Category: the Rant Board
I'm trying to think of a word that could describe some people I know. You probably know people like this or you might even be one of them. They seem to have an opinion on everything in the news, although my impression is they didn't study all sides of all issues. They seem to see things in absolutes, absolute right and wrong, and how things should be and shouldn't be. They seem to talk a lot about crimes and punishments, and the punishments seem to always be quite harsh. They might believe, for example, that murderers deserve prison but with no rights at all, in their perfect world, that is. They read a lot of news of the weird or the outrageous and tend to believe that anyone who befalls some kind of misfortune deserves it. I'm sure there's more examples of their point of view I can find but this is what comes to mind. I tell you what, though, I would hate to live in their world of absolutes, as it would not be a utopia, I think it would be tyranny, and replacing any perceived real-life tyranny with an idealized one is just no better. I'm glad I live in an unfair, ambiguous world where nothing is cut-and-dried.
Ah but you're wrong on one small point: They don't see things as right or wrong, they see them as white or wrong.
Lol there's a reason they call that the White Wing.
Thank you, GOT! I can't find a word either, but I know what you're talking about. Indeed. No thank you!
The best word I can think of is idealist, but that may only scratch the surface. So you've run into these sorts of people too, eh?
I agree. The world is good as is.
I'm not an idealist by any stretch of the imagination. However, a friend of mine once wrote in a poem, "we may not change the world, but someone please tell me we're at least going to try".
I don't see the world as black and white, but I sure as hell see some things that are wrong with it. I'll be damned if I can face myself if I sit back and let it sit as it is now.
I want to bring this topic back because I now have an example I can use to illustrate this rather disturbing attitude. So recently, there was a story about somebody, not a blind person even can you believe, who called 911 because Facebook was down. My reaction was, "humph, that was stupid" and then I got on with my life and did other things. However, a few people I know started talking about how there need to be penalties for people who call 911 with non-emergencies. Jail time, fines, having their internet devices taken away, that kind of thing. Really? You guys have that much emotional investment in news stories about total strangers and all your authoritarian fantasizing is just going to come to nothing. I just find that sort of thing a bit authoritarian and kind of cruel, but I guess I do not think it is my job to rid the world of stupid. Another example is the reactions I've seen to news stories about parents who leave their kids in a hot car. Yes, it shouldn't happen, but again, that is where my interest in the issue stops. Other people I know started thinking up ways the negligent parent should suffer for what they've done, I guess two wrongs do make a right in that case. Something's wrong with me I guess because I don't dream about making people suffer for not being as smart or responsible as I am.
Godzilla, a couple points here.
First, those spreading the news story know what elements cause humans to gravitate to something: the emotional appeal. It makes people feel like they're so much better because they can point out someone way worse. It makes them feel involved and important. Like the Social Justice Warriors on the Internet, or the Christians who want creationism in the schools.
Also add to that insular, usually religious but not always, fundamentalist upbringing and environment tends to produce a very black-and-white outlook, very childish and stunted. Adult minds understand that there are a lot of facets to a person or a situation. There's an old proverb, something like: A fool has a ready answer before he hears the matter completely. I think this one comes from their Bible, aqctually. The book of Proverbs, to be precise.
I think your stance is rather short sighted in some ways. No, I don't think you
should get up in arms about people calling the cops about facebook, but what
will you get up in arms over? What will make you upset enough to actually do
something? Is it when that thing actually effects you? If so, you're very self-
centered. Is it when that thing fits into your interests? Again, self-centered. At
what point will you start caring about something? Personally, I think children
getting left in cars should upset you. Children dying because of negligence
should upset everyone, and there should be consequences. Why does that not
effect you?
I see both points here, but people wanting to set there own values on everything just isn't correct.
For example, leaving the kids alone. I know someone that left there's alone for maybe 2 days at a time.
Did these kids turn out bad, go to jail, run the streets? Nope.
They are not shining examples either, because many turn out good and decent people, even after being left alone in the house.
However, if you listen to some, no one at all ever does. It just can't ever happen, and it is 100% wrong. No gray areas.
This is what I think the posters point is.
Sure, you can have an open, and sure you can state it, get mad about it, however, narrow minded on anything that doesn't agree with your belief system is exactly that. You are pig headed, narrow minded, and you simply aren't correct and have the last word.
