People are not moral actors.

Moral appeals are worse than useless.  They are counter-productive.  If you  try to convert others, they will assume you are trying to control them.

I just restrict myself mainly to passing on the idea that Busheviks are crooks and that the worst crooks ever were the Communists and the Nazis. 

by John Hanks (1 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1090 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 12:23:18 PM
 

Learn! Learn! Educate! Educate! Educate!

 John, You write: "Moral appeals are worse than useless.  They are counter-productive.  If you  try to convert others, they will assume you are trying to control them.

"I just restrict myself mainly to passing on the idea that Busheviks are crooks and that the worst crooks ever were the Communists and the Nazis. "

Proselytizing on behalf of dogma is the antithesis of my objectives. Rather it's more a case of trying to get folks to do a couple things. One, understand the social and political applicability of Newton's 3 Laws of Motion, especially I and III; that there are definite consequences to behaviors and circumstances. Second, Rousseau's "Social Contract" that piggy-backed what Donne said about all of us being a part of the main, which is 100% to basic human morality.

No!  No! No! John, what pisses the hell out of me, at a time in history, because of the Internet, ignorance of history, ignorance of the "stubborn (unadulterated/unspun) facts," ignorance of our Constitution and the mechanics -- both the idealistic and the street-fighting/down & dirty politics -- how our republic works is utterly inexcusable. Not all opinions are equal; if they were, no one would pay a doctor the big bucks for his/hers.

I'm into controlling no one. But I will not back down when confronted by the Steve's I encounter.

Lastly . . . in re Communists & Nazis . . . both simptomatic of Acton's notion concerning "power." History has seen identical tresspasses by the Church, by the Puritans, by pre-Christian Jews, and by every group that manages to slip from the reins of an genuinely sufficient strong opposing force. 

by Ed Tubbs (134 articles, 1 quicklinks, 22 diaries, 48 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 10:44:39 AM
 

Ed's mail carrier

Well, Montana is full of 'Steves.' More than half full for certain. A truly sad state of affairs, not a credible thought among them.

by Pat Herrick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 145 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 12:57:07 PM
 

My 2 cents

The best thing to do in that situation is never to confront or argue, it is useless and counterproductive. The only thing you can do is to try to slip in sideways, so to speak, a seed that might take root, like the previous comment said comparing Bushites to Nazis. Thinking beforehand what one could say in such situations IS productive, because it requires YOU to think instead of reacting to what you think is obvious ignorance or bigotry or worse. Just saying... Good article which made me think.

by ibrahim turner (25 articles, 26 quicklinks, 5 diaries, 170 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 2:13:40 PM
 

How's that workin' for ya, Ed?

Did you reach him? Did you change his mind? What mind! you exclaim, in a fit of pique. I get THAT! But, he has a VOTE even though he doesn't think. I've often wondered how to use what THEY use to persuade the lazy brained. Throw them some fear, some pseudo history, some made-up apocalyptic scene, and some easy phrases then let them follow where that leads. Make it come down to "them and us" and they sacrifice babies and they're the reason I'm not as wealthy as I used to be or as I want to be. But I can't do it. It's not in me. So I ask, patiently, over and over, and over - "Steve, That's AWFUL! Now, what's your source of information? Joe Blow? Well, what's HIS source? I'll tell you my source if you'll tell me yours. Steve, honey, let me help you follow the money. Let me show you some statistics - I know, I know, your guys tell you that statistics lie, but that's because they don't want you to look at them. They don't want you to think, Steve, or to know what they're doing with your vote."  I taught Freshman English for 20 years at a university and I found that the only way I could lead people into thinking is to point them to sources - to teach them how to verify sources - to insist that they verify sources. I was never successful in changing anyone's mind if it ever seemed I looked down on what he or she knew so far - and they do KNOW what they know. They just don't know why. I keep on patiently asking them to think about how they think, not just what. I haven't made a lot of converts, but I'm proud of the few who think about their sources now. Hey, Ed - I love the way your mind works. I'm new here, but I'm having a blast. Thanks for contributing! heywood

by Heywood Williams (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 3 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 4:15:16 PM
 

It's our responsibility to have the debate, constructively

HW:

I agree with you 100 percent but please recognize that Ed made it clear that his exchange with Postal Steve should be taken as a case study of how not to engage a political opponent. I can totally relate to Ed's anecdote, as someone who is not experienced in discussing politics with those who are not like-minded, in that when finding oneself confronted with such abject ignorance and xenophobia it is easy to be shocked into such a counterproductive response.

Mine was a co-worker who happened to approach me and another co-worker who were discussing the physical, mental, and emotional health crises being faced by servicemembers returning from Iraq. Knowing that we were at work and surrounded by Bushies we kept the conversation low and limited strictly to our concern about those who were in great need from those they served having nearly realized the ultimate risk of serving. No talk whatsoever about the merit or folly, or moral or legal fitness of the policy that led to the dire situation in the first place. So this other guy, for whon I have great respect professionally, joins the discussion and has absolutely nothing to add to the conversation until he finally blurts out something like, "Well, we have to fight them over there if we don't want to fight them over here."  Responding to such intellectually lazy, morally cowardly talking points should be like shooting fish in a barrel yet I could only muster an astounded "What?!"

Emotional reflex trumped calm reason. While there is no guarantee that the latter will win hearts and minds it is guaranteed that the former will fail every time.

That said, HW, your point is very well taken. The well being of our democratic republic depends on the ability to engage in civil discourse on the issues of the day. It may bring us no closer to agreement but when all is said and done we are still each others' countrymen for better and for worse. Our country (and the world community for that matter) will be for the better if we can treat each other with respect despite--if not because--of our differences. As with most worthwhile endeavors this is obviously more easily said than done but try we must.

by FOIA Gras (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 15 comments) on Sunday, January 6, 2008 at 6:11:32 PM
 

USPS

I retired after more than 30 years in the post office. You would be surprised how many of my fellow employees live and die on every word Rush says. Percentage wise it wasn't that many, but it is more than I would expect.

About 8 years ago my own union(NRLCA) was trying to get more people to give to their PAC.  I looked up where the money was going. The largest percentage was going to Bob Ney, Mr freedom fries, now in prison.

by Willard Russell (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 41 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 7:46:56 AM
 

Not all are ignorant

Ed not all letter carriers are as ignorant about the issues.  I know you know that, but I wanted to clarify.  Far too many of them are but I am not.

by Gwendolyn Frattick (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments) on Monday, January 7, 2008 at 9:08:57 PM