At 02:08 PM 10/19/2005, you wrote:
>Ravi:
>
> > 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
>
>
>
>___________________________________
>http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/mailman/listinfo/lbo-talk