The Not Happy Thread

I know exactly what you mean here, I often have the same problem. It's not your outlook, trust me, it's just hard sometimes making an actual connection with another person. PM me if you want to talk about it, any time.

 

I suspect there are several factors involved. Having initiated a couple of threads recently that took (to say the least) some unexpected turns, one thing that really bothers me is the tendency of some members to be more interested in proving themselves "smarter" than they are in exchanging views. It's like we're jousting, rather than discussing. My only beef with closing threads under the old policy was that sometimes it seemed a lot like threads were closed because of what might occur rather than what had. I never have a problem with a thread being closed because it's just gone off the charts.

 

Which, IMO, constitutes a mindset of reduction and elimination of ideas. It is the antitheses of creativity. This is a writing forum. Discussions should be in the opposite direction. Expansion, inclusion and consideration of new ideas.

 

There's a balance. It's possible to learn from having one's beliefs challenged when one looks for evidence to defend those beliefs. It forces you to evaluate your position as long as you are honest with yourself in that evaluation. Defending one's challenged beliefs is not necessarily about winning, though some people can't always see that.

 

I agree with what you are saying that is clearly truth, but Ed and I are speaking of those of whom you mention in the tail end of your statement. It is the very lack of the balance of which you speak that saddens me.

EDIT ~ To add to this, a couple of days ago I was having what turned out to be a super congenial and educational conversation with Phoenix that had to do with his religion. The part that made me sad was the fact that I was surprised that the conversation remained so pleasant.

 

I actually saw an article a couple of weeks ago that said the way to win an argument is to get as emotional as possible, in order to convince your adversary that you know more than (s)he does. Aside from the illogic, it completely ignores the fact that one sometimes learns the most from losing an argument.

 

I have a different philosophy. Due to the nature of the believing brain, the chances of actually getting someone who disagrees with you to consider logical, rational and critical thinking is pretty slim. The first goal of Internet debate for me is, am I interested and am I learning anything from having my beliefs challenged? Sometimes the answer is yes, even if I don't change my position. If the answer is no, I drop out of the discussion. Often my arguments become more clearly defined when I seek evidence to support or refute my beliefs.

My second goal is to spread a little critical thinking around. Pointing out and explaining what a straw man is, or what a goal post shift is, or demonstrating how to support an argument with evidence are some examples of spreading critical thinking around. People may have opinions about a subject that are hard to shake, but they might be open to learning from examples of critical thinking methods.

And my third goal is to possibly influence lurkers if I'm making an evidence supported argument.

And my fourth goal is observing how people's thought processes are supporting a non-evidence supported belief.

But the person one debates, most of the time they are not going to change positions, it's the nature of the brain beast.

 

First TS of the season. We've had a good two or three years without much action here in the Eastern Antilles. Storms tend to start becoming cohesive right around where PR sits, so they're just babies when we get them, but this one started showing structure a good ways out.

 

I've always thought that the purpose of discussion is not to change the other person's views, but to find common ground if possible and, if not, at least gain understanding. A question I will raise from time to time is: "If you are presented with objective, verifiable evidence that flatly contradicts the bases for your opinion, do you change your opinion?" A reasonable person would have to answer "yes", and many people would say they would but in fact would not. At the same time, few questions that divide people are so easily settled, and in many cases, I find the people who frustrate me the most are those whose opinions on specific issues are contradictory to more general belief systems they claim to hold.

At the same time, I, like you, react strongly when someone materially misstates facts and I will usually respond with a refutation.

 

I can't pull myself together to write anything aesthetic...

 

I just saw on my internet browser a headline that "Today is Kate Middleton's Due Date". As a general rule, I find my countrymen's obsession with the UK royal family to be anything from ridiculous to repugnant, depending on my mood at the time. But this is going to be worse than even that stretch of my life when all my friends/family were having kids and there were endless childbirth sagas.

So, will anyone join me in a rousing chorus of "WE DON'T GIVE A SHIT!!!!"

