 sj |
||
|
||
When you disagree with your 'group'...
|
|
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: DougR Date: 28 Mar 01 - 10:38 PM Sorry McGrath, I'm a bit dense, I guess. I'm not sure what you mean by your last post. Do you think that ALL management is lousy? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 28 Mar 01 - 10:01 PM I find the people who help you pack at the supermarket if you want them to are pretty well always friendly, as we chat about what a lousy management they have, which keeps on putting up the prices and holding down the wages. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Bill D Date: 28 Mar 01 - 06:22 PM liberals? You mean THEY call themselves 'liberal'?...I can paste any sticker I want on my forehead, but others may not see me that way. We know a 'compassionate' conservative who is raising eyebrows about that 'compassionate' part, don't we? I guess it is possible to have mixed ideologies... (BTW...back up there you doubted that 'selfishness' was any worse now than in the past....thought that was small part of my post, I actually DO think it is true. Perhaps it is related to my moving from Kansas to Washington DC 20+ years ago, but I see 'selfishness' and related issues as becoming embedded in the daily routine in ways I never saw when I was younger. Laws and merchants and habits and institutions and friends and are exemplifying 'me-firstism' in an almost programmed way. The change is not easy to point to in discrete examples, but I do notice, for example, that these days grocery store no longer seem to train their employees and design their stores to cater to the CUSTOMER'S wishes & feelings. (I used to work in groc. stores)...I get glares and arguments from checkers when I ask for my groceries to be bagged MY way...this would have gotten me FIRED when I worked in a store! It seems to me that the pressure & stresses of modern life have made people in general more defensive, less friendly, less honest and unhappier than when I was 20 (40 years ago).... |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 28 Mar 01 - 02:37 AM Kendall, it's my charicature of people who want to stop all development in this area now that THEIR house is built. These are mostly liberals. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: John Hardly Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:07 PM kendall, You run with all the wrong conservatives...what's that?..you don't know ANY? tweak tweak |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Ebbie Date: 27 Mar 01 - 10:59 PM Wow, Kendall. Absolutely. Jeri, that's a nice story- there is a good chance that that young woman learned something new and lasting that day. In my own story, I didn't feel that I got through to my friend. Instead we just kind of dropped the subject, and never picked it up again. I'm a whole lot bolder -and more unpleasant!- these days. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: kendall Date: 27 Mar 01 - 09:25 PM MS, did you really mean to say that liberals think "Pull up the ladder, I'm aboard?" I've always atributed that to conservatives. (the ones with all the money) Naemanson, you wouldn't believe how far I've slipped from the right. I was a Barry Goldwater republican, a rabid member of the National Rifle Assassination and almost a John Bircher. Now, I firmly believe that it is our duty in this life to help our fellow man, and, I think that generally it is the Liberals who do that best.Sure, there are those who abuse the system, and, there are those who would cut off aid to single mothers who keep having kids. But, who is that going to hurt? THE KIDS! "The Devil loves an unwanted child." (Henry Kranz) |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Mar 01 - 08:10 PM From the Universal Dictionary:
Liberal: Open-minded, wide in sympathy...open-handed, generous...
Conservative: tending to preserve...unwilling to change habits and mode of life...opposed to rash change or sudden innovation...moderate or cautious.
Those are supposed to be irreconcilable opposites? Why can't people stop picking on useful words and twisting them into weapons for domestic polemic purposes.
Anyway, I'd have thought "Progressive" and "Regressive" are much more satisfactory terms for this purpose. I suppose people might find it embarrassing to attack things as being "progressive" because the word has got overtones of being something everyone should love. (No different from the word "liberal" really, in that way, before the change got it by the throat, at least in some corners of one continent - and they dare to claim to be conservative-minded doing that to the language of common civilised discourse! "Opposed to rash change or sudden innovation" they certainly are not...) |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Mark Clark Date: 27 Mar 01 - 05:38 PM Actually, Big Bill may have said it best.