A world without compassion, understanding, and flexibility is a sad place.
I agree with SilverLightning on this one.
At what point do you say, enough is enough.
I believe change is defined by the Hegalian dialectic: thesis, (the world as it is), antithesis (the world as it might be), and synthesis (a combination of the thesis and antithesis).
Everyone agrees it is wrong to leave a child in a hot car, but if no one speaks up about that wrong nothing is done and kids die needlessly.
Good topic, thanks for posting it.
Bob
I'd say it's useful to get upset about it in your community and do something about it. But these social justice "warriors" on Twitter, Tumblr, and elsewhere are just feeling like they're doing something. Retweeting and retweeting to show how cool and sensitive they are.
I'd rather do something about it here, where I live, because that is where I can actually do something constructive about it.
I never retweet hunger in America tweets, but I am involved with an organization trying to solve that here in the community I live in. Does that make me a selfish bastard? Uncaring about any other community? No, I don't think so. It makes me willing to put feet to pavement where I live and do something constructive about a problem.
The problem is people thinking that clicking retweet or reblog online is really enlightened, and how dare the stone age caveman not retweet or reblog. Of course, when they do this, they don't have the full story ever, and just repost. Seems downright insincere to me personally.
wayne, are you really trying to argue that leaving children alone isn't a wrong
thing to do because the children didn't die or anything? Is that your argument?
Cuz if so, you're argument is as stupid as it is possible to be.
No. My using that was as an example of how every situation isn't black or white.
No matter What I think , in this example, my feelings were not valid.
Of course, every situation won't turn out this way, but it is possible that it can.
This is a friendly joke…some yet undiscovered form of extreme theomania, or something symptomatic of that at least, seems to be what has been described in the original post...
Or maybe a population one step away from embodying a grandiose delusion.
The world is chaotic as it is, I say. There’s no need to increase the madness. As long as these people’s ideas don’t turn them into militants or they keep from running the streets acting out their twisted fantasies of vigilanteism…they are as insane as everybody else.
I’ve also witnessed the opposite end of what’s described in the original post…those individuals who laugh at other people’s misery…or seem a bit too preoccupied with human suffering, I think it’s called schadenfreud.
I confess to sometimes using black humor as a way to distance myself from the strong impact of such tragedies. That’s probably how I’ve learned to preserve my own sanity, being the crime junkie that I am.
I have no idea what would upset me to the point of action. I suck at activism of all sorts. But I don't laught at other people's tragedies and I don't dream of a world where I'm dictator either. It well could be that exposure to news, even though I don't make it a habit to actually sit still and take it in may have desensitized me to a point, but by nature I tend to be even--keeled, so it's really hard to say what'd push my buttons in the hypothetical.
It shouldn't be difficult. No person worth there salt should have any question
about where they will stand. If you won't stand for something, then when that
something comes up you are either the victim of it or you are helping the
perpetrators. For an example, if you aren't willing to help get gays the right to
marry who they love, then you are helping those who practice prejudice get
away with their prejudice. Now, it may not concern you because your not gay.
You won't gain or lose anything by them not being able to marry, but you are
still allowing those who do wrong to succeed. Choosing this unknown and
undefinable grey area is nothing more than the cop out of weak people with
weak morals and even weaker values.
Now, here's how I see it. There is no grey area. Things really are either right
or they are wrong. Does that mean right and wrong are easy to find? No. Does
it mean what is right for one person is right for all people? No. What it means is
that there is a right and there is a wrong. Those who sit back and try to argue
some form of grey area between those two poles is simply too weak to take a
stand on one side or the other. Personally, I find those people more repugnant
than those who are on the side of wrong. At least the wrong people are willing
to stand for something. There is nothing more disgusting to me than someone
who claims not to be able to choose. Because claiming not to choose is still
making a choice.
Being cautious isn’t a form of feeble-mindedness. Decisiveness isn’t always possible. Knowing that you lack sufficient information and choosing to strive for greater comprehension is an honest path that requires a bit of strength, especially if the issue is causing you great psychological or physical pain. Some people need more time to think things through carefully, and consider knee-jerk reactions or being led by their emotions as irrational and unsafe.
Others, when confronted with a truly complex issue that isn’t so clear-cut and that challenges their core beliefs, are sometimes unaware of having a third or fourth option available to them, and believe for a time that the two extremes are their only options. Like conscientious objectors who choose neither to go to war or to be thrown in jail, these cautious folks may feel they don’t have a third option, as these brave men and women do, who refuse to take up arms and have the choice of serving as medical personnel to help the wounded.
Some people are simply unaware of all the options they have, and may seem undecided when in fact they might just be going through the problem-solving process. They can do more damage to themselves and those they are attempting to help by contributing to a cause only to discover at a later date that they have been wrong all along. It may be argued that mistakes are committed to learn from them and to grow, but there’s nothing wrong in a person wanting to minimize the flaws in their thinking. Choosing to wait for a later date when they can attain more clarity is preferable in such cases. But if there are pressing concerns, for example, matter of life and death situations, then that’s a completely different story. Some temporary choice can be made, at least until the problem can be grasped more fully.
That’s why some people say in much wisdom is much vexation, and he who increases knowledge increases sorrow. I believe that’s also biblical but I am not completely sure. Inaction by people who find it difficult to side with a particular cause even after they are well-informed about all that’s at stake can be due to a number of things, like sincere ambivalence, disillusionment, apathy and anomie, or simply laziness.
There is a difference between staying one's decision in order to gather more
information and saying that one is undecided as of yet, and claiming a grey
area. Seeking more information is a worthy thing, everyone should do that. Your
decisions should always be based on the best information possible. However,
that's not what is being discussed here. GOT didn't ask about how they can
never find enough information to make a decision. GOT asked why they should
make the decision in the first place. Its apathy, not a postponed decision.
Cody, dear boy, you sound so very evangelical.
Standing for something in and of itself is not virtuous.
Doing something helpful to other humans is virtuous. Standing for something in and of itself is no more virtuous than faith is.
So, if gay rights are not coming up for a vote in your state or local area, what can you meaningfully do to assist?
My community has a very high unemployment rate right now and we have a hunger issue, and so it makes sense for a humanist like me to get involved trying to solve this issue. Not by creating a Tumblr otherkin strange pronouns account and being a justice warrior, or being an evangelist for the situation. how about, I don't know, collect food donations and see they're distributed.
If you're actually in a situation where you encounter a kid in a locked car, do something about it. So many of these new fools who are fashionably sensitive but too cool to care, are all about showing off their sensitivity online but don't do a damned thing in real life to solve situations in front of them.
Clicking like, doing an online rant, retweeting, reblogging, and ranting, is not helping anything. My opinion, these new social justice warriors have taken the virus of evangelicalism and mutated it for a new environment. Seriously, that ridiculous "Stand for something or you'll fall for anything" just creates zealous groups that can borderline on terrorism.
The reality is unnoticed people are helping out in their local community and the noticed are reblogging and creating new pronouns like zhe and thon and others.
If a cause wants to see me engage online, they'll have a plan of action, actual action, that individuals can take in their own local community. I mean get up and do something, not just repeat religious / Orwellian party slogans.
Godzilla, I'm with you, not an activist. But happy to be boots on the ground with real organizations doing real work in local communities.
Alright...my previous post reflects my own attempts at understanding this so-called gray area, and maybe helping others to see what it really looks like and how it factors in real life, as I believe such vagueness is present in all kinds of issues. Is hesitating to take a stand in any way related to dealing with one of these gray areas? I'm not completely sure. But I view indecision, not as some sort of loophole out of allegiance to a particular cause, but as a reasonable stance that precedes conviction, that is, when an individual feels comfortable and able enough to tackle whatever is at issue, both adroitly and confidently, and when the problem becomes too urgent to ignore.
This entire gray area idea, in my opinion, is like the unconscious, or a black forest from which so many goblins and unknown monsters unexpectedly creep out. One can very rarely control, let alone predict, their response to many of the problems afflicting the people around them. This is why I believe a great deal of self-discipline is required for people who truly wish to understand the problem that’s confronting them, and to know they can help in a meaningful way.
But I can see how some people could grow lethargic by strictly considering the facts and filtering out the nonessentials, and yet I believe it’s a normal temporary mental state. Apathy is as much a defense mechanism as any other, but clawing past all the psychological cobwebs shouldn’t discourage people from thinking.
Also I’m not ruling out the possibility that I might have a totally opposite understanding of what constitutes a gray area as defined in previous posts...…
Leo, I agree, just saying that you stand for something is not actually standing
for it. To answer your question directly though, if gay marriage is not coming up
as a law in your state, you study each person who will be up for election and
you vote for the one that will put the bill through. Then you write letters to that
person. You call that person to ask when they're going to put the bill through.
You go and picket if you have to. Hell, you run for election yourself. You're never
entirely powerless. You are only as powerless as you are lazy enough to be.
Rascal, I'm afraid you demonstrate a misunderstanding of what a grey area is.
Its not indecision, its inactivity. Its not saying "I'm not sure yet so I'll hold off",
its saying "well what do I care?" Its seeing a child in a parked car on a hot day
and saying "Well, they might survive, its not my kid. Sure its bad, but maybe
the parents had a reason. I'm not going to get involved. It doesn't effect me".
That's a grey area. Trying to act like there is some border area between
something being right and something being wrong that you can stand in and not
have to make a decision. Unfortunately, that area doesn't exist, and you're just
fooling yourself by making the decision to remain inactive. That's why I find it
repugnant.
I have many things that I do and have stood for. These things required much thought, and information.
However, I will not grab every situation and say I know best. I also have understanding of why things are as they are, even when I disagree with them.
For me to decide to stand, and I mean do something, not just give lip service, I have to see the other persons side. Once I can see it, and think about it, my choice is better and more solid.
First, understanding why things are is only the first step. Its pointless if you
don't do something with it. So you understand why things are the way they are.
Well good for you, now what are you going to do about it? Having that
understanding only does one thing; it gives you a responsibility to act. That's
why adults are supposed to protect children, because we can understand things
they can't. So, since you understand, why aren't you doing anything about it?
Second, you say that you won't take every situation that you come upon, and
that's good I suppose. But it raises the question of how you decide which to
take and which not to take. What is your basis of judgment?
My base of judgement is on my personal feelings about things.
Am I right always? Probably not, and I don't pretend to be.
I would say this was correct about anyone.
Personally once I understand why somethings happening and I decide to do something about it, I do.
I also know there are things I disagree with strongly I can not do anything about at all.
I can write letters, march, protest, but these things will not be changed just because I want them changed, and my group of supporters.
Personally, I will give my opinion on these things, but I also can't go to bat for them all.
I don't have enough time, money, nor ability to fix everything I disagree with, so in my case the things I've done something about are on a short list to the things I disagree with.
I face the fact my opinions, judgements, feelings, are flawed in some cases. I can accept this and live happy.
Then you only have a false backbone. You pretend to have the courage to
stand for your opinions, but only when its convenient for you or when you're
relatively sure it will work out positively. In some ways that makes you worse
than those who try to stay in the grey area. You could do something about it,
and you know that, but you choose not to. That's depressingly pathetic, but not
entirely unexpected in this day and age.
So the real problem is, we have hundreds of things coming at us vying for our attention. And, the older you get, the more responsibilities you have, for which you really do have responsibility.
Some of these Tumblr SJW's would not surprise me if they left a kid in a hot car while reblogging about preferred pronouns.
You see this in the churches all the time: stand for this against that and the kids are in the back.
No, it makes one strategic. If I can do something productive about a situation, I will do it. But with a whole host of situations confronting us daily, everyone has to pick. And you pick the one that is closest to home, the one you understand the most about, and deal with that. People have lost the ability to differentiate degrees of challenges. Some would have you believe that leaving a kid in a hot car is equal to leaving a dog in a hot car. If you only had time to extricate one, I would extricate the kid. Not everyone has a child sponsorship in every country, is up on every issue, is nuanced in every change of pronouns and usage, knows who to call what for when for every situation.
It's not at all apathetic, or spineless, to know yourself enough to know what you can and can't reliably change.
well said, leo and Wayne.
like it or not, no one can fight every battle in the world, so leo is absolutely right, in saying that picking and choosing is not a sign of people being weak/not having a backbone, but rather, it's a sign of the realization that we can't change everything, and all we can do, is do the best with what we have.
But that isn't all you can do. You could get more to do more with. You could
find other people who will help you do more. You could find a different way of
judging which battles to pick that isn't based on mere convenience for yourself.