(Thanks, I feel much better, now)

 

I am, however, more interested in this baby than I am in Kim Kardashian's baby, who I am ashamed to know was supposed to be born on the same date. I know this despite not wanting to know anything about that baby and avoiding news of it.

 

Interesting question: who rates lower? Someone whose celebrity owes itself solely to the sake of being a celebrity? Or a member of the world's wealthiest welfare family?

In my view, zero equals zero.

 

At least the Royal family has historical relevance. And as far as I can tell, William seems like a decent enough guy, and not a vapid jackass.

 

Possibly, but the fact remains that his existence, and that of his family, has as much meaning to the US as...well, as Kim Kardashian. And the volume of their nonsense that the media showers on us serves no purpose except to keep people's attention away from what is being done to them daily.

 

I would but I don't give a shit.


I do love The Soup though. They played a clip of an E News reporter standing in front of the palace (the way newscasters stand out in the rain) telling the audience which celebrities were related to the baby by 25th cousin twice removed. It was pretty funny.

 

Busted.

 

One key difference is that William never sought fame -- it seems he's tried to diminish it to the extent possible. The whole Kardashian family, however, loves the spotlight and thinks the rest of the world cares about their daily whims. And enough people seem to reinforce this idea.

As far as celebrity and people's diverted attention: it's always been that way, and it always will be.

I saw this, too, and yes, it was asinine. Again, though, at least William doesn't do things in order to seek attention, and at least some members of the royal family do at least try to do things that will help people in the world -- for example, Diana's spotlighting of landmines and AIDS, etc. William and Harry were born into this. At least they do some good for all the attention and adulation they receive. The idiot Hollywood-related celebrities, who aren't even actors don't do anything except wallow in their own self-worth.

But to the larger point of the media's coverage of celebrities in general - yeah, it's way over the top. Back when William was getting married, my son once said "Aaw, this guy AGAIN? I don't want to hear about him anymore." Later on, Kate and William were on some magazine or television show, and I asked him if he knew who they were. He said, "I don't know who that guy is, but that's Kate Middleton." I thought that was pretty amusing, and really said something about who the media was focused on.

 

I don't give a shit either. And I'm British.

 

I give a shit, but only because I want to get rid of shit, not because I care about the Royal Family.

(I did walk past the Queen once, though, only about six feet from her. Weird.)

 

[MENTION=18415]EdFromNY[/MENTION]: I used to feel exactly the same as you, but since Diana died, and watching the boys grow up so devastated, and then I met Camilla and Charles in person and they were the sweetest people, really. So from the purely humane aspect, I'm looking forward to William and Kate having a nice family. And Serbian royal family is related to them, so I have a soft spot, can't help it

 

Aren't all royal families inbred, sorry I meant related? If the older of Di's boys didn't want the fame he could turn down the Kingship now and slip away into obscurity. The younger lad however dressing up as Hitler, living it up in Vegas is a great role model for England's kids.

Anyway Ed - I don't give a shit

 

Everything you say is true. However, the last Serbian monarchy is much less inbred because they de-throned the previous guys in the 19th century, so they were a desirable fresh blood for the rest of the European vampires, pardon, royals And there's few people more allergic to nazism and vast inherited wealth than me. Still, imagine Harry's life. And his granddad being a nazi sympathiser, that's well known. I can easily see him falling under the wrong influence, with his mum dying like that, the court cases accusing his grandma of killing her, his dad's new girlfriend etc. I do feel sorry for Harry even if he's a bit of a twat. Actually, disguise him well and he'd make a great character in a novel.

 

Sigh. Prep day for colonoscopy tomorrow. Trying to hold the anxiety attacks in abeyance (I've never done "medical" well). You'd think after five straight years, I'd be used to it (each year they find polyps, so I have to keep going back the following year - beats the hell out of the alternative, though).

 

[MENTION=18415]EdFromNY[/MENTION]: Good luck tomorrow Ed! I'm so sorry you have to worry about that.