It takes me six months to tend to my business and six months to leave other people's alone, It takes me six months to tend to my business and six months to leave other people's alone, Lord, by the time I do that, I declare the whole twelve months is gone. I'm certainly as highly opinionated as the next person, maybe more so. The thing is, I learned a long time ago that my answers are simply the best ones for me right this minute and may have no special value for anyone else. That's why it's rare for me to contribute to a non-mucic thread here. A lot of disagreement stems from not carefully thinking through our own ideas before inflicting them on someone else. Perhaps most offensive is the attempt by one person or group to control another in the name of God. Within the limits of practical civil law, any time I am expected to change my beliefs, my behavior, my place of residence or the name of my country because someone else's god said I must, I'm pretty sure we aren't praying to the same god. Especially if my God hasn't mentioned the problem. If my God disapproves of your behavior or beliefs, I don't have to worry. That's a problem God can deal with in his own way. All I have to worry about is my own behavior and spiritual growth. Good manners and modern civil law aren't handed down from God, they are generally the rules necessary for any orderly society to exist. Within the context of an orderly society, behavior that is also consistent with a particular religious doctrine must be considered optional. - Mark |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,Evil Mystery Guest f/k/a Midchuck upstairs Date: 27 Mar 01 - 03:03 PM Kendall said: Actually, the older I get, the more liberal I become. Jimmy Durante had it nailed when he said "My philosophy is simply this...Leave everyone else the hell alone!" That's what I believe! But it isn't liberalism! (not in the present-day sense, anyway - it's a pretty simple definition of late-18th-century "classical" liberalism) Both modern "liberalism" and modern "conservatism" are about professional politicians trying to run everyone's lives to suit themselves. They just have two different sets of rules as to how those lives should be run. Peter. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Jeri Date: 27 Mar 01 - 02:55 PM Ebbie, I went on a tour of Europe in 1981. Two members of the tour group were from S. Africa - a woman who was near to my age and her mother. One day the younger woman and I started talking - the subject was black people. She asked how America coped with integration because all the black people she'd seen or met seemed angry and bad-mannered. I asked her how she thought she would act if she was isolated, treated like dirt and kept poor. She actually looked at me with a "wow - I'd never considered that" expression. (The conversation lasted longer than that and was more detailed, but that's the jist of it.) She was fairly open-minded. She asked the question in all sincerity - a question many of her countrymen had probably allready answered in their own minds. She also really heard my answer, and maybe thought about it some more. Within her own group, she never would have learned anything about life outside it. (Hey, she was also freaked out by the fact I had a car and was allowed to drive it.) |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Mar 01 - 01:15 PM Aww Kendall, it probably WASN't Sandy who said you're a pussycat....all I know (now) is that it probably wasn't your first wife either! I also found Doug's question interesting (why less liberal as you get older?) Naturally there are lots of famous quotes on the subject (Churchill etc.) but personally, I've given it a bit of thought over the last couple of days. As I've gotten older, my obsession for information has increased. Many folks seem to have reached "info overload" to the extent where they don't WANT to read the news, explore different points of view, etc. Generally the reason is that "it's just too negative, or unpleasant...and it brings them down". I fully understand that point of view, but it simply doesn't work for me. Perhaps it's a kind of paranoia, but I feel that if there's something new happening and I don't keep up with it, it's going to leave me really vulnerable, or worse..naieve. Being "out of the loop" (info-wise) would trouble me indeed. Now this is rich, coming from someone as "modern technology challenged" as I am, but we all have our interests. I doubt if I've become "more conservative", but I've certainly become "more suspicious" (is that a part of conservatism?). To put this in "American" political terms ('cause if I put it in Canadian terms, nobody would know what I was talkin' about...including most Canadians) I support many of the AIMS of The Democrats, and am uncomfortable with many of the ACTIONS of The Republicans, but do I see them as more than 2% apart when it comes to being in power? Absolutely not. They are both comprised of very wealthy influential people, and my life experience has shown me unequivically that important rich folks are each others' best friends. If I see someone like...say Rush Limbaugh, my experience tells me that he's an entertaining informed dangerous pompous ass....but now, I see Jesse Jackson (despite what his original motivation might have been) as an equally entertaining, informed, dangerous pompous ass.....but (sadly) also a hypocrite. One (Rush) makes me laugh at how easily he manipulates disaffected white guys, the other makes me sad because he had so much potential to really HELP in a crucial way, but he allowed himself the same recklessness and public stupidity that Clinton did. Shame. I DID (and DO) expect more from "my side". I rarely get it. To bring this back to the original thread point. I simply could not have this kind of discussion among my "peer circle" without many of them thinking that I was a "traitor to the cause". I'm not. If there are "traitors" then it's within the leadership, and I'm sorry that to hold them accountable is often seen as "desertion". Rick |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Ebbie Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:57 AM Many years ago I worked with- and was friends with- a woman who was 14 years old in Germany when the war ended. (When she was 16 she came