You could become humanistic, not self-centered. The humanistic ideal is not
what is possible or what is easy but what is needed. You do what is needed to
help humanity. If you can't do it, you work on finding a way to do it. If you
can't, you support those who do. You throw every element you have, from
money to strength to knowledge to awareness, behind the problems, all the
problems that you can lay hands on. Then, when you solve one problem, you
move on to the next.
But, let me ask you a very simple question, one I'm surprised Leo didn't think
of. You all keep saying that you have to know you won't be able to make a
difference. How do you know that unless you try to make a difference? You say
you have to know your own limits. So, ok, how did you figure out your own
limits? Maybe Leo, with his background, is a bit more equipped than Chelsea
and Wayne to know their limits, but I find it hard to believe that the two of you
have done much of anything to actually test yourself. Oh sure, you've probably
gone through some stuff, but have you ever really reached your own limits? I
know I haven't. Its why I still do everything I can.
Since you can't know the outcomes before trying them, and I highly doubt
any of you actually know what your limits are, you're left with the simple fact
that you're lazy and don't want to put in the effort. Its ok, its why people like
Susan B Anthony stand out in history and billions of other people don't. Some
people are spineless and lazy and would rather sit at home watching tv than
actually risking anything to make a difference, and some people make a
difference. I'll be interested to know how people such as yourselves react when
the issues we face today are resolved. Will you stand up and say, "See, I made
a difference with the gay rights issues." or will you look back and say, "Wow, I
could have done a lot more to help those people." How will those around you
remember you afterward? Just some food for thought.
A few of my scattered thoughts, not really to debate with anyone here…
Earlier in this thread it was stated that the reasons behind someone choosing to contribute their energy to a cause, or refraining from doing so, reflect on that person’s value system. While this may be true, it seems somewhat wrong and unfair to argue that the very action of opting not to get involved renders that individual’s integrity questionable, or makes them worthy of being labeled a coward. That kind of judgment seems to add a spirit of competition, and I think competitiveness belongs someplace else, like in a soccer match.
Most ordinary people tend to proceed with a course of action if they know that doing so will reap rewards they deem worthwhile. This is a common practice in most cultures, and though it may be selfish and upsetting to some people, it’s still a normal human response. More uncommon are the heroes who, after surmising the dangers involved in taking action, nevertheless selflessly choose to proceed. They, too, aren’t spared the countless accusations and criticism that cynics often level at them.
Apathy, the kind unrelated to psychopathy, is sometimes the only practical response. For instance, back when Sept. 11 occurred, several firefighters were filmed standing by helplessly as victims began to leap from the buildings to their death. While some turned away with oafish and bitter grins on their lips, others shrugged, walked away and threw their hands up in defeat. If taken out of context, their body language seemed to express heartlessness and indifference. Others stood rooted to the ground and watched on frozen in shock.
Not only victimization, but also simply learning about social ills such as poverty, rape, corruption, and so on, is a profoundly traumatizing experience, and more than just on an individual level. There is a certain point people reach where they realize or convince themselves they can do nothing to help change a situation. They succumb to the negativity and are left permanently paralyzed to act. While this may seem like an extreme symptom of exposure to trauma, I think it still helps to explain why some folks may appear cowardly or uncaring in the face of the world’s problems. Their motives may be frustrating but it might just be a sense of powerlessness with which they are coping.
Desensitization is another symptom of a violent and unjust society.
Some of the more recent posts have triggered other thoughts…
People often unknowingly engage in drawing social comparisons. A woman driving home from work might feel grateful for being better off than the haggard lady sitting at the bus stop. A school-age kid eyes his classmate’s brand-new spotless tennis shoes and dreams of a day when he won’t have to use artificial coloring to hide the age and poor condition of his own. Whatever guilt these fortunate people may experience is quickly dismissed, and pride swallows up whatever grievances the less fortunate may have. I don’t see inhumanity or lack of morals in these types of behaviors. Honestly speaking, similar encounters take place daily all over the world, and buses don’t seem to be running out of passengers, plenty of barefoot children also playing in filthy alley ways.
People constantly exercise self-imposed limits when they choose to help. A Good Samaritan may toss his spare change into a panhandler’s cup, but never dreams of providing shelter. While his charity may bring him momentary self-satisfaction, it’s easily spoiled when that beggar’s future crosses his mind. He might have secured a meal for his downtrodden neighbor, but nothing more. Upon closer inspection, that indigent’s cruel reality dawns on him, and suddenly his help seems futile. People would rather not have these types of intrusive thoughts while enjoying their warm dinner.
Others are marginalized, pushed into an unforgiving corner, and forced to fight. Frantz Fanon’s The Wretched of the Earth tells the sad story of colonized people who had been brutalized for centuries, and when their patience had reached a boiling point, they revolted. If I remember correctly, there is a section in the book that describes how the oppressed had been so deeply victimized by imperialism, by the ideologies that disenfranchised them, that they tragically turned against each other, because their overseers and the elites were beyond reach and safely out of the range of their weapons. Rather than joining to fight a common enemy, their desperation, rooted in decades of suffering and struggle, blinded them from achieving solidarity. Those at the top simply sat by and watched as these slaves killed each other off. Some sociologists might even argue that this same dynamic is what’s fueling the violence today in areas like Chicago and Honduras.
Problems go deeper than what the media shows its audience, or what history books try to explain. People may feel powerless upon grasping the full extent of a problem in their neighborhood, and may think there’s no hope.
Most wary people know their cynicism helps to steer them from exploitation and manipulation. It’s healthy to assume that behind every social movement lurk rabble-rousers of all kinds, whose selfish motives do more harm than good.
But I’m not arguing that we should just sit on our hands because, regardless of what we choose to do or not do, the civilized world will naturally disintegrate. Plenty of NGOs and other volunteers and agencies tackle these complex issues daily, in spite of there being no visible solution. People are free to choose whether or not to get involved, whether or not to commit their strengths to fight poverty, and sacrifice their peace of mind. Maybe it’s social Darwinism but, let’s be honest, most people would rather take care of “number one”, or of their own family, before ever using their funds to donate a penny to some charity for the poor and hungry. There are countless problems that are not so easy to solve. Many well-meaning people genuinely lack the means to help, who after having done all that they are humanly able, turn to apathy as their only practical response, out of fatigue or simply to save their own sanity. Also they, and others who are unwilling to get so deeply involved, focus on other causes that aren’t as detrimental. I myself know people who have quietly chosen to eliminate all news programs or consciously refuse to subject themselves to the media because, as they have said, they could no longer mentally cope with the endless tragedies.
And I also strongly agree with the sentiment that this world needs more volunteers willing to sacrifice their time and strength.
It is a sign of maturity to know and accept your limitations. Going after everything I don’t like, or disagree with, would not only cause me great suffering, I’d not complete the things I could have completed and made a difference with.
Many times in my life it has not been convenience for me to stand for something I dislike, or disagree with. Some of these things have come to me directly, and I was required to put time, energy, money, and sacrifice even some of my personal comforts to help.
In these cases, I’ve been successful in change, but not always. I’ve lost some of these battles as well.
With the many things that I see I’d love to fix, change, set right, I simple can’t.
An example of this, would be educating people not to smoke. Trot that idea out, and you’ll see exactly what I mean.
There are a stack of reasons people will disagree with me, and no matter how hard I fight, people are going to smoke. In this case, I can only do what I can in my own surroundings.
Can I fix the fact some people are blind? What do you think I should, or can do about this?
I wonder if the people that say they are not lazy, are actually making changes, fighting against everything they disagree with, and are 100% right in there judgments on these things?
More food for thoughts.
All right, I'll try to answer Cody's questions, they're fair:
How do I know when I will and won't be able to make a difference?
First, I'll illustrate a failiure on my end: the gay rights issue.
My friend is gay. She lives in San Francisco and has a wife and a kid, and they've really struggled. I don't mean fake struggled, or had someone tell a dirty joke that didn't involve them, and wasn't directed at them, and then they got upset. I mean really truly struggled. To proportions that nobody has struggled since interracial marriages.
Even before I had met up with her again after 30 plus years, I voted to support Gay marriage, which failed in 'tolerant' Oregon. So, you'd think, I should be able to persuade people around me to think as I do on the subject. After all, it's not theory, it's not just comparative analysis between what gays go through and what interracial couples / victims of the eugenics movement went through. I actually have firsthand accounts from her blogs and tings.
It's not like I didn't try to persuade. But while I can make a rational argument, I'm not a very persuasive guy in person. It doesn't mean I didn't try. I did, you would have, most people who had read what I read would have. I successfully persuaded no one. Deep down, I've lived long enough to know that I'm just not good at persuading, and that is after reading books on the topic, studying the greats like Dale Carnegie, and so forth.
