, but I’m trying to get the message across that Americans deserve to make a living for their families … wherever they live in the USA. If they trained in a field in 1974 and are still able-bodied and competent in that field today, then they should still be able to work in it until they retire.

Do software engineers in CA need more people (ex: former auto workers and former ag workers) to train in their fields and begin competing with them for jobs nationwide? Don’t you people have enough competition with H1B workers and off-shoring of some of your jobs?

FIH, why are your posts frequently condemning people who only want to make a living IN their respective regions until they retire? It’s no skin off your back if they get to work and stay off unemployment and SNAP.

That’s how I’ve been reading your posts.

[flyer]

Clearly, what’s going on in law enforcement today is tragic from all perspectives.

Of the stellar individuals we have known over the years in law enforcement, all were glad to get out and collect their small fortunes. After their experiences, none we know have ever encouraged their family and/or friends to serve.

On that note, police recruits are down 90% in some areas, and as things get worse, no doubt there will be more and more early retirements and fewer applicants, so it will be interesting to see how society functions, should we ever get to the point where those in need call and no one answers.

[zk]

[quote=bearishgurl]
All I can say as to the flippant comments of other posters (ie zk and harvey [aka pri_dk]) re: MY posts is to “consider the source.” Good L@rd! Pot meet kettle, lol ….[/quote]

Wow! You really think saying, “consider the source” about me is helping your case? Your delusions are far worse than I had thought.

And while we’re considering, let’s all consider the fact that, as I’ve pointed out before, you’re a liar.

Also, if you think Harvey and I are the only ones making comments about you, you’re not paying attention.

[SK in CV]

[quote=flyer]On that note, police recruits are down 90% in some areas, and as things get worse, no doubt there will be more and more early retirements and fewer applicants, so it will be interesting to see how society functions, should we ever get to the point where those in need call and no one answers.[/quote]

What do you mean by “as things get worse”?

[flyer]

Since I don’t see how all parties concerned with regard to law enforcement issues will ever be able to come to terms with one another (those serving, and those they serve) imo, things can only get worse.

I’d be glad to be proven wrong, but at the very least, it seems to be clear that there will, most likely, be fewer and fewer individuals willing to serve the law enforcement needs of the populace going forward, and it will be interesting to see where that takes us as a society.

[Author]

Posts