to this country and married a GI she had met during the war) This was a goodhearted, gentle-spirited person and I enjoyed her a lot. One day she said that Jewish families had had a camp down by the river in her town and she said, And "Ebbie", they really were dirty. In astonishment, I said, Can you imagine anyone living in a camp by a river who isn'tdirty? We still spent time together but from then on we had a tacit agreement not to discuss uncomfortable things. To this day I don't know where she was going with that thought. Obviously I would handle it differently now, but I was in my 20s then- and hadn't yet learned not to leave something 'unreproved'. Ebbie |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:57 AM The older I get, the more greed and callousness and selfishness bother me. Thus, the less I like the Republicans (speaking here of hoi polloi, not politicos, who are all greedy and selfish). I hate NIMBY-playing, I hate "pull up the ladder I'm aboard" attitudes (mostly held by left-wingers), and I hate anti-tax sentiment (a la "Why should *I* pay for roads/schools/whatever in THEIR neighborhoods?") I hate corporate greed that wants to rape the land for profit, and pay the workers shit wages to increase shareholder value. Thus the older I get the more effectively liberal I become. And I started that way. Go grow a new theory, you guys. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,bbc at work Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:52 AM Naemanson beat me to my idea (Guess that harmony of thought is why I liked him, right off!). If our life experience doesn't color our thinking about issues & others, we're not learning much. Yes, I think it's easier to be liberal or conservative when you are young. The more you go through in life, the more likely you are to experience shades of gray & to approach middle ground, 'though on one side or the other. I absolutely *love* Big Mick, but there are some topics we had better never touch! I find that I really value Mudcat because it puts me in contact w/ people I've come to value highly, whose point of view is very different from my own. It broadens my thinking & my world. I love you. bbc |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:50 AM "Maybe it's that we tend to slip towards a center position." That is precisely what "liberal" has always meant, except apparently recently among some people in parts of North America, who have redefined it to mean something they see as extreme. Extreme centre maybe.
Turkeys. Is this a case of a cliche too far for spaw, and he's saying "let's actually see what it means" - or isn't that a cliche that you use in America? Either way, what it means is that, if something means you'll be for the chop, and there's a vote about it, the chances are you won't be voting for it, and nor will other people in the same situation. Or other turkeys.
I suppose the unfortunate birds (who should have been the national emblem of America if Benjamin Franklin hadn't been outvoted) might be even more inclined to vote against Thanksgiving over there in their native habitat - but we have our Turkey on Christmas Day.
And if 95 per cent of the 50% or so of black Americans who voted didn't vote for the man who is now Resident in the White House, it would appear pretty clear that they thought it would be against their interests for him to win the election. (This figure of speech is not intended to suggest that Bush is a cannibal. Yes, I know - but there are some people who take things a bit literally at times.) |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:36 AM Yeah..........Well I'm sure Kevin has some sort of message there and I appreciate the effort at enlightenment WS............So if I vote for Easter, do I get ham? Spaw - Symbolismically Challenged |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Whistle Stop Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:29 AM Spaw, I should probably let McGrath answer for himself. but in the USA, I think you're more likely to hear that not too many turkeys vote for Thanksgiving. Which means that individuals don't tend to vote against their self interest (turkeys being a particularly popular main course for Thanksgiving dinner). I'll leave it to McGrath to explain why that statement is relevant to this thread; presumably it has to do with people deciding where they stand on issues (abortion, taxation, gun control, etc.) based on how it affects them personally. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:17 AM Thank you, Spaw. I was afraid I was stupid. Now I see that you don't understand it either, I realize it was just confusing. I'd like to know where BillD lives, where selfishness is less common than at any time in the past. I haven't noticed any wholescale decrease in selfishness in the time I've been on the planet. Charitable giving continues to scrape record lows in this country (USA), people seem to be volunteering less and less time to charitable organizations, and the push for more and more consumer goods shows no sign of flagging. If there's a blazing streak of selflessness out there, other than the low-level background radiation that never quite goes away, then it's managed to remain completely hidden to this observer. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: catspaw49 Date: 27 Mar 01 - 11:04 AM Hating to be "outside" the group here, but sometimes I get lost and I think I'd feel much better about my sub-intellectual capacity if McGrath (or someone) could explain: As the saying goes, you don't get too many turkeys voting for Christmas either. What the hell does that mean anyway? Spaw
|
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Bill D Date: 27 Mar 01 - 10:58 AM "Jimmy Durante had it nailed when he said "My philosophy is simply this...Leave everyone else the hell alone!" ...and, to me, the pernicious thread that 'tends' to run in conservative groups is to NOT leave others alone, and to advocate laws and support 'group think' ideas that pressure ME to behave like them. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: MikeofNorthumbria Date: 27 Mar 01 - 10:35 AM A great thread Rick – thanks for starting it. And thanks to sundry other contributors for their illuminating comments. Here's a small contribution to the debate.
