An acquaintance posted this little analogy to his LJ today. I thought it was an interesting comparison.

Excellent rant, and well written. I also like his "Safety Rant" in the comments.

I’m not quite so taken with this rant. It IS a rant and does a good job at that, but for me it has too narrow a focus to be more applicable beyond its specific target (the church ladies). The analogy and assessment of the “colorless little nobody” is a good one and his paralleling it with the church ladies makes sense, however it is missing the broader perspective that is so important: We ALL fit the profile of this little man. He is an archetype (or I assume, having not seen the movie) that does not exist in real life. Archetypes tell us things about ourselves more than they do about other people. Each of us at some point checks out when we should be paying attention, glosses over facts that make us uncomfortable, or applies judgment to others. This is simply human nature. What we should do with this is not so much apply it to those around us, but search for the hypocrisy in our own lives

You see, I used to (well still do, truth be told) rant on and on about people around me who just seem Ok with being “simple” and not thinking things through the way they should. 80% of the people I meet every day fit this mold and any kind of meaningful discussion about politics/religion/philosophy is completely lost. They’ve made up their minds, can articulate party line points, and that’s enough for them. I used to get frustrated by people who didn’t think through their actions like they ought to. At parties I got labeled as someone who “thinks things to death” and who really wasn’t practical. I’d get angry, because from my point of view the things I think and talk about are essential. If we are to be successful in anything we do, be it business, politics, or anything else, we must strive to understand perspectives outside of our own. The businessman who starts a company making a product no one wants is sure to go bankrupt. Electing a politician who gives only me what I want can have a disastrous effect on others. We can’t just look at our world; we need to step outside for the broader perspective. When people just laughed at me for the seriousness with which I take such issues, I would get annoyed. When they dismissed me and engaged in self-centered, narrow thinking, my blood would boil.

So I understand the frustration. I’ve been there and I do my best to encourage others to get outside of themselves and really try to understand the world around them better. However, I’ve realized two things more recently in life: The first is that I do it too, just like everyone else does. We all have those issues on which we check out, and sometimes I really miss the mark. I’ve for sure thrown up my hands at some political issues that I really should have followed more closely. I just didn’t think they were important at the time. And I know I’m not alone. How many people did I talk to (critical thinkers even) during the election for which one of the candidates, depending on the individuals political leanings, could do no right. In fact, anything the aforementioned “evil” candidate did that even smelled promising was labeled as a “trick” and spun to made look evil. No way that evil person could do something right. This all came from intelligent people who must either have believed the candidate was totally evil (or incompetent) or really weren’t thinking things through. Because nobody gets it wrong on EVERY issue, not even Bush or Kerry. When I agreed with Kerry on an issue to my Bush friends, boy did I not hear the end of that. And anything I said supportive of Bush here, well we know how that went. In the end, most of us are content to look at surface issues and split down ideological lines rather than find the truth. And sometimes we don’t have much of a choice because the truth is so buried all we can do is throw up our hands. But we do throw up our hands.

And I should note further that this isn’t just limited to politics. Yes it’s easy to lament people who live out lives from a misguided, uneducated political perspective, but I lament even more those who aren’t addressing the spiritual issues. I see faith as being far more important than politics, and far more glossed over by those who get irritated by others glossing over politics.

The second thing I’ve learned, however, is more important than the first. I can take a great deal of pride in the fact that I really try to think out issues critically when other people don’t, but the truth is there are lots of areas where other people have me beat. I know some wonderful, wonderful, people who don’t even try to understand politics. They just believe in something and go with the candidate who seems to best fit that. It’s a simple outlook and many times the end up endorsing things inconsistent with their core beliefs. However, some of these people have compassion and mercy that blows me away. They truly love others in a way that I don’t, and that makes me ashamed of myself. Critical thinking and correct political ideas don’t mean anything to a starving person who’s being fed in a soup kitchen- lived out compassion and love does. That’s not to say these wonderful people shouldn’t be trying to evaluate issues more intellectually, but if we can learn from one anther certainly this world can be a better place. I should love more and they should think more.

Admittedly, the church ladies from the rant didn’t seem to exhibit much thought or love (we’re getting this from a biased source, but I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt), still you don’t really know where someone’s gift is. There may be areas of their lives that are incredible and add to this world in ways that none of us realize. It is a rant, so judgment without compassion is reasonable in this context, but we must make sure to realize that no one can be reduced to one flaw or strength. People are far to complex for that.

So this is my rant in return. Probably inappropriate to rant about a rant, but it’s far too easy to see fleck in other peoples eyes than it is to look at our own. Hatred is never appropriate, even for the worst of us. The most important thing we can do toward our fellow man is to never throw up our hands; rather we should to work together, build up one another, and work for the common good. We’ll probably never get there, but the trying is more important than the achieving.

I don't think the it's about disengaging from politics as such -- everyone has whole areas they just don't bother following (until fairly recently, US politics was one of mine -- George W Bush marked literally the first time I could confidently state the party affiliation of the US president).

I think it's about disengaging from politics but then having forceful political opinions anyway. That's not having one's strengths in other areas, that's just closed-mindedness.

If someone tries to tell me that Chelsea are better footballers than Manchester United, I don't argue back. I'm well aware that I have no idea which team is stronger; sport is something I'm completely disengaged from. The fact that I once lived near Manchester, and have never lived in Chelsea, doesn't cause me to adopt an attitude devoid of critical thinking.

