|
|
|||
|
Navigation User login Who's online There are currently 9 users and 62 guests online.
Online users
Support OlyBlog OlyBlog is run by volunteers who care about Olympia. If you like what we're doing, make a donation: OlyBlog is powered by:
Who's new
 |
Submitted by Meta Hogan on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 11:55am.
(Okay, so this is my "access denied" comment on the "Rob Richards' message to Mike" thread. Sorry I couldn't get it into the thread itself, but the asshats who control the intertubes got in my way.) You and Gug can how me how a conversation model with JT will help him have a come to Jesus moment and issue a retraction on anything he posts that is shown or known to be fraudulent or a misrepresentation. The point of choosing a strategy (eg, conversation-style community journalism) is not so that we can better assure ourselves of "winning" the conversation. The point is that by adopting this strategy we will build a more workable community with which to converse, build stronger bonds among people in that community to withstand the tough times and disagreements, and in the end, to produce the best information in the most meaningful context. At least, that's how I see it. Your above statement sounds a little to me (I share your love of analogy) like someone saying, "I just don't see how nonviolence will make the other guy bash his own head in." In adopting a strategy of nonviolence, you give up the need to have a head bashed, or--in the case of conversation-style journalism--you give up the need to make someone retract their posts. Or kind of like (more analogy) a misguided, destructive Presidential candidate. Sure, some folks will probably vote for them. I will be disheartened and maybe a little afraid that there are people in this country who would vote for (a racist, a warmonger, a global-warming denier, etc), but I would not want to silence their votes. I/we have chosen a strategy called democracy (okay, I'm not arguing the purity or effectiveness in practice of our particular democracy here...) in which we work toward an informed citizenry, level the playing field where possible, and trust that the outcome will reflect our better natures. I guess trust is the key component of all these scenarios. We choose strategies that are aligned with our values, and then we trust those strategies, with a lot of hard work and patience and learning, to provide us with good outcomes. Makes sense? Just my thoughts on the issue.
|
OlyBlog.net OlyBlog is devoted to hyperlocal news and discussion specifically about Olympia, Washington. Contributors to OlyBlog are citizen journalists who care about their community and are tired of corporate media. If you'd like to contribute, please register for an account. Here is a list of local news beats that need to be covered. You can post your news as a personal blog entry, and it will be reviewed (and possibly edited) for promotion to the front page. You can also send news via email. All members of OlyBlog agree to abide by our comment and fair use policies. If you are frustrated about something said in a comment thread, go here. Now playing at: 
Latest Classified Ads Upcoming events
 
|
|
|
OlyBlog is a site for news and discussion about Olympia, Washington. |
|||
It all adds up (The Meta Equation)
Submitted by Sarah on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 1:35pm.mmm...
Submitted by chad360 on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 1:49pm.Well my take is that life is like a self-referred survey: statistically invalid, but often informative and usually fun to try.
I am constantly amazed by how much "systems dynamics/information theory" jargon permeates our dialog and influences interpersonal relationships.
Terms like feedback and output make me laugh a bit, and I find myself using the jargon alot also-
Can anyone imagine a 3D OlyBlog with voice-chat like SecondLife?
--does not being "face 2 face" engender bad communication habits?
Confusion as a means of censuring
Submitted by Crusty on Fri, 01/25/2008 - 2:34pm.When I double click the title on your post, I pull up Mike's post.
When I check beneath your post for a reply box, I am routed to your private mail.
The only way I can repond to your post is to add to Sarah's thread.
Nonviolence embraces more than a philosophy of the physical aspect of human relations. It embraces the emotional realm of human communication and of tolerance of divergent views. In some of Ghandi's writing, he mentioned that he learned much about nonviolence from his wife's stubborn refusal to let him control her and from her submissive suffering when he tried. It would seem your post was slenced by someone else's control issues.
Hugs, Christie
If we could add one thing to that equation
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 9:11am.that factored in that our values need to be just and equitable, generous, compassionate, I would sign on in a heartbeat.
Absent such a factor, the equation described above, beautiful as it is, might fit well with Donald Rumsfeld's world view.
Maybe the one thing that would have to be added is an agreement about about what constitutes "good outcomes?"
