Scared

[low_delta]

When Bush was elected, I was mostly worried about the religious and moral issues that the new admistration would fuck up. The corporate factor was on my mind, but it didn't concern me quite as much.

Lately I've been more and more worried about it. You can imagine how corporations take advantage of weaker countries who can't fight back. Guess what happens when they've taken over those weaker countries, and WE are suddenly the countries with little leverage to fight with?

Lets see... you design plants that when they go to seed, those seeds are not viable? Kick ass! Farmers won't be able to set part of the crop aside for next year's planting. They'll have to buy from you! Congratulations! Wait a minute. What farmer in his right mind would buy such a product? I'll tell you which one. The one with no choice. Maybe he lives in some little country in Africa where big corporations like Monsanto are gaining an tight hold on markets by dealing directly with corrupt governments?

It's funny how conservatives believe in the domino effect as it applies to communist rule in third world countries, but not corporate rule.

You know what else bugs me? How the conservative viewpoint is that everyone should take responsibility for his own actions. Like how if you injure yourself using a product, it was your own fault. But corporations don't have to take resposibility for *their* own actions. Like injuring their employees. "Hey, we didn't know that stuff was toxic. Nobody died in OUR tests." Or cleaning up an oil spill. "Ooops, we couldn't possibly get all that cleaned up." Or filing bankruptcy. "Hey, we're going to try this again, and we need money. You're out of luck." Or giving the CEO's huge salaries and stock options and bonuses, when their employees' wages are frozen, or worse. Oh wait, that's a different issue: Greed. Um... I guess that's not a different issue after all.

I guess the main difference between liberal and conservative principles is that liberals *have* principles.

Comments

Re: thank you

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Thanks, whorlpool. I quess I was indirectly referring to you (but not just you!), and I apologize for not being more direct in my comments. Still, I *do* know that you're liberal and that your lifestyle probably reflects that even more than most of ours.

And I understand the value of compromising in a discussion. I just don't think it's necessary or even healthy to always compromise more than the person with whom you're in dialogue. If and when that happens, and if it happens consistently, it does seem to me to be an erosion of your values.

And I feel strongly that too many people are harder on their own political party leadership. Of course our party leaders should be held accountable, but that doesn't mean they should be judged more harshly for blunders than leaders of other political parties. I think a big problem with the last campaign was that people (probably mostly Democrats) consistently lowered their expectations of Bush while raising their expectations of Gore. Also, some people simply believed what they wanted to believe (probably mostly Republicans and Libertarians), e.g., Gore is not an intelligent person. It seems to me we need to fight blatant bullshit like that.

Oh, and another problem is that there are social issues that transcend politics but get all murky in religious/philosophical/emotional issues. Abortion is the prime example. Is it possible to compromise in a discussion with a bible-thumper about abortion? If you compromise and s/he doesn't, what's gained by doing so?

I agree with your last paragraph in its entirety. :)

Re: thank you

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

"I just don't think it's necessary or even healthy to always compromise more than the person with whom you're in dialogue."

Depends. Sometimes it helps to pick one's battles. And it's always important to keep in mind one's long term goals. By gaining the respect of someone who I disagree with, am I making it more likely that that person will listen to my viewpoint when it really matters?

There's an art to persuasion.

______

Anyway, one of the most important values I have (and I consider it perhaps the prime liberal value) is that discussion and mediation is a better way to solve problems than violence and hatred. Given my ability with words, I could probably out-argue anyone, but at what cost? I try not to see an argument in terms of "winner" and "loser," because I find reprehensible the whole idea of a zero sum game. Our society thrives on the idea that one person must win at the expense of another person, and I believe that every single time we contribute to the perpetuation of such a thing, we all suffer.

Re: thank you

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Sure, that's all true (especially the part about picking our battles). But open, honest dialogue doesn't have to involve compromise, persuasion, or argument. When I try to converse with someone, I don't necessarily want to engage in any of those. I really mostly just want to be *heard* and to really hear what the other person is saying. Even better, to have my words be accepted and to be able to accept the other person's words. Better yet that my words be understood and that I may understand the other person. I don't necessarily want to be convinced of anything nor to convince anyone of anything. But if the other person can't hear me and only wants to convince me of his/her truth, sorry, I'm not going there.

Re: thank you

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I spend quite a few of my discussions, just trying to get my points across. I don't really care if the other person agrees, I just want him to understand where I'm coming from, and see that there's more to the issue than he may have thought.

Since I never see any complex issue as having a solution, I try to make others see the issues as complex. Weird, I know, but too many people think things are black and white, and are too set in their own arguments to notice oppposing viewpoints. I just want them to think.

Re: thank you

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yeah, you go, Freekee!

Re: thank you

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

Is it that often, though, that you have conversations with people who are totally unwilling to be persuaded by your words? I've found that to rarely be the case in my own life. In fact, I've found that the people who seem most extreme often come across that way more from lack of an ability to express themselves than from actual conviction.

I'm also not sure "compromise" (a word I admittedly used first) is really the best word for what I'm trying to describe. It's not really that I compromise my position in an argument; it's more as if I am empathic and work to understand the other person's point of view. Often (if not always) understanding the person's point of view helps me to find weaknesses or inconsistencies in their argument, which allows me to better persuade them to think more broadly. In the process, though, I have to broaden my own thinking, and sometimes my positions have changed due to the influence of another person's point of view.

Anyway, since there's no possibility whatsoever that I'm suddenly going to become a misogynist or a racist or a homophobe or a murderer of animals or a religious person, it can't possibly hurt me to consider another person's point of view. My convictions are strong enough that I don't have to be overly defensive against them.

Also, you have to remember something: if I'm having a conversation with you about, say, the environment, I don't have to be persuasive at all; we probably agree on pretty much everything. However, if I'm going to have a conversation with someone who doesn't value the environment, I have a choice: I can talk til I'm blue in the face, expressing my beliefs and not caring at all whether or not the other person is persuaded. Or I can take an entirely different approach and find common ground with the person so that I can gain her/his trust and respect so that at least _some_ of the things I say are taken seriously. If my _ultimate_ goal is to help the environment, then I MUST persuade those with whom I disagree. Winning an argument, or drawing a line in the sand, is sometimes necessary, but if the end result of such a tactic is further degradation of the environment, then my victory is hollow. Given the severity of the environmental nightmare in this world, one of the worst things we can do, I believe, is further polarize the issue. If everyone views everyone else as an extremist, very little progress will be made. And, most importantly, the progress that does occur will be short term progress. Any long term solution to the environmental problems facing this world (and any long term solution to a variety of other types of problems) will absolutely require new ways of thinking, new ways of arguing, and new ways of forming coalitions between people who have traditionally hated each other.

I look at it this way: there is more than one way to be an extremist. Typically, extremists end up marginalizing themselves. I believe this is self-defeating, and I believe there are better ways to further one's convictions.

Re: thank you

[serendipity.livejournal.com]

Yes, this all makes beautiful sense. Especially regarding broadening your thinking and working to understand the other's point of view. However, I do think that people like you and Freekee are sadly in the minority and that far more people truly want to be understood rather than want to understand. Particularly on the more emotional and/or religious issues (like abortion). And sometimes that becomes wearisome.

Also, I definitely envy you the time that is necessary to be so thoughtful in discourse. In fact, I wanted to make this a longer post but I can't - it's time to pick up my daughter at school!

Hopefully I can return to this discourse.

~Seren

me too!

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I definitely envy you the time that is necessary to be so thoughtful in discourse.

Hopefully I can return to this discourse.

-later, dudes

Re: thank you

[whorlpool.livejournal.com]

I don't think I would ever want to be in the majority. Of anything.

I take it back

[low-delta.livejournal.com]

I've got nothing to add to that.