Jan. 11th, 2009

xenologer: (Speak)
There are two phases to communication, sending and receiving.

I speak rightly. I mean this in two senses: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

To clarify, I'm generally pretty good at getting an accurate picture of my opinion out there. I seldom have an opinion that I couldn't express to someone else, because if I can't explain myself to them then why the hell do I believe it? If my reasoning as it formed in my head wouldn't be enough for someone else to understand and potentially even agree, then it's not good enough for me either. I also mean what I say. The closest thing to dishonesty most people will get in conversation with me is me making the choice not to give them information they don't need. I will not offer excessive information if I think someone will either use it to hurt me, or will simply not understand it. Other than that? I don't lie about myself. Lying about my needs or opinions is a lot like faking orgasms. It prevents other people from learning how to please me, and why the hell would I deliberately cause that?

This is why I get upset when people don't read or listen to what I say or post. If there is a comprehension problem between me and someone else, personal experience (and trust in my training) has taught me that it is generally not on my end. Sometimes it is, in which case I need to figure out what the malfunction is and fix it. But generally it's a problem on the other end of the filter, from people who have no formal training in communication and are not willing or able to substitute that with basic courtesy.

Something that is not a failure of my communication skills: People failing to listen to or read the entire message I am getting across before deciding what I'm saying. Conversation is not simply waiting for your turn to speak, as a friend commented to me tonight. Conversation is attempting to figure out where the other person is coming from, and choosing how to react from that. If you're not honestly and fairly trying to figure the other person out... how the hell do you know you don't agree with them?

This is how arguments start among people who agree. They bitch and moan and snipe at each other, and sometimes when nobody is paying attention to other people you see folks bitching and moaning and sniping at folks who agree with them, but are also too busy bitching and moaning to realize that nobody is disputing them.

And I hate that. I feel like I'm always the one screaming, "We're all saying the same thing here! Are you even reading each other's posts before you state your opinion like you've walked into a den of foes? Read each other's fucking posts, and read the whole thing so you can get the message in context like the writer intended."

It makes me wonder, not for the first time, whether the internet attracts people with poor communication skills or if it actually creates them by teaching them that this crap is somehow normal and effective. All I know is that I'm so tired of getting in arguments with everyone I talk to about anything of even minor importance, most of all when everybody agrees, and they don't know it

All I can do is speak rightly. All I can do is offer my opinion when asked. But communication is a two-step process, and the other half? I can't control that. All I can do is make sure that I speak rightly, and hope for the best.

There is, of course, another option that I must mention for the sake of thoroughness. Not talking to people who are too lazy to hold up their end of the bargain and do me the basic respect I'm giving them. I may be arguing with them, I may be telling them they're wrong, and I may even be showing them ugly things they don't want to see. But at least I acknowledge them. It's a fucking start, and I will consider these people successful communicators when they can at least give me that.

Until then... whatever. I speak rightly. Anything other than that... I just need to let it go. If they haven't learned to communicate effectively by now, no amount of my energy lost is going to get across that kind of a life skill. Maybe if they have enough open brawls with people they don't realize they agree with until it's almost too late, they'll learn to figure out what people are saying before telling them they're wrong. But that's not a lesson they're likely to learn from me, no matter how much effort I spend on the teaching.

As my High Priest told me tonight, "Just let it go. Whatever it is you're hanging onto. Just let it go."

"I'm trying," I told him.
xenologer: (Speak)
There are two phases to communication, sending and receiving.

I speak rightly. I mean this in two senses: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

To clarify, I'm generally pretty good at getting an accurate picture of my opinion out there. I seldom have an opinion that I couldn't express to someone else, because if I can't explain myself to them then why the hell do I believe it? If my reasoning as it formed in my head wouldn't be enough for someone else to understand and potentially even agree, then it's not good enough for me either. I also mean what I say. The closest thing to dishonesty most people will get in conversation with me is me making the choice not to give them information they don't need. I will not offer excessive information if I think someone will either use it to hurt me, or will simply not understand it. Other than that? I don't lie about myself. Lying about my needs or opinions is a lot like faking orgasms. It prevents other people from learning how to please me, and why the hell would I deliberately cause that?

This is why I get upset when people don't read or listen to what I say or post. If there is a comprehension problem between me and someone else, personal experience (and trust in my training) has taught me that it is generally not on my end. Sometimes it is, in which case I need to figure out what the malfunction is and fix it. But generally it's a problem on the other end of the filter, from people who have no formal training in communication and are not willing or able to substitute that with basic courtesy.

Something that is not a failure of my communication skills: People failing to listen to or read the entire message I am getting across before deciding what I'm saying. Conversation is not simply waiting for your turn to speak, as a friend commented to me tonight. Conversation is attempting to figure out where the other person is coming from, and choosing how to react from that. If you're not honestly and fairly trying to figure the other person out... how the hell do you know you don't agree with them?

This is how arguments start among people who agree. They bitch and moan and snipe at each other, and sometimes when nobody is paying attention to other people you see folks bitching and moaning and sniping at folks who agree with them, but are also too busy bitching and moaning to realize that nobody is disputing them.

And I hate that. I feel like I'm always the one screaming, "We're all saying the same thing here! Are you even reading each other's posts before you state your opinion like you've walked into a den of foes? Read each other's fucking posts, and read the whole thing so you can get the message in context like the writer intended."

It makes me wonder, not for the first time, whether the internet attracts people with poor communication skills or if it actually creates them by teaching them that this crap is somehow normal and effective. All I know is that I'm so tired of getting in arguments with everyone I talk to about anything of even minor importance, most of all when everybody agrees, and they don't know it

All I can do is speak rightly. All I can do is offer my opinion when asked. But communication is a two-step process, and the other half? I can't control that. All I can do is make sure that I speak rightly, and hope for the best.

There is, of course, another option that I must mention for the sake of thoroughness. Not talking to people who are too lazy to hold up their end of the bargain and do me the basic respect I'm giving them. I may be arguing with them, I may be telling them they're wrong, and I may even be showing them ugly things they don't want to see. But at least I acknowledge them. It's a fucking start, and I will consider these people successful communicators when they can at least give me that.

Until then... whatever. I speak rightly. Anything other than that... I just need to let it go. If they haven't learned to communicate effectively by now, no amount of my energy lost is going to get across that kind of a life skill. Maybe if they have enough open brawls with people they don't realize they agree with until it's almost too late, they'll learn to figure out what people are saying before telling them they're wrong. But that's not a lesson they're likely to learn from me, no matter how much effort I spend on the teaching.

As my High Priest told me tonight, "Just let it go. Whatever it is you're hanging onto. Just let it go."

"I'm trying," I told him.
xenologer: (Speak)
There are two phases to communication, sending and receiving.

I speak rightly. I mean this in two senses: I say what I mean, and I mean what I say.

To clarify, I'm generally pretty good at getting an accurate picture of my opinion out there. I seldom have an opinion that I couldn't express to someone else, because if I can't explain myself to them then why the hell do I believe it? If my reasoning as it formed in my head wouldn't be enough for someone else to understand and potentially even agree, then it's not good enough for me either. I also mean what I say. The closest thing to dishonesty most people will get in conversation with me is me making the choice not to give them information they don't need. I will not offer excessive information if I think someone will either use it to hurt me, or will simply not understand it. Other than that? I don't lie about myself. Lying about my needs or opinions is a lot like faking orgasms. It prevents other people from learning how to please me, and why the hell would I deliberately cause that?

This is why I get upset when people don't read or listen to what I say or post. If there is a comprehension problem between me and someone else, personal experience (and trust in my training) has taught me that it is generally not on my end. Sometimes it is, in which case I need to figure out what the malfunction is and fix it. But generally it's a problem on the other end of the filter, from people who have no formal training in communication and are not willing or able to substitute that with basic courtesy.

Something that is not a failure of my communication skills: People failing to listen to or read the entire message I am getting across before deciding what I'm saying. Conversation is not simply waiting for your turn to speak, as a friend commented to me tonight. Conversation is attempting to figure out where the other person is coming from, and choosing how to react from that. If you're not honestly and fairly trying to figure the other person out... how the hell do you know you don't agree with them?

This is how arguments start among people who agree. They bitch and moan and snipe at each other, and sometimes when nobody is paying attention to other people you see folks bitching and moaning and sniping at folks who agree with them, but are also too busy bitching and moaning to realize that nobody is disputing them.

And I hate that. I feel like I'm always the one screaming, "We're all saying the same thing here! Are you even reading each other's posts before you state your opinion like you've walked into a den of foes? Read each other's fucking posts, and read the whole thing so you can get the message in context like the writer intended."

It makes me wonder, not for the first time, whether the internet attracts people with poor communication skills or if it actually creates them by teaching them that this crap is somehow normal and effective. All I know is that I'm so tired of getting in arguments with everyone I talk to about anything of even minor importance, most of all when everybody agrees, and they don't know it

All I can do is speak rightly. All I can do is offer my opinion when asked. But communication is a two-step process, and the other half? I can't control that. All I can do is make sure that I speak rightly, and hope for the best.

There is, of course, another option that I must mention for the sake of thoroughness. Not talking to people who are too lazy to hold up their end of the bargain and do me the basic respect I'm giving them. I may be arguing with them, I may be telling them they're wrong, and I may even be showing them ugly things they don't want to see. But at least I acknowledge them. It's a fucking start, and I will consider these people successful communicators when they can at least give me that.

