Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Moderate Forum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Rambi who wrote (471)	4/20/2003 9:38:34 AM
From: epicure	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 20773

I LIKE them. Although I've been trying to do most of them for a very long time, and all of them recently, it's nice to see them clearly articulated. Maybe tsigprofit could put these in the header? Because it seems to me that in part the essence of moderation in behavior lies in following these rules. • I will be respectful of others, regardless of their perspective or group identification. • I will be suspicious of any "permission" to break the rules in order to get to some perceived enemy. • I will give all technologies, ideas and groups a fair and impartial hearing. • I will assume human complexity. (No one is all good or bad.) • I will stop listening to sources of fear and conspiracy. • I will stop ascribing superhuman features and capacities to people, ideas and systems.

To: Rambi who wrote (471)	4/21/2003 9:03:29 AM
From: Poet	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 20773

Hi Rambi, It's good to see you posting here. The piece you posted contained a great deal of wisdom. Thanks!

To: Rambi who wrote (471)	4/21/2003 9:57:19 AM
From: Dale Baker	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 20773

This is odd thinking - the writer totally accepts what Bush has done as unquestionably necessary then he ponders why we have a need to be nasty with "enemies"? Why doesn't he ask himself why he accepts official demonization of "others" so easily instead of looking for the fault inside himself? Where is his critical evaluation of Bush's evidence for doing what he did? If he goes through that process and decides we demonized the "right" people, then he should have no trouble accepting a less kind, less gentle approach to life. You can't demonize strangers and expect your fellow man to be angelic at the same time. The basic step of hating "others" undermines civility. Sounds like an abdication of personal judgment dressed up as introspection. Very odd.

To: Rambi who wrote (471)	5/14/2003 12:58:48 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 20773

I am pondering the concept of “The Other.” That is an interesting topic. The individual human being is a part of the Oneness of Humanity but is not the “One” (but don’t tell Morphius). The part is distinguishable from “Other” parts and the whole. The whole is not the “One” either. As the whole and the part partake in the one from different perspectives. There is a common thread tying the part, other parts, and the whole together. A part’s limits is what distinguishes it from “other” parts. However the essence of each part is unlimited. Saaaa’aay that common thread thing might be interesting to explore.

To: Rambi who wrote (471)	5/14/2003 2:00:24 PM
From: one_less	Respond to of 20773

Toward non-violence "Research on the origins of prejudices indicates that they are hardwired into our genetic code. It seems that we have a congenital disposition to award favor to our own tribe and disfavor to others; we are just naturally wary of people whom we perceive as opponents." Some research on employment and promotions was done back in the seventies. The results suggested that Managers tended to self select when hiring or promoting personel. In other words they would select the people most like themselves. Of course this fueled the debate on how best to encourage diversity in the work place. A couple of prime strategies were engaged. One was affirmative action. This has had some initial success in encouraging a more diverse work force and getting people promoted who would have been previously over looked, presumably do to their demographic. The side effect of this approach is that the initial problem (bias, based on self selection) still exists. So you have some organizations where primarily women, who are feminists and preferably, white have been promoted in recent years. Like wise in other organizations you have people who resemble the top level managers of choice getting promoted most frequently. So it really isn't encouraging diversity on the local level. The exception is where litigation is threatened, which helps to create a hostile work environment. The hostility is ordered by the organizations or government agencies so that the violence is compressed, for the time being, into little packages of Provac. An alternative strategy that has not been looked at yet is one I call "comparative other." Using this strategy you recognise the tribal similarities of others but minimize those as first impression surface qualifications. You then compare other criteria and attempt to identify other comparative traits that are similar and complimentary. Music has been the most obvious example of this kind of thing. When large numbers black kids and white kids sat next to each other to listen to rock-a-billy music and street jams, it spawned for the first time (1950s) a new era of shared interests. Unlike the modern work place, the good ole boy system has not been replaced by the bad new girl system and its counter parts. The world of modern music continues to include a diversity of tribal types based on comparative interests, attitudes, life styles, abilities etc and seems to almost totally discount surface similarities. A model worth considering....prolly wont happen.