If someone is on the fence, or not committed to an anti-gay philosophy, I could change their mind via rational discourse. Could and did, but these were people who would have run into someone who was going to change their mind. And I didn't even need my friend's blogs to do that. But those people out here who were on the fence typically voted pro-gay anyway.
Where I'm successful? Doing so-called grunt type efforts like collecting and delivering food for the hungry here in Portland, even just jumping in and washing dishes or humping bpxes or what have you at a public event for feeding low income and homeless people. Things like that, where practical solutions can be applied. Figuring out a simple solution for a physically disabled or elderly person to be able to access something out here. I've done that sort of thing a lot in my life. Soup to nuts, engineering types of things. A lot of solutions for people are surprisingly low tech and come from their environment. I have not yet found my limitations in that space, save the absence of raw materials to use.
Activism and public persuasion, the proverbial cold calling? I am terrible at it. If I could Macgyver a solution for gay people, I would have been successful.
Another time I was a complete failure to change a mind: A guy I worked with was poised to abandon his newborn child and the woman who bore it. She was left to put the child up for adoption, based on the abandonment. You would think, would you not, that a young father with a five-year-old, would be able to persuade him to change his mind. Not at all. Not in the least. Any and all attempts to do so failed. I have many more examples of failures to persuade in my own life. Yet, when it comes to actually doing things physically to benefit other people, be it physically alter a situation so they can use it, or getting food to them or anything like that, I am usually successful.
So, in the interest of applying limited energies where they will be most successful, I do things I can tangibly do, physically change someone's environment for the better. I understand that not everyone can do the same things, and some people are genuinely better at persuading people to think differently. I'm just a boots-on-the-ground kinda guy.
I think everyone should know their own strong suits, their best foot to put forward, and run with that. Sharpen that.
Because you know what? For all the activists and people shouting in the streets, there are thousands of unknown average types like me running around doing what they can, helping - in many ways with some of the same causes - creating solutions for people. There are rare people, People like Martin Luther King Jr. He was known for his activism. Most people don't know he sat down with mayors and other city officials trying to hash out real solutions for African Americans who were dreaming of a new day but dying of frostbite in their own houses in winter in Chicago. He was a true renaissance man. Most people are not that.
And I'll admit it: when I was younger I really tried to learn how the other half lives, as it were, study persuasiveness techniques, etc.
But not everyone can be a persuader of minds. And many of those persuaders of minds cannot be called upon to find the simplest of low-tech solutions for people.
This seems really obvious to most many people, but it wasn't to a disability activist. When I was in college at PSU, there was this building with no ramp, that a guy needed to get into using a wheelchair. The activist types couldn't imagine how we could fix that problem without shaking down some kind of establishment situation. This was before the ADA. I went to the insdustrial arts department, asked them for the biggest sheet of plywood they had at least a quarter inch thick, and several cross beams we could use for bracings, and just made a ramp in front of that small building. It worked: we ran a hand truck full of books up and down it a few times.
Now, did the activists ultimately get their way? Sure. The ADA was signed into law. But in the meantime, anyone wanting access to that small building had a ramp.
That wasn't a genius move on my part. But it is just the way I think. For better or worse, I always think in practical terms, int terms of a practical solution we can live with now.
Some things, like gay marriage, cannot at all benefit from one such as I am. Sure, I voted for their natural rights. But there is nothing my practical, mechanical / material mind can do to help them. There are other things a persuader of minds cannot do that I can.
That's what I mean by knowing your limitations. That doesn't limit you. It means the areas you know you're good at, where you have demonstrated success in, you just go for it with reckless abandon. And where you aren't so good at, or maybe completely fail at, you leave that to people who are good at it.
right on, to leo's last post.
to add to what he said, if we don't understand and acknowledge that everyone has different strengths, and reach out to one another to get the things done that, for whatever reason, we're unable to accomplish, that, is a sign of laziness.
not everyone is, or wants to be an activest like Cody does, nor is everyone physically strong enough to do heavy lifting, like leo is. however, doing what we can to make the world a better place, for everyone that we can, is part of making a difference.
that includes getting others on our side, when and wherever possible.
Right. And for this reason I know I have to allow some things to be left alone by me.