Posted by so on May 20, 2005, at 14:27:35
In reply to Re: Requesting clarification, posted by gardenergirl on May 20, 2005, at 11:57:24
If I could figure out whether elements of this exchange are political, faith-oriented, social, alternative or what, I would move it there.
> > Holding values is different from actualizing values. Emmulation can be a means of vicariously affiliating with a value without any obligation to either hold the value or to actualize the value. With practice, populations can learn to articulate a value though they have no practical intent to ever actualize the value. Emmulation can be a means of practicing such suppression of a value.
>
> Uh huh. So people who follow a trend that stemmed from behavior that could be intrepreted as values being actualized are, um? I'm not sure what you are saying about them.
>I'm not sure we're supposed to cite any material on this page that could be construed as religious, but there is a line in a particularly old text that says something about "having an appearance of righteousness but lacking the power thereof."
A theoretical person described above would perhaps have wanted to be a hippie, but recognized the social risks of actually attempting to live a rural agrarian lifestyle in an egalitarian community. So they get a good job, maybe with some liberal implications, buy an SUV so they can go hiking and mountain biking in the national forest, decorate their home and work environment with hippie symbols, then buy a home on a conventional mortgage where proceeds from their interest support war-industries. Soon, anyone who has a Grateful Dead sticker, or maybe "Save Tibet" and "No War" sticker on their SUV is described as a hippie, while people who really tried to be hippies are seen as transients and social failures, scorned and disadvantaged for lacking even the basic modern symbol of personal responsibility and freedom -- an automobile.
This sort of cooptation is sometimes more evident in oppression of established cultures. Read Ward Churchhill's "Indians 'R Us" if you want to learn more about cooptation. "Dream Catchers" hanging from auto mirrors around the US are seen as offensive by some Native Americans, who know the real meaning and purpose of those once-in-a-lifetime talismans. School children are asked to cut feathers from construction paper to learn about Indians respect for nature otherwise embodied in deep respect for feathers of the American Bald-Eagle that requires everything to come to a complete stop if a ceremonial feather falls to the ground, while the school football team is named "Redskins" and attended by a mascot who dresses as a Native American and mimicks native dances, then parking his fake-feather regalia on the ground between performances. Some native leaders say this sort of behavior coopts their youth, creating an environment where they would rather reject their native identity than to be the object of imitation.
> > > Just following up. I do not see a post which states how many screen names you have used before. Would you please provide a link?
> > > >
> >
> > No. It's easy to find. Please don't continue asking.there is a green new flag on my first post. I said it was my second post. Now, please...
> >
> > Why were you interested?
>
> In order to learn the answer. I can be a curious cat.
>Why do you want to know the answer? Cats are curious about mice and bugs, but we know where that goes...
> > > > If phsycians were found to be particularly prone to bluffing at card games because of the implicit trust others place in them, would that not be informative about how they tend to use the trust they earn?
> > >
> > > How many physicians?
> >
> > If a majority of the physicians one had encountered in a lifetime demonstrated a trait, would it be reasonable for that person to explore to what extent other physicians, not already identified, present a similar trait?
>
> Reasonable? I have no objection to your quest. I was inquiring about your methods.But can you affirm the legitimacy of my experience, out of which my methods developed?
> >
> > > Hmmm, that would be a winking emoticon. There are many others just as there are many words in a language.
> > >
> > > gg
> >
> >
> > I don't understand how a "winking-just-kidding" emoticon is not sometimes a symbol of sarcastic intent.
>
> It actually does sometimes transmit a message of sarcastic or joking intent.Isn't sarcasm forbidden in this forum? Are emoticons sometimes a way of flying sarcastic missions under the radar?
> >Oddly, my read of the rules is that it is okay to talk at length about what we do not understand, but we are prohibited from explaining what we do understand, if the sole administrator abitrarilly concludes based entirely on his personal judgement, that somebody somewhere might theoretically feel offended by the understanding.
>
> That is not my understanding of the rules. My own experience here is that we are free to discourse about any number of topics understood or not. However, there are ways to express one's ideas, thoughts, and feelings in ways that are less likely to offend someone. This may take more effort depending on the perceived degree of potential offense in the message.
>
> >So, I proably can't tell you what I understand winking emoticons to represent in some circumstances.
>
> Well, not knowing what your understanding is, I cannot refute this. But my guess is that there likely would be a way to express this within the guidelines of the board. Some posters use "civility buddies" for assistance.That is along the lines of what I recomend for administration of this board. If I were convinced it is a worthwhile endeavor to go to great lengths to comply with a lone administrators notion of what is civil, I might invest the effort. Convinced that part of the problem lies on the other side of the server, I'm focusing my investment there. Except for narrow, debatable infractions, and severe, theatrical offenses staged as protest, I seem to be able to fly with the weather regardless contentious responses to my offerings. As it is, I already invest an inordinate amount of time in each post to assure it will conform with the tedious demands labeled civility that are unlike any I have seen in any venue, except perhaps at an upper-class social gathering where deference to power and privilage are a community code.
>
> > Nor can I complain about what I might perceive to be put-downs, because I beleive I am assigned in this context to a social teir that suffers from a more strict interpretation of rules than other posters who, for example, are allowed to cast all the meat eaters in the world as akin to rapists.
>
> I have not experienced any hierarchy of posters receiving different treatment on this site. I do note differing skill levels in expressing oneself within the guidelines. There appears to be a learning curve for developing this skill. And having read the post you are implicitly referencing, I viewed said comparison as the content in an exercise in logical reasoning versus a statement of belief or fact.
>Logical reasoning is an excercise in stating facts. My experience seems to be different than yours. More often, I see stark logical comparisons met by demands to "rephrase that as an I-statement".
> > I can say that animals, humans included, sometimes demonstrate a major emotion while masking contrary emotions. Social pressure is especially effective at provoking suppression of contrary emotions. The contrary emotion is often identifiable through physical cues, nonetheless. I think the concept is sometimes called "leakage".
>
> Yes, we do lose all nonverbal cues in expression that we otherwise could observe in face to face communication. I believe that is how emoticons developed. They are rough attempts to portray a face, afterall.Sometimes we might overly focus on what is lost and lose site of what inflection is retained. I beleive you said emoticons are sometimes a rough attempt to portray sarcasm, which might otherwise be repressed because overt sarcasm is forbidden at this forum. If logical comparisons are okay, I could suggest that is similar to a dog cowering when he snarls at or approaches food dominated by a senior member of the pack, thereby both expressing due deference and irrepressable but forbidden aggression at the same time.
> >
> >
>
> gg
poster:so
thread:499301
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20050517/msgs/500392.html