Big Apple Dreaming

You have argumented well - as always, and I completely agree, too. On the other hand: There is something to be said for the other side, as well...
It all seems to boil down to the right things at the right time, once more. The Medicare example is useful. You will want to educate people about the sorry mess, sure, and right, no use in "smelling rot and calling it roses".
But on a personal level (when you meet this elderly person who has been mistreated by that very system), it's not going to help giving a lecture about it's fundamental rottenness... Wherever you deal with misery up close, the "Pollyanna" approach can be more helpful.

I am not sure about that "negative thoughts and words poison your own being" belief, as well. I *do* know that harbouring anger is definitely crippling in the long run. But I am every bit as convinced that *not* feeling and expressing the anger that is so completely justified looking at all the drastic mismanagement of our planet will have a strangling effect on you - and never mind your responsibility to pass on at least a hint of hope (or Utopia, if you will) to those that come after us....

The dilemma is most drastically evident in the survivors of concentration camps, I think. Those that survived were those that somehow found it in them not to despair. Positive thinkers? I am not sure. But certainly not those given to depression and cynicism... I am sure I would have belonged to the second group, by the way.

Maybe the true art is to feel love for your individual fellow human while not ignoring the effect that the "masses" of them can have at the same time...? It's awfully hard. And when meeting people that quite obviously are so much more part of the problem than any conceivable solution - no, I will never manage it. No chance in hell. But I admire the artists :-).

From:

Maybe it's just my mindset, but I can both hate and love the masses at the same time. I hate them for the evil they foment and love them for the good they do. Individuals are always easier to deal with than masses, although sometimes the individuals are all-around rat bastards.

After delivering some ambivalent news, a friend asked me yesterday if I had been depressed since the storm. No, I really haven't. I just don't feel like feeding the negativity that would be crushing if not countered. I am cynical too, however, I prefer to use that cynicism as a beacon to illuminate the bad rather than revel in it. You can only change circumstances when you are aware of them. Look at all the people in denial about various issues. Alcoholics who don't admit they have a problem never get help.

While I agree that telling an elderly person who is getting screwed that they are getting screwed isn't always pleasant. It helps in that the person will be less likely to support those who are screwing him/her in the future. It also helps to explore if there are workarounds for the screwing that ameliorate its effects. If you refuse to acknowledge the problem at all or try to couch it in pleasant terms, it seems to me that you are doing a disservice to those who are negatively impacted by the problem.

From:

I am having a hard time feeling positive about any "masses"... Just to see a guy that I like - and know to be a sensible and thoughtful person - dive into his group of drunken friends and turn into a moronic teenager always gives me the creeps :-). And: Don't ever read Canetti's "Masse und Macht" (Crowds and Power) if you want to keep that love...

Maybe that's the secret: Not "feeding the negativity", but taking energy and pragmatic drive out of the anger and turning it into action. Forget the maybe. It's one of the things I admire you for! I am mostly incompetent of that. Depression is always at the gate, and therefore, useless whining. Only thing I ever get to is spitting sarcasm and other comparable negativity. I do take care to explain the evil mechanics and, if visible, even "workaraounds", though. Even if I'm often called either a fossil or a paranoid ;-).

We don't have such a drastic example as your Bush, though. And so it's real hard to make people see that this is not a fact that should make us feel superior. It can happen extremely fast. Is already building up, in fact. And you wouldn't believe how frustrating it is to see so many people ignoring that fact - even while making nasty jokes about the american voters!

From:

"If you refuse to acknowledge the problem at all or try to couch it in pleasant terms, it seems to me that you are doing a disservice to those who are negatively impacted by the problem."

If someone speaks like that to me, I always wonder how bad it really is at best. At worst, I think the speaker is a liar and planning on doing something behind my back that is not in my best interests.

From:

And another dilemma: Do you try to "talk down" to a person, risking to offend, or do you just go ahead in your own terms, risking to go right over someone's head and be conceived as arrogant and/or manipulating... ;-)?

From:

Presuming that you will be going over someone's head can be a form of arrogance. I have a high IQ, but that doesn't make me an expert in everything under the sun.

On the other hand, if you are a professional talking to a layperson (doctor to patient, for example), you need to be careful not to use technical jargon or the other party may become annoyed and impatient with you. Explain what you mean if you use a term specific to your field.

ATTENTION COMPUTER GEEKS: this means you!

From:

:-D. Yep. They are legendary for it.

But seriously. The more you mix with all kinds of folks, the more often you can run into a situation where someone is just gaping at you suddenly. And then you (I!) feel sorry and embarrassed. Because while I won't hesitate to ask the geek in question what his point is, and - yes - point out that this is not my field, somebody already intimidated by "experts" will probably not find it in him to stop you and demand an explanation...

From:

real-skeptic.livejournal.com

About the concentration camp survivors - I don't think they can be categorized into personality types. Besides, it's hard to research this - it's like quantum physics. Their personalities have been so profoundly affected by their experiences, that there's no way to know what they were originally. Among the post-war personalities, you can find all sorts - optimistic and depressed. Ones who became religious, ones who lost their faith. Good people and bad people. Ones who apply the lessons learned to other people around them, and ones who became bigots out of fear. You just can't tell.

One common theme, though, is that they didn't talk about it.

Anyway, back to the original issue, I think one must use both positive and negative terms to describe a situation. Where it gets messy and not effective, is when you get to the personal level. For example:

"George Bush wastes American lives, promotes hate for the USA all over the world, and cannot deal with an internal crisis properly".

"George Bush is a puffed-up idiot who can't tell his shoe laces from his fingers".

The first one is effective. The second one, while very funny, won't get you anywhere.

From:

You are right... I don't know any survivors, by the way. Not personally. But I have asked myself that question - how would I have reacted - lots of times. With no flattering result. But that, too, is not really answerable, right...?

I am sorry if it felt a bit insolent to you that I used that example at all, by the way. Wasn't meant to be.

Another thought just occurred: What version 2 *can* achieve is establishing this quite comfortable "we against them" feeling that is so dangerously appealing to most of us - and sometimes needed, too ;-).

From:

My bus driver in elementary school had a number tattooed on his arm. He never explained how he got it, and once I was in middle school, Temple showed us "Night and Fog" among other things, and we learned.

Reading Eli Wiesel's book (I forget the title) about his experiences in the camps would give you some idea of how people changed.

My grandfather lost 8 brothers and sisters in the camps, because they didn't come to America during the outbreak of WWI.

From:

Sorry to hear that...

It's one of the saddest things that so many people stayed, assuring themselves and each other that all the madness would just not hold together long enough to do any real damage.

I have read several accounts of camps, not Eli Wiesel's, though. The most impressive one was by a woman, Zdena Berger. She was in 3 of them, from age 14 on. I got it at that age. That was when I started to wonder how I would have survived.
The last time I was confronted by anything on the theme was Benignis film. Hated that. Hated him. Now there you have positive thinking...

From:

I don't know what film that was. I probably don't want to see it, in any case. I haven't managed to get to the Holocaust museum in Washington, either.

From:

lab-rattus.livejournal.com

My Aunt was in a labor camp. She was only nine years old or so at the beginning.

She does not talk of that time.

From:

real-skeptic.livejournal.com

No insolence at all. And I don't know many personally, either. By the time I could understand they were already too old to be around. We had one famous survivor of Mengele's experiments in twins in the town where I was born. She was strange and kids kept away from her. By the time we understood, it was already too late.

But I've seen many on television, read accounts of them. Some of Israel's politicians are survivors. The head Rabbi of Tel-Aviv is a survivor. The head of the secular party is a survivor. That's why I say it affected everybody in a different way.

