> What is troublesome, to me, about your behaviour/writings on this list
> is that you are arrogant and aggressive about your unsubstantiated
> (IMHO) references to "lifestyle choices" (or the significance of their
> contribution) and your flippant dismissal of arguments opposed to yours
> ("cultural tropes", etc).
>
> In choosing not to tow the party line, as you see it, of the left with
> regards to the "disadvantaged", you do not offer friendly (i.e.,
> non-aggressive) and considerate corrections ("Hey fellows, we need to
> differentiate between the truly oppressed and the unfortunate fact that
> there are indeed those who exploit public measures or refuse to act on
> their own"), but instead, you tow the right party line: "free-riders",
> "lifestyle choices", etc.
One would think that you would apply your analytical skills your use in your professional field to other fields, but you seem not to - you seem take vague and ambiguous concepts for what you want them to mean and then get upset when others do not see what you do.
A cop arrests a man. Some see a black guy being arrested and cry racism, while others see a criminal being arrested and cry law and order. The controversy could be easily solved by looking at the specifics of the case - or not - but neither side is interested in finding it out, because that might render the case useless as an example in the moral story there are telling. Instead, they assault those who do not see what they do. This is why it is not about reality anymore but about storytelling and believing competing narratives and literary genres (also called "tropes").
I do not like that genre, just as I do not like tabloids, country music, bible tales, and action movies, and I say so. I think it is stale, counterproductive and reflects the poverty of ideas on the left. That makes me a bit upset because I am cognitively "at home" on the left, yet I find that much of what passes for left thinking nowadays is of little value and interest to me. And I say that - after all freedom of expression is one of the most cherished values in this camp, no?
One would think that an analytically minded professional would be able to distinguish between reality and various narratives pertaining to that reality. One would also think that such a professional would distinguish between dismissal of a narrative and dismissal of the person who likes that narrative. So if you make this distinction, why do you think that my comments are arrogant and aggressive? Would you use the same for someone who claims that the bible is but a bunch of poorly written fairy tales?
For somebody trained in social science, this is largely a rhetorical question. We all learn in Sociology 101 about the "breaching experiments" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaching_experiment and know that they evoke hostile reactions. We also learn that stock knowledge and folkways become a part of who people are and challenging that stock knowledge or folkways may become a personal threat. We also learn, but that comes later, maybe in a graduate program, about sociological intervention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Touraine about using these challenges to survey, and perhaps influence, social movements. So from that point of view, reactions to my postings are as expected - people feel threatened when their stories and received wisdom is being challenged, especially by someone from their own camp.
Wojtek