Let's make fun of Trump, bash him, etc. while we can!

[Bob Butler 54]

Hmm. Took a look at set of dictionary definitions for paradigm. The recurring word was ‘pattern’. One might say that red folk see certain patterns in the world, and blue folk different patterns. If that's an acceptable context, the meaning wouldn't be too different from 'world view'. Perhaps a paradigm is a smaller discrete thing while a world view is more inclusive and complex? Still, if you want to make ‘paradigm’ your word, you should define what you mean by it rather than me. Remember that you are neither Noah Webster nor Humpty Dumpty. Others may well want to use the word in different contexts.

(08-21-2016, 05:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: This is kind of a mess.  You are contradicting yourself.  In the first two statements you say you are opposed to prejudice, but don’t think we should require people to behave in a non-prejudiced manner. You then equate opposition to PC and affirmative action is close to prejudice.  That is you see them as bad, but don’t think we should anything about them.  But then in the final statement you say doing nothing is not an option. You seem to imply that prejudice should be handled on a private interpersonal level, yet you appear to support affirmative action (since opposing this is close to the prejudice that good men must oppose).  So good men should support affirmative action?  But isn’t this coercion of the prejudiced?.

I’d like to focus on one example for the moment. If we scatter about trying to look at all aspects of the red and blue world views in their entirety in one thread, we’ll resolve and refine nothing.

You do not approve of guys wearing white dresses celebrating. Because they do celebrate, something is wrong with America. On the flip side, my inclination is to say that because everyone ought to be able to celebrate, the fact they the can in America is part of what is right in America.

Now, if you can walk away and let the celebration happen without harm or harassment, that’s fine. You have a bad feeling about something that isn’t going to go away. I’ve no desire to deprogram you or make you feel comfortable with it. Nor do have I a desire to shame or insult you. I do see you as having a problem, an irrational bit of intolerance, but so long as you don’t actively act on said intolerance, no harm no foul.

On the other hand, if you determine you must go out of the way to ruin the celebration, there is a problem. The guy in the white dress should have as much ability to enjoy a good celebration as anyone. If someone starts taking legal steps to prevent the celebration, or tries to deny resources necessary for the celebration to properly take place, that would be very problematic. People should not be actively out to ruin people’s day because of race, religion, gender, etc…

Somewhere between no harm no foul and definite harm definite foul there is a grey zone. I won’t presume to say exactly where it is in this case. I’ll predict that there will be much disagreement where the line ought to be. If someone wants to make the other guy’s position look absurd and irrational, it will likely be very easy to do so... at least to other people who share the same paradigms. Whether we use ‘values’, ‘paradigm’, ‘world view’ or ‘beliefs’ there will be no easy agreement. People can be irrational about these things. It isn’t going to be cleared up by refining and polishing word definitions and logic structures.

And that’s where you saw my contradictions and weaseling. I see it as unacceptable that good men do nothing when irrational hatreds are still being actively pursued. At the same time it is too easy to develop an irrational hatred for those who irrationally hate. Sometimes the cure can come to resemble the disease. This is and ought to remain remain a concern. When there is a fuzzy grey line there, charging in like a mounted paladin with a holy sword as if one is sure one is right and the other guy is wrong isn’t going to help.

The only thing I can see with absolute clarity is that if one sees things with absolute clarity, one is likely wrong.

Then again my world view and value system encourages balancing the needs and desires of both sides involved in a conflict. If at all possible, I’d like to see the guy in the white dress happily dancing while the other guy who would freak out if he saw it is safely well away from the building.

If I must throw up a dividing line, the guy who can walk away from the dance is on the correct side of line, while the guy who tries to ruin the dance isn’t.

(08-21-2016, 05:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: The sense I gather from this post is that the Red side are haters, and the sooner their values die the better.  On the other hand the values you hold are the correct ones. Those that will win out in the future.  What you call the arrow of progress.

At the high and abstract level, the arrow I uses as my guide points towards equality, human rights and democracy. Much progress made. Much more to go. If you have a better direction to set off in, suggest it. The Constitution doesn't explicitly enumerate a right to dance in a white dress, but people are dancing anyway. I'm more concerned with the division of wealth, but that's for another post.

You are also doing much as Classic does, assume that I'm dogmatic blue. No doubt I lean blue on most issues. On the other hand, the example above might indicate a lot more understanding of the other perspective than you'll get from a lot of partisans. What you see as a mess might be an attempt at nuance. I don't know that I'm the ideal fencing partner if you want pure blue.