To Steve, I would say you got it right - The rule is context before content, if there is a negative statement made prematurely the first writer may come back and make the prejudger look "stupid" or more importantly pin point his/her exact words so the prejudger changes their whole value system (dramatic) - or whole way of thinking that was invisible before to themselves
Now to be specific MJs answer to Diane. This was after being softened up by Russ after his typically well thought out inappropriate explanation of jokes about women, blacks, and gays. These were the two points that made me respond.
These all refer to the larger question of civility. Where is the cutoff? MJ appropriately brought up Diane's own words and showed her she underestimated the moderator and the forum itself. In fact she can learn from the direct to the point response by MJ without wasting one ounce of time (this is a key concept). Now was this discipline (Clint with a pencil) too hard on Diane who is knowledgable in her own right? I think not, my own feeling was an instant admiration for MJs handling. That I felt the same way but did not pin point the words that MJ saw and responded to. Whether this is affirmation or new learning it is Good not Bad.
This gets into very heavy issues - for example the debate is not about liberal or conservative, being soft or hard, good or bad, etc. It is about the truth and being political is an excuse for the truth.
A good part of this forum hangs on the pure value of time, productivity, and truth as a priority. The opposite of that will be usually be exposed, that contrast first is somewhat adversarial and then leads to consenses (natural flow) where all the learning takes place. This is the attraction for myself. Others have called this reaching or attaining community.
Exposure = Enforcement
Community = Trust
The reality is one cannot skip the sequence!
Now to be specific MJs answer to Diane. This was after being softened up by Russ after his typically well thought out inappropriate explanation of jokes about women, blacks, and gays. These were the two points that made me respond.
These all refer to the larger question of civility. Where is the cutoff? MJ appropriately brought up Diane's own words and showed her she underestimated the moderator and the forum itself. In fact she can learn from the direct to the point response by MJ without wasting one ounce of time (this is a key concept). Now was this discipline (Clint with a pencil) too hard on Diane who is knowledgable in her own right? I think not, my own feeling was an instant admiration for MJs handling. That I felt the same way but did not pin point the words that MJ saw and responded to. Whether this is affirmation or new learning it is Good not Bad.
This gets into very heavy issues - for example the debate is not about liberal or conservative, being soft or hard, good or bad, etc. It is about the truth and being political is an excuse for the truth.
A good part of this forum hangs on the pure value of time, productivity, and truth as a priority. The opposite of that will be usually be exposed, that contrast first is somewhat adversarial and then leads to consenses (natural flow) where all the learning takes place. This is the attraction for myself. Others have called this reaching or attaining community.
Exposure = Enforcement
Community = Trust
The reality is one cannot skip the sequence!
Dislike ads? Remove them and support the forum:
Subscribe to Fastlane Insiders.