Peter

I will have to point out that one of the reasons that I dislike GWB so much is because I disagree with every opinion and platform position that comes out of the man's mouth. I'm certainly not leaning to the right in any way, but that doesn't mean that I don't agree with the occasional Republican position. But somehow I manage to disagree with every Bushian position. (Of course, the condescension with which he presents his opinions just polarizes me that much more.)

There has long been this notion that there are leaders and followers, and -- I don't know -- maybe that was true at some time, but there is a much larger mass of people now that don't fit into those two categories: the free-thinkers. They don't follow, but they don't lead, either, except maybe by example and rant. Most of us here who participate in these discussions, I think, fall in that category. And it makes me furious to see people who just want to follow. (Oftentimes even when what they've chosen to follow agrees with what I've reasoned.)

To change points, and not to draw too strong a comparison, my mother can be one of those people, despite being a Democrat. She however, doesn't really see the harm in stuff like the PATRIOT Act. She's of the notion that she doesn't have anything to worry about. Compare that to Martin Niemoller's quote:

Quote:
First, they came for the labor unions but I wasn't a labor unionist, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Communists but I wasn't a Communist, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Jews; but I wasn't a Jew, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for the Catholics, but I wasn't a Catholic, so I didn't speak up. Then they came for me-and there was no one left to speak up.

and I start to wonder how innocuous that first step might have seemed to some people. I always assumed that he meant that they came around and rounded up the unionists, but maybe it was presented in the same way the PATRIOT Act is presented. Maybe it wasn't "I'm not going to say anything in order to save myself," as I always assumed, but more "I don't really see anything wrong with that; they're just protecting me from the bad people."

Again, I'm not trying to equate the Bush administration with the Nazi party, but there are some parallels I see.

Bitt,

Quote:
And it makes me furious to see people who just want to follow. (Oftentimes even when what they've chosen to follow agrees with what I've reasoned.)

I can't help but think of the balcony scene from 'The Life of Brian':

Quote:

MANDY:
All right. Here he is, then. Come on, Brian. Come and talk to them.
BRIAN:
But, Mum. Judith.
MANDY:
Now, leave that Welsh tart alone.
BRIAN:
But I don't really want to, Mum.
FOLLOWERS:
Brian! Brian! Brian!...
BRIAN:
Good morning.
FOLLOWERS:
A blessing! A blessing! A blessing!...
BRIAN:
No. No, please! Please! Please listen. I've got one or two things to say.
FOLLOWERS:
Tell us. Tell us both of them.
BRIAN:
Look. You've got it all wrong.
You don't need to follow me. You don't need to follow anybody! You've got to think for yourselves. You're all individuals!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we're all individuals!
BRIAN:
You're all different!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes, we are all different!
DENNIS:
I'm not.
ARTHUR:
Shhhh.
FOLLOWERS:
Shh. Shhhh. Shhh.
BRIAN:
You've all got to work it out for yourselves!
FOLLOWERS:
Yes! We've got to work it out for ourselves!
BRIAN:
Exactly!
FOLLOWERS:
Tell us more!
BRIAN:
No! That's the point! Don't let anyone tell you what to do! Otherwise-- Ow! No!
MANDY:
Come on, Brian. That's enough. That's enough.

Thanks to The Unofficial Monty Python Home Page.

Well, there's nothing inherently wrong with being a follower, as long as you've put enough thought into choosing what to follow. But to blindly follow and then vehemently support your leader to the point of pretending to be a minor leader or influencer yourself is just absurd and offensive. That truly is the blind leading the blind.

Quote:
Humans are inherintly self centered, which leads to viewing life through a filter of what's best for our interests.

I agree with you on this, however it is possible to poke holes in that filter sometimes. However what gets me is these types of people will speak out against THEIR OWN interests and benefits, as well as vote against them, because someone higher up in their social chain has told them this is what is right, and they go along with it without question. This is what really gives me the desire to beat my head into the wall out of frustration.

Honestly, I've become somewhat enamored of general contempt. It seems to fit the world fairly well.

On the other hand, is it discourse? Or just dualing monologues? If it's discourse, then there's nothing to be resolved. One may be entrenched, even both, but that doesn't mean that they're not having a viable dialogue. It's just non-productive. We engage in that all the time, it seems. If it's two people spouting party lines, I don't know what response you can have besides contempt. Or simple avoidance.

I don't think there's anything wrong with contempt. If you don't hold things in contempt (even incredibly stupid things like 'Evolution is a lie') then you're forced into the position that all statements must be weighed equally when really all statements must be given the weight they deserve (which is often times none).

Quote:
I do my best to hold no one in contempt or judge another human being as lesser than myself

If they blindly follow bad ideas, why not contempt them, ridicule the bad ideas they espouse? If people don't call shenanigans on bad ideas and blind loyalty, that's when things get really out of hand.

-Zeke

I'll also note that religion often encourages (or attracts those with) sheeplike behavior, especially the style of Christianity I most often see. Of course, it's not restricted to Christianity or religtion by any means, nor are all Christians or all religious people sheep. But the sheep that do exist in religion seem to be very vocal in their parroting (to mix metaphors). Some even fly planes into buildings.

An old one, but a good one...

Perfect timing, Paul

But I think this makes good supplementary reading to the rant.

It's a good opinion piece on what exactly is wrong with people like the church ladies, and how they got that way.

Quote:
Feeding the hungry while helping making their numbers swell only falsely calms one's conscience.

But it's the calm conscience that these people are after. Reminds me of junkies and the junkie line of reasoning and behavior, just a different fix.

But the sheep that do exist in religion seem to be very vocal in their parroting (to mix metaphors)



tanstaafl.