[thechat] FW: Protesters

[Marlene Bruce]

>was never spoken. Hence the single quote instead of double. It's been
>the knee-jerk reactions going on around here. And considering the stance
>and direction and contents of your first post into this thread, that's
>what's happening.

Oh Scott!

Let's look at my first post line by line:

"You were right, your .02 didn't help (but thanks for sharing)."

Given that Jeremy's post inflamed and polarized the discussion (in my 
opinion), he took it from a level of exploring complexities (see 
Erika's carrot and stick post) to a level of discussing extreme polar 
positions, which didn't help. Now we have to struggle to bring things 
back to complexities. Oh, and I thanked Jeremy for sharing, 'cause 
he's entitled to, no matter whether I agree or not.

"I don't think you have a clue what it means to be intelligent and 
unemployed, or a single parent."

Well, that's what I think. I haven't subsequently heard any 
indication to the contrary, so I still think that.

"As the saying goes, "Honesty without compassion is brutality." "

That's a quote indicating that I thought Jeremy was honest, but 
lacked compassion, and therefore his email was (rather) brutal.

"Though I don't wish any ill towards you, I hope you gain compassion 
and an understanding of what it means to be a human being in a 
less-than-fortunate situation."

Olive branch of sorts (IOW I'm not attacking), and a sentiment for 
Jeremy's personal growth to become a more experienced and 
understanding person toward people who are less fortunate. Yes, that 
implies that people who are more experienced become more 
understanding and compassionate. I don't think that's an outlandish 
assumption. Education is a good thing, as it usually makes you aware 
of shades of grey in any situation.

"The world is not a black and white place."

[and]

"It's not either "play by the rules or go live in Afghanistan." "

I stand by those, and I don't think the sentiments are highbrow.

"That type of sentiment shows an unfortunate lack of understanding of 
our governmental process, of realistic human condition, and of the 
complexity inherent in most situations."

Do you think "play by the rules or go live in Afghanistan" *does* 
show an understanding of our governmental process, of realistic human 
condition, and of the complexity inherent in most situations? I think 
not.

>  > What
>  > I said doesn't ignore the fact that there are squatters taking
>  > advantage of the system, or conversely that there are people who've
>>  legitimately fallen on hard times and find themselves bucking heads
>>  with the system.
>
>or how about conversely that some self-actuation can be done? You've
>ignored or jumped on that opinion, twice now.

I had neither ignored nor jumped on it, I was focusing on the 
polarizing message of Jeremy's email, which I understood to be: go by 
the rules or go someplace else.

If we take an "accept the situation and don't try to change things" 
stance, then we get what we deserve. I regret it if anyone interprets 
that to be elitist.

Of course self actuation is part of the picture. Given that I was 
laid off a week and a half ago (and yes, I applied for unemployment), 
I'm work on my on self actuation right now by trying to get a job. If 
I feel at some point I'm getting screwed by the system, you bet I'll 
struggle against it too!

>  > Complex, I say, complex!
>
>and apparently more multi-faceted than you're willing to see.

I hope you don't mean that! I'm open minded and you should know that, Scott!

>What Miriam said.

But I'm saying the middle ground (i.e. not black and white) is what 
we should be looking at.

Cheers,
Marlene