As human beings, we are all similar – in some respects.
While still cherishing our links with the wider family of humanity, we may choose to emphasise our membership of smaller groups from time to time. But we should try to remember that these groupings – whether based on nationality, regionality, locality, sexuality, musicality, or what you will - are artificial, and re-negotiable.
(If that sounds daft, then remember that in the days of apartheid, the South African government once reclassified all Japanese as "whites", in order to facilitate a favourable trade deal with Japan. Likewise, when Ms Thatcher paid an official visit to the Saudis, they categorised her as a man, because their political vocabulary had no appropriate terms for addressing a female head of government. Oh, and how many fifty-somethings do you know who insist on behaving like teenagers most of the time? )
So, let's join any club we have a mind to, and then sing about what jolly good fellows we are for being members of it. But let's do it without forgetting our common humanity, or abandoning individual responsibility for our actions. And if we suddenly find ourselves ill at ease in a group where we once felt at home, then it may be time to move on. But it may just be a reminder that cloning is an ecological blind alley. In the world of ideas, as well as in the world of living things, diversity enriches the environment, while monoculture impoverishes it.
Here endeth the sermon. Wassail! |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Naemanson Date: 27 Mar 01 - 09:14 AM "Several of you who identify yourselves as liberal, mentioned that as you aged, you became more conservative. I wonder how age enters into it?" - DougR I believe a total liberal attitude is for the young and as age matures one's outlook you realize the need to compromise between liberal and conservative views. Of course, people like Kendall tend to blow that theory out of the water. Come to think of it, my father has gotten a little more liberal also. Maybe it's that we tend to slip towards a center position. How much from the right have you slipped Kendall? John Hardly, racism is not necessarily connected to the theology of groups but the people tend to clump together in groups that think alike. I saw this in Georgia (USA) where decent white Christians welcomed our new home puechase because we were white and the former occupants weren't. In their vernacular, "The neighdorhood is all 3white again." And then they sent the Joy Bus around to collect the kids for Sunday school. We also heard at length of how "those people" kept such a dirty house and how "they" liked to live that way. This was not their theology. It did not come from anything they learned at church. It arose from all having the same opinion and joining together in that opinion in an environment where they were comfortable expressing that opinion with each other. It came from being in a group where no dissenter dared raise his/her voice. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 27 Mar 01 - 08:38 AM Actually, the older I get, the more liberal I become. Jimmy Durante had it nailed when he said "My philosophy is simply this...Leave everyone else the hell alone!" As far as change goes, some things need to be changed, others dont.We liberals know the difference! Pussycat indeed! name calling! |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 27 Mar 01 - 08:37 AM As the saying goes, you don't get too many turkeys voting for Christmas either.
I worry that relying on logic as a counter to racism, or all the other raft of -isms like that, gives away too much ground. Even if it was "logical" to discriminate against people because of their ancestry or their culture or their ex or their disabililties or whatever, it'd still be wrong, and that's what matters. You don't have to believe in God to believe in right and wrong, and try to do what needs doing to put that into practice.
We find ourselves holding certain views on particular issues, but underlying these are value systems out of which they grow. However the same value systems can give rise to different patterns of growth.
What that means is that we can find ourselves arguing against people with whose value systems we largely share, and in alliance with people whose value systems we do not share. The former are the opponents we get on with, the latter are the allies who make our skin crawl. I think if we recognised this, both in ourselves and others, it could generate more light and less heat sometimes. To use a musical analogy - two instruments which are in tune with each other can sound pretty ok, even if they are playing different tunes. But two instruments which are out of tune with each other playing the same tune will sound absolutely awful. So you get make sure the instruments are properly in tune, and take it from there. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: John Hardly Date: 27 Mar 01 - 07:11 AM ". Many years ago, racism and hate and selfishness were often openly displayed, and 'conservatives' who based their opinions on hate and bigotry were a lot easier to identify. You can still see some in public positions whose attitudes are very thinly disguised.........It ain't easy, folks....look inside yourself and see if you can answer honestly WHY you hold position "X"...." Bill D Interesting.. I was raised in what used to be called a fundementalist Christian home (The books on our shelves were C.S.Lewis, Francis Schaeffer etc.). I was taught that racism and bigotry were unequivocally sin. They were evil and against God's creation--He meant what He created. Upon further teaching by my parents on the subject, I was taught that, even if you took theology out of the picture racism would still be wrong because it was not logical to assign the character and traits of the group to the individual. It is interesting that, from the strictly logical perspective described above, it is the "group think" mentality as evidenced by an over 95% Democrat voting practices of African Americans, that allows for a new and "logically correct" racism. Probably the same could be said of any individual who gives over his voice of reason to "the group" |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Grab Date: 27 Mar 01 - 06:56 AM John Hardly - "If our political beliefs hang by a thread, our religious ones probably hang by a hair." It's when ppl hang others by the *neck* to reinforce their weak political or religious beliefs (literally or metaphorically) that scares me... Grab. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Rick Fielding Date: 27 Mar 01 - 12:01 AM Ahh Kendall ain't no curmudgeon. Sandy Paton says he's a pussycat. Rick |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: DougR Date: 26 Mar 01 - 11:55 PM Curmudgeon? I think Kendall has already claimed that role, Rick. I think it pays well, doesn't it Kendall? DougR |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Rick Fielding Date: 26 Mar 01 - 11:32 PM Interesting point Amergin. Actually the shyness that I battled for many years seems to completely disappear when I'm in a comfortable environment. As I've written here ad nauseum, I've created my OWN environment over the last 12 or so years (anyone's welcome). My hesitation to voice dissent around my "social group" is limited to issues that the whole group seem to (at times unquestionly) espouse. As I've said here twice, I feel I NEED that social group or I could easily become a real loner. As much as I'm comfortable with my own company, without people I think I'd become far too sarcastic, cynical, and in general, not much fun to be around. Works the same around Mudcat. I NEED this community, and I've learned to not get involved in the kind of threads that simply lead to polarization. Believe me, with my views on Political and religious hypocracy...not to mention my "somewhat purist" take on how I think music should be performed, I'd fast become a curmudgeon....which I don't want. Can do that on my own Ha Ha! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Bill D Date: 26 Mar 01 - 09:34 PM If pressed to label myself, I would sort of call myself liberal....I vote mostly Democratic and worked in the Civil rights movement...etc...but I have several positions which, if expressed out of context, would get me labeled conservative. Example: I oppose "affirmative action laws" usually. But, on the other hand, I STRONGLY oppose attempts to limit the ability of any person or group to compete fairly in the society. I put my butt on the line in Mississippi in the 1960s, and would do it again if necessary, but I can barely contain my rage at some of the blatent, demanding attitudes of some African-American groups who want special privileges forever because of what happened to their grandfathers. To me, the labels are more useful when the attitudes and motives of a person are apparent. I have a neighbor across the street who hates blacks and uses the "N" word constantly because he believes them as a group to be inferior and dangerous. Now, if a family of poor, ignorant African-Americans with anti-social habits moved into our block, he and I would BOTH dislike it, and be wary of them, but our reasons and reactions might be VERY different! Likewise, in fiscal matters, advocating or opposing a tax cut can be done for very different motives...there are some pretty strong opinions right now that G. W. Bush is offering everyone a tax cut simply to cater to the rich and make it easier to enhance and protect their position, while giving the masses very little. The thing is, politicians are getting cleverer about disguising their deeper motives and feelings when they advocate certain positions. Many years ago, racism and hate and selfishness were often openly displayed, and 'conservatives' who based their opinions on hate and bigotry were a lot easier to identify. You can still see some in public positions whose attitudes are very thinly disguised.........Look at Mississippi poilticians now debating whether to ban the Confererate battle flag as an official state symbol! Some of them are groping very awkwardly for high-sounding reasons for their conservative position...and NOT succeeding too well. I might go on and make the same sort of points about the death penalty, abortion, school prayer, military spending, corporal punishment in schools, court judgements in rape cases, oil drilling in wilderness areas, teaching evolution, special access for the handicapped, penalties for drug abuse...it goes on & on, and it is possible to hold almost identical voting positions on many of these with people with whom you disagree on others. It ain't easy, folks....look inside yourself and see if you can answer honestly WHY you hold position "X".... As the old lady said.."Of course it was a just war, my son died in it!" |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: John Hardly Date: 26 Mar 01 - 08:05 PM MofH< Interesting thought, in fact, because I assume no group to be right in all--I sometimes feel myself always the outsider, looking for the fatal flaw in group logic. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: katlaughing Date: 26 Mar 01 - 08:04 PM Ah....DougeR...glad to see that, 'cause despite all the haranguing in the political threads, I would most certainly describe you as a friend, and a good one at that! It all comes down to labels, doesn't it? We humans want to know about everything and put it in context in our lives, so we label everything: liberal, conservative, a mother's love, a father's love, progressive, out to lunch, in lala land. There is comfort in thinking that we know what or who someone is because of the labels we can apply. In the human rights org. I work with, it is always our goal to reach out to those of different mind-set/lifestyle/beliefs, to get to know them and vice versa so that we may look beyond the stereotypes of the labels. Sometimes it works well, sometimes not. I disagree about getting away from orgs. or maybe my own experience is different because I've always tried to stay outside some of the boxes or at least be open to newer ways and ideas. I've moved on fairly comfortably, progressing, I hope and never felt a terrible tug or guilt or pulling from the old. Not saying this very clearly, I know. Sorry. katafriendofDougeR's!
|
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Mar 01 - 07:19 PM "Any individual in a group doesn't believe what he believes as strongly when separated from the group."(John Hardly) "The longer away from the group, the more able one is to view the group's beliefs with a little "distance"."(mousethief)
Can work the other way though, the way you get exiles holding even more firmly to ways that may have become outmoded back home. And you can get that in other contexts, like politics. You can have isolated people who hold on to amd preserve ideas and ideals as part of their whole personality, out in a hostile environment, disregarding changes in political fashion. And that can be one of the places where a whole new cycle of politics can take off, in time.
It's all very like folk songs really. Folk politics.
As for terms like conservative and liberal, as we've found exploring them on other threads, they are a lot more complicated than is often recognised, and in some senses they are in no ways opposites or incompatible.
One of the meanings of conservative is being distrustful of change - and I think anyone who isn't distrustful of change isn't in touch with reality, and in that sense growing older and growing more conservative are to be expected to come together. It doesn't means there aren't changes you want to see, but you want to look at them carefully.
The other meaning of conservative of course is to do with wanting to bring in various kinds of detestable changes, and opposing various kinds of changes that might make things a lot better. And I don't think people need fear that growing older is inevitably going to mean they can look forward to slipping into that way of thinking. Pete Seeger's not the only octogenarian who can see through that. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:46 PM Doug, all I can offer is an opinion. Seems to me that many of us are unable to separate our beliefs from our egos. Being a republican does not make you a bad person! Former president Truman hit it right. When he met with General McArthur, the general was late. It was reported that Truman said to him "You may keep Harry Truman waiting as long as you like..BUT you dont keep the president of the USA waiting Mister" Big difference. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:21 PM And I'm a regular churchgoer, too. :o) Not on Wednesdays, though. Alex |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: John Hardly Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:17 PM Devious thought Alex... ...and probably dead on. If our political beliefs hang by a thread, our religious ones probably hang by a hair. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Amergin Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:12 PM Rick, forgive me if I am reading into this what is not there....but could your hesitation to speak out derive from your inherent shyness and insecurity? Alot of times I find myself doing the same thing.... |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: DougR Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:09 PM Rick: The PC police are gonna get'cha! DougR |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:04 PM Interesting points, John Hardly, and hard to argue with! Groupthink is very seductive, but its hold on the mind seems to be directly proportional to the amount of time, recently, one has spent with the group. The longer away from the group, the more able one is to view the group's beliefs with a little "distance". Is this the psychology behind the Wednesday-night church service? (Can of worms, I know. Can't stop myself!) Alex |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 01 - 06:00 PM That was terrible, Rick. I suppose if we started talking about people who were yanks apart, we'd be censured for talking dirty! A |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: John Hardly Date: 26 Mar 01 - 05:58 PM The "group" has an interesting weakness.. Any individual in a group doesn't believe what he believes as strongly when separated from the group. As wise as we may think ourselves, and as well thought out the ideals to which we adhere, the greatest strength of, and reason for what we believe is often nothing more than "because others do". This is why seldom does a "group" let a former member go in peace. It forces them to band tighter together to protect their belief structure. .
|
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Rick Fielding Date: 26 Mar 01 - 05:53 PM Or even "Hungarians" apart, Doug. Gotta get to the radio station! Rick |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Amos Date: 26 Mar 01 - 05:27 PM One of my qualifications for friendship, of the lasting variety, is a committment to ongoing communication as being the senior consideration, over mere agreements about things. I enjoy people who enjoy me, like anyone, but it is my nature to occasionally test that very thing, usually inadvertantly, and the friends who have survived are obviously those who pass the test of that commitment to the exchange of viewpoints. Wanting only the same viewpoint from others is a reall addiction to tedium. A |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: DougR Date: 26 Mar 01 - 04:51 PM Several of you who identify yourselves as liberal, mentioned that as you aged, you became more conservative. I wonder how age enters into it? I also believe that many of us here lean both ways (depending on the issue)more than we care to admit. On some issues, I am liberal (abortion for one), and on others conservative, but I lean more toward conservative on most issues than liberal. On the question of friendship. Although I have never met Rick, or Kendall, Spaw, kat, and several others of the liberal persuasion here on the Mudcat, were I describing them to someone, I would identify them as friends. Even though we may be poles apart philosophically, on some issues. DougR DougR |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: McGrath of Harlow Date: 26 Mar 01 - 02:15 PM "At lefty ones, the folks are often Professional, University educated, and literate to a fault. Nobody would think of making any statement that could be seen as a value judgement. There certainly is no (overt) smoking or joke-telling, or even swearing."
One of the things I like best about the Mudcat is how it throws up revelations that things with the same labels stuck on them can be very different. I'm sure there are lefty efforts like that over here too, but they aren't what you get as a rule.
Doug R mused; I guess the question that has puzzled me, particularly since I became a member of Mudcat, is why two people (or two groups of people) cannot have divergent opinions on ANY subject, and still remain friends. As I see it is in fact quite possible to have extraordinarily divergent opinions, and still stay friends, and I think that's what he means, because it can happen here.
Three things get in the way - one is that there are some issues and some attitudes which break friendship, one they are identified they set up a barrier that can't be crossed. But not many, and the most peculiar bridges can be made between people who you'd think would be separated by an impassable gulf.
And sometimes you come across people you can't stand - and you hope that they are never going to end up on the same side of a quarrel as you, or you'll have to move over to the opposition.
And the third thing is that in a dispute we sometimes say more than we really mean, and it turns into a quarrel. And quarrels have a whole dynamic of their own. I think that the structure we have with the threads helps here, because it gives a chance to read over what the other person said, and what we have said. I've often found myself flaring off about something that on a second reading turns out to be a misunderstanding on my part of what the other person was saying, or that they have misunderstood what I'd said before. Most times before posting the re0ply. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,Roll&Go-C Date: 26 Mar 01 - 02:07 PM And sometimes we may even have to test our beliefs with action, or maybe that's just something we did in the early 1970's...My father at the age of 96 has earned the right to be cynical but he still cares enough to complain. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: Mrrzy Date: 26 Mar 01 - 02:04 PM I would extend the "If two people agree on everything, then one of them is doing all the thinking" to "if members of a group of three or more all agree on everything, then none of them are thinking" - but then again I am about to give my Intro to Psych class a test on group dymanics and motivations... so perhaps I'm sensitized. But I do believe (dare I say - know?) that dissenters keep a group healthier than when the dissenters shut up and merely conform/comply/obey. Next year I think I'll title this segment People Are Sheep and dare the class to come up with a valid and reliable counter-example! (Maybe send them here for research - who knows?) |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: mousethief Date: 26 Mar 01 - 01:59 PM You could always quit the group, I suppose, Kendall. |
|
Subject: RE: When you disagree with your 'group'... From: GUEST,kendall Date: 26 Mar 01 - 01:46 PM sorry spaw, we are both members of the human race. I was forced to join that, and, I resent it too! |
| Share Thread: |