Does the subjugation of many of the world's nations, mistreatment of citizens of other nations, control and exploitation of other nations' raw resource so that we can drive hummers and eat burgers every day qualify as a good outcome?
Boy, I am amazed at how hard it is to have my point of
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 9:02am.view understood here.
I don't care about winning or losing in the context of JT's misleading and ill-informed posts on global warming, I was thinking before my recent conversion to conversation that it mattered as a point of journalism if a post here that was made as if it was based on facts, was truly based on facts or if the facts were not available or had been falsified, fabricated, bent in ways that made them invalid.
so, now that I am converted, I am having trouble understanding why the folks who have argued so successfully to me that whether JT's posts have any basis in fact or reality are now reacting badly to JT and Jeff brigham"s thought_provoking ideas on ism, ISRAEL, RACHEL CORRIE, (COMPUTER IS LOSING IT'S MIND AND SWITCHING TO CAps without any input from me) I am going to have a conversation with the computer and reboot it to help us work in the agreed case.
At any rate, I think it is unfortunate that folks have suddenly become fixated on whether JT and Jeff's posts have any factual basis because we are losing an opportunity for great conversation.
But as I noted elsewhere, there is an unrecognized weighting that goes on and that can see a difference between reacting badly to inaccurate information about Rachel or the ISM and reacting badly to inaccurate information about global warming.
I am hoping this is not simply a double standard that supports conventional wisdom regarding what topics are off limits although, when I was confused about the importance of the conversation, I thought it mattered that a relatively level playing field accorded by agreeing and enforcing ethical standards regarding the deliberate posting of inaccurate, false, or misleading information might be the place to start.
Thanks for struggling through to share your thoughts. They sound true to me. This is a conversation.
You will note in those
Submitted by Phil Owen on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 1:44pm.You will note in those conversations that, while I have absolutely not pulled any punches, I have refrained, to the best of my ability, from making personal attacks and from belittling or demeaning my ideological opponents.
The evidence of this is that JT has not complained of my behavior. Further evidence of my good-faith effort will be that if JT does complain of my behavior in the future, or suggests that he feels demeaned or has had his feelings hurt, I will absolutely apologize and retract the offending comment.
I am not at all opposed to engaging in dialogue, Mike. I am opposed to making it a personal battle, as you seem to have done. As the docents have said numerous times, "play the ball, not the person", and "it's not about content or opinion, it's about how it's said".
EDIT: One more word. It really boils down to respect. If JT ever suggests to me that he thinks I have anything less than sincere respect for him, I'll feel ashamed for it and attempt to correct myself. I'll not offer justifications. I'll not offer reasons. I'll not defend myself, but will apologize and correct my behavior. Get it?
The Canaanite's Call
from JT's ISM thread
Submitted by Mike on Sat, 01/26/2008 - 10:51pm.from phil: This post is really reaching, JT...
I'm frankly flabbergasted that you'd be willing to post it at all. ... I don't believe that you are lacking in critical thinking skills, JT. You can do better than this.
from Stevenl: JT. You know I like and respect you. But this post is beyond the pale. Speaking for myself, I'd like to see more local, unifying, and community building posts from you. This one is just divisive. Do you want OlyBlog to serve as a local solution space, or as an ideological battleground? In the former, I think you have an especially unique voice to offer, in the latter-- well, do you really want to be there?
from gug:
subjected yet again to the worst the internet has to offer because JT is more interested in polemics than an honest attempt to investigate an issue. There is no arguing with someone who can believe "X is true becasue there is no proof that X is not true," so I suggest you all focus on the source. For instance, the source JT so respectfully recommends to his friends here at Olyblog includes this appalling graphic:
What's next JT, a sign that says
"God Bless Arab Abortionists?"
from gug: I'm not here to "reason" with you. That is futile given the topic and your congnitive style. I am merely pointing out things for your audience.
It seems to me that in this single thread a lot of regular posters here "played" JT as often as they "played the ball." But you may know better. I get that.
I think your post is condescending, dismissive, and disrespectful toward me, but I have a pretty thick skin and enjoy a little give and take, so that doesn't really bother me and I don't feel that you owe me an apology for that. I can take getting pounded from time to time, but you may choose to feel ashamed of not living up to the standards you set for yourself above if you choose to.
There are nuances to these communications that are simply not getting communicated. Authentic, nuanced communication is not easy.