It's amazing how our sense of survival is strong. People didn't just "give up and die". They died of hunger and disease, and of course many of them have been murdered. So I think if any of us had to go through such an experience - shudder - and we weren't killed by physical circumstances, we'd survive. Nothing to do with our mental attitude. It's like cancer. You don't overcome it by being cheerful and having a good outlook on life. It's easier to help you if you are easy to live with, but your attitude contributes virtually nothing to your chances of survival.

From:

Well - I'm pretty convinced that I am actually a "give up and die" person...
Because if it's a matter of fighting for your next meal or just going to sleep...? With cancer, it's between you and that lump - and which medication to choose. But in a room full of desperate people? That's a whole different story.

The choices really seem to be either be a hero, caring for others, or a violent bully, or - just go to sleep....

From:

tigrismus.livejournal.com

nor do it think it laudable to try. Why should people dishonestly speak positively of what they perceive of as utterly negative? What positive thing could I find to say about torture, for example? And why on earth should I have to come up with an alternative any time I decry some administration policy? The alternative to wrong-headed policy is to not implement it, I shouldn't have to point that out everytime I speak negatively about it.

From:

That's true. In a situation where there was imperative, such as yelling "STOP!" at someone who appears to be walking into the path of an oncoming train, any embellishment or positive spin would be detrimental to the immediacy of the situation. Although the machinations of government gear seem to grind at a glacial pace, sometimes there are hastily made decisions that have adverse long-term consequences. Taking a namby-pamby approach to denigrating those adverse decisions doesn't work as we have seen in the past five years.

From:

That reminds me of some parenting theories... you know, the ones where you spend 5 minutes explaining WHY it's a bad idea to stick fingers/forks/cat tails into the electrical outlet, instead of yelling "NO!"

On one hand, it's a nice theory, and I've seen some parents use it (more or less effectively), but there's nothing like yelling "STOP" and yanking the kid out of the street.

Applying "nice parenting techniques" to dealing with politicians is not going to be effective.

Are we at the point where the kids from all these "namby-pamby" parenting styles are now of voting age? Is this where some of this PC-mania is coming from?

From: (Anonymous)

If the kid is having a temper tantrum, explaining calmly will not work. Immediate and consistent consequences do work. Sometimes that includes sending the child to hir room (which should not have a TV, computer, etc. in it) or giving hir a swat on the behind.

From:

If I was in charge of a little darling who actually did stick Kitty's tail into the electrical socket, the little sociopath would be beaten black and blue.

From:

Furthermore, the small sociopath should be promptly dumped into the swamp to cavort with others of its reptilian ilk.

From:

the saying "sticks and stones..." comes from the legal theory that words, no matter how harsh, are not justification for laying hands on another person.

I know from personal experience that words can cause more psychological damage than a fist (well, maybe not, because I've never really been beaten up, and I don't expect to ever BE beaten up).

I pretty much agree with you and not with hrh -- there IS a time to be angry - it's an important part of the grieving process, for example. And I find it difficult to believe that someone can remain so "positive" in the face of real tragedy.

However, the point that I think is missed is this: If you avoid inflammatory language (rather than "negative" language), your audience has a better chance of actually hearing what you have to say, and perhaps considering your point of view and/or suggestions as valid and worth looking into. If you start out slagging your opponent's heroes from the start, they will shut down and become reactionary, and no real dialog is able to take place.

The "If you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all" attitude is complete bullshit. Sometimes, there is a stinking pile of shit that just has to be pointed out so that it can get cleaned up.

From:

Your fourth paragraph is apt for those who haven't shut down all logic processes and are open to change. We all know those types mentioned by our esteemed friend

thewrongcrowd who refuse to entertain any real dialog, preferring instead to defend their cranial-rectal inversions. Unless we are willing to counter the bullshit they shovel, we are complicit in enabling that bullshit. The object of that exercise is not necessarily to change the minds of the mindless sheeple, but to indicate to those whose minds aren't closed that there are other ways of looking at the issue.

The "if you can't say something nice" axiom works in interpersonