Toadfish Monastery

Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 12, 2010, 04:22:19 PM
It's content that needs to be addressed, not the person spouting it.

Unfortunately, it's difficult to address the content when you are noticeably outside of the vast majority of a particular pundit's target audience, and are instead firmly identified as a target. Moderates who despise the pundit's methods and manners but share some of their general opinions or ideological alignments are still likely to get into the 'us vs. them' mentality if the target fights back.  You may get through to the most rational with rational discussion, but the majority of people who idolize irrational hate-spew don't tend towards rational discussion, methinks.

What can have some impact is shunning by the moderates nominally on the same side of the fence of any given pundit.  Radical Islam, for example, seems to feel justified by criticism by The Great Satan, but there seems to be an increasingly vocal rejection of extremist attitudes by moderate Muslims (at least here), both average citizens and religious leaders.  When the audience the attention-hogs are supposedly playing to starts turning away, it gets their attention.


I suppose this ties into civil responsibility - in addition to standing up to our opponents, I believe it's our responsibility to look at those who supposedly share some or all of our values but are conducting themselves poorly, and let them know that while they are free to speak for themselves, they DO NOT speak for us when they speak in such a manner.

Hmm...  looking for examples...

Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 11, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Okay, let's try a third scenario:
) Mr. Shout and Mr. Talk get into a disagreement, which becomes a fight. Mr. Talk kills Mr. Fight. How do you suppose that will play out?

I'm jumping back page to catch up and respond...

Did you ever see Ralph Bakshi's Wizards?


Do you remember the (nearly) last scene?                  

A real-life topic over here: The Deutsche Bahn currently has what comes close to a total breakdown of service* as a result of 'saving money' (in order to increase the bottom line for the intended move to the stock market). The Bahn leadership more or less refuses to even admit that there is a problem at all and/or that snow and frost in winter are totally unprecedented (echoing the Bush administration's 'nobody could have predicted' despite a quite recent direct written warning).
The Bahn obviously bets on the civility of the passengers (or that the uncivility only affects the lowlings that drive the trains, the conductors and the personnel at the stations). I wonder, if something would change if some of the bosses got waylaid by angry passengers and severly beaten and their luxury cars sabotaged.

*I can at the moment add at least an extra hour daily for my way to work and home and the line I use is one of the less affected ones.

Isn't your journey normally 2 hours? Does that mean you are spending 6 hours travelling each day?

Quote from: pieces o nine on January 13, 2010, 06:10:20 AM

Quote from: Opsanus tau on January 11, 2010, 06:50:32 PM
Okay, let's try a third scenario:
) Mr. Shout and Mr. Talk get into a disagreement, which becomes a fight. Mr. Talk kills Mr. Fight. How do you suppose that will play out?

I'm jumping back page to catch up and respond...

Did you ever see Ralph Bakshi's Wizards?


Do you remember the (nearly) last scene?                  

Love that movie.  I even loved the final scene.

Although some claim the wizard was hypocritical in the very end, to his beliefs. 

Me?  I'm a Heinlein-esque pragmatist:  use the tools you need, in the situation you find yourself in.  If life's at stake?  Use whatever you need.    Whereas I respect Ghandhi, I do not intend to follow in his footsteps, nor emulate him. 



I think the wizard was like Heinlien's ideas as well:  survival can justify many things.   You can always apologize later...

Quote from: Griffin NoName on January 13, 2010, 07:39:13 PM

Isn't your journey normally 2 hours? Does that mean you are spending 6 hours travelling each day?

Nearly. Normally it's 2¹/₄ in each direction. Due to construction work (that in the end is expected to reduce the time by up to 20 minutes) there is an added 10 minutes (per direction) for most of this year. Now the weather (and lack of maintenance) come on top of that with 20-40 minutes extra (this morning only 10 though, yesterday it was 37). So my travel time goes from 4.5 hours each day to up to 5³/₄.
The regular timetable change meant an extra hour in the office per week to make up for the losses, the last few days it was one per day.
I am not the only one to propose to declare one of the railway cars to be part of the UBA, so the time wasted in the train could be counted as work (and many commuters actually do some work,  so it would be even appropriate to a degree).

Or, you could move closer to your office...

Do you have wifi in the train?

If you mean internet or phone access, forget it. One dead spot after the other. One could as well be in the central Sahara or Amazon rain forest.
No move while I am on 1 year fixed-term contracts. Also I get the travel expenses back for at least last and this year. I would get no money for rent.

Depends on what your time is worth, I suppose. I make a point of living walking distance (5 min now) from the office.  I drive plenty for field work, but that's highway miles. 

For that long of a commute, you might as well move close and get a second part-time job to pay the rent.   My days are that long at the moment, but at least I'm getting paid handsomely for the OT. 

Quote from: Swatopluk on January 14, 2010, 01:45:57 PM
Also I get the travel expenses back for at least last and this year. I would get no money for rent.

Set up home on the train?

See some posts above, making the trains official parts of the agency has been a long time proposal 

Or living in the office..

I've been thinking a lot about this recently...

Hypothetical questions are interesting but they remind hypothetical.

When I think about real life situations and what "virtues" I rank highest in the people that surrounds me civility doesn't rank very high. Honesty does and so does the ability to stand by ones word even if it ends up a bit uncomfortable, when push comes to shove civility is just polish.

Not that polish isn't important, it is, it greases the hubs and cogs of social life, but it isn't solid, it's nothing to hold on to then the proverbial shit hits the proverbial fan.

One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.

Quote from: Darlica on January 17, 2010, 06:57:04 PM
One can be very civil and still be a lying though the teeth, good behaviour, after all, guarantees nothing.

Yes, I hate people who are for example, seething with anger, and say nasty things with great civility. But..... I am unsure whether that then renders them uncivil?

Is the following statement uncivil?

   "In my opinion purple people shouldn't have the right to vote in this country."

In fact I would say that some of the more dangerous people are quite polite and civil.