It is Amazing how Politics Turns Normally Perfectly good People Into ....

Good point.

With this in mind, it is amazing how normally perfectly good people remain interested in ….

Comments


.. must be something to do with the allure of one’s opinion

well my interest is in an individual’s relationship to the group.  p2p and p2g and even g2g are all entities (personalities) interacting.  then too there is g2p.  study one and you see the same patterns in the others.

just to enumerate the math ..

p2p
p2g
g2p
g2g

I’ll bet you formed an opinion about it, eh – probably abstract too!

maybe, where are you going with this?

The title is the epiphany – some will grok it, some think they are above it, some are below it etc.  It is the one domain of human interaction where people think they are equal in their opinoionating … and in some coutries it is illegal & can get you killed. I usually cop a context of solving problems. Others are bored with it and withdraw inside. 
ETC.

well a assumption underlying democracy implies that people’s opinions are of equal value.  but from a practical perspective, the opinions of those closer to the action, and more knowledgeable of the details, are more valuable since action is what changes events. 

if an other disagrees with you, then they can appear to you as being an asshole.  My opinion is that is just an #aug … something to be avoided.  Dialogue between different opinions tends to find solutions just where that #aug is avoided.

So you have exchanged your funny little word #aug for the word #asshole – good dude!

well yes it does seem to be a different aspect of the same thing.   if you think i am an asshole about something, isn’t  that just a subjective negative judgement on you part.

#IDK are you being an asshole right now?

well truthfully i have no such intention.   but, honestly, how do I appear to you?   My point is that usually being an asshole is in the eye of the observer … and not in the intentions of the actor.

XOR it is in the behavior of the participants.smug

yeah can be.  and/or it can be in the interpretation of the behavior of others.  we have to put an example on this otherwise it becomes all to general. 

For example, here i am trying to understand your epiphany in this thought.  Honestly that is what i am trying to do.   If the intention of my behavior was to turn your epiphany into shit, then i would judge that i was being an asshole.  But in the process of teasing out a lucid understanding of your epiphany, i say something that appears to you to destroy it, then am i being an asshole, or only appearing to be an asshole to you.
null

Sometimes you seem to separate yourself from others with your “everyone has their own viewpoint”-shtick & at other times you call in a flock of #birdies to bolster your own point of view. I say you are merely confused.
The thought 24286 is clear & stands on its own. The minute you get the epiphany you might decide that you are in fact or have been an #asshole xor not. What might also happen is that you decide, upon enlightenment, that another is an #asshole. Finally, you might decide that in the arena of politics, some become assholes some times & at other times they change their behavior & are not assholes. We’ll see,null

Sometimes you seem to separate yourself from others with your “everyone has their own viewpoint”-shtick & at other times you call in a flock of #birdies to bolster your own point of view. I say you are merely confused.

mark
Well everyone does have there own viewpoint … er, even me.  That should not be even slightly controversial.  When i speak as if others should adopt my viewpoint, i am attempting to form a consensus amoung those who are listening to me.   I fail to see why that is confusing to you.

You should read the WHOLE sentence.

i did read the whole sentence that i quoted.  i told you my view of it.   you continually confuse why sombody talks with #birdies … that is your confusion, not mine.  i am usually quite intentionally when i use birdies … and you are always free to hanker to your own viewpoint and object to the consensus that the birdie proposes.  I have said that many times and yet you always ignore it and continue with your insults againt my expessions.   I call that you being an asshole.

#AlreadyAlwaysArguing never solved the problem of assigning who is an #asshole in any inter-action & who isn’t (XOR the #RWG)  – not this time either. Epiphany rejected – too bad – I have the wallaby & you don’t thumbs down

well if somebody does not agree with you and does not talk from your viewpoint, then you call them an “asshole”.   They do the same thing back to you.  What more is there to this epiphany of yours than just that?

then there is the other scenario.  let’s say that i actually see your point of view, yet i talk like i do not.  me i will call that me not just appearing to you to be an asshole, but actually being an asshole. null

of course i never do that … do you?

Study this – maybe you can get nowhere on it too!


well things are tested by triumphing against opposition.  law of the jungle, survival of the fittest, etc, etc. 
That is half of the story. The other half is where peopel agree and productively act together.   If there is just the opposition side of the coin, nothing usefully happens.