Until then... whatever. I speak rightly. Anything other than that... I just need to let it go. If they haven't learned to communicate effectively by now, no amount of my energy lost is going to get across that kind of a life skill. Maybe if they have enough open brawls with people they don't realize they agree with until it's almost too late, they'll learn to figure out what people are saying before telling them they're wrong. But that's not a lesson they're likely to learn from me, no matter how much effort I spend on the teaching.

As my High Priest told me tonight, "Just let it go. Whatever it is you're hanging onto. Just let it go."

"I'm trying," I told him.
xenologer: (it are fact)
Federalism keeps coming up from people who want a weaker federal government with stronger state governments. They are self-identified "federalists," because to them "federalism" is a code phrase for "states' rights" that (theoretically) carries less baggage from long service to segregationism.

This annoys me, and I feel a need to vent about it. I mean, it's one thing for the meaning of a word to change over time--which is inevitable and not worth fretting over--but it is quite another to totally reverse the definition of the word in the hopes of co-opting its credibility without actually having to like it.



Dear Conservatives,

About the whole "federalism" thing. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

See, according to my East Coast elitist American history classes (with their nasty tax-funded public education curriculum), the USA used to have a Federalist political party, and I'm pretty sure that what you so-called "New Federalists" want is much closer to the Federalist Party's opposition: the Democratic Republicans. Democratic Republicans were the ones who worried that "big government" was going to be a threat to the rights of the people. Federalists wanted a stronger--wait for it--federal government.

I know, I know. Complicated stuff.

But please, guys. If you're going to kneel down to fellate our forefathers in the absence of any original plans, please do it right. This so-called "New Federalism" is the brainchild of Conservatives who must have either flunked history, or hoped everyone in their constituency had.

Stop proving them right. Go read The Federalist Papers, and then decide whether you want to say, "I am a Federalist."

Hugs and kisses,

Your friendly neighborhood social scientist.
xenologer: (it are fact)
Federalism keeps coming up from people who want a weaker federal government with stronger state governments. They are self-identified "federalists," because to them "federalism" is a code phrase for "states' rights" that (theoretically) carries less baggage from long service to segregationism.

This annoys me, and I feel a need to vent about it. I mean, it's one thing for the meaning of a word to change over time--which is inevitable and not worth fretting over--but it is quite another to totally reverse the definition of the word in the hopes of co-opting its credibility without actually having to like it.



Dear Conservatives,

About the whole "federalism" thing. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

See, according to my East Coast elitist American history classes (with their nasty tax-funded public education curriculum), the USA used to have a Federalist political party, and I'm pretty sure that what you so-called "New Federalists" want is much closer to the Federalist Party's opposition: the Democratic Republicans. Democratic Republicans were the ones who worried that "big government" was going to be a threat to the rights of the people. Federalists wanted a stronger--wait for it--federal government.

I know, I know. Complicated stuff.

But please, guys. If you're going to kneel down to fellate our forefathers in the absence of any original plans, please do it right. This so-called "New Federalism" is the brainchild of Conservatives who must have either flunked history, or hoped everyone in their constituency had.

Stop proving them right. Go read The Federalist Papers, and then decide whether you want to say, "I am a Federalist."

Hugs and kisses,

Your friendly neighborhood social scientist.
xenologer: (it are fact)
Federalism keeps coming up from people who want a weaker federal government with stronger state governments. They are self-identified "federalists," because to them "federalism" is a code phrase for "states' rights" that (theoretically) carries less baggage from long service to segregationism.

This annoys me, and I feel a need to vent about it. I mean, it's one thing for the meaning of a word to change over time--which is inevitable and not worth fretting over--but it is quite another to totally reverse the definition of the word in the hopes of co-opting its credibility without actually having to like it.



Dear Conservatives,

About the whole "federalism" thing. You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.

See, according to my East Coast elitist American history classes (with their nasty tax-funded public education curriculum), the USA used to have a Federalist political party, and I'm pretty sure that what you so-called "New Federalists" want is much closer to the Federalist Party's opposition: the Democratic Republicans. Democratic Republicans were the ones who worried that "big government" was going to be a threat to the rights of the people. Federalists wanted a stronger--wait for it--federal government.

I know, I know. Complicated stuff.

But please, guys. If you're going to kneel down to fellate our forefathers in the absence of any original plans, please do it right. This so-called "New Federalism" is the brainchild of Conservatives who must have either flunked history, or hoped everyone in their constituency had.

Stop proving them right. Go read The Federalist Papers, and then decide whether you want to say, "I am a Federalist."

Hugs and kisses,

Your friendly neighborhood social scientist.

November 2017

S M T W T F S
   1234
567891011
121314 15161718
19202122232425
2627282930  

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Jun. 19th, 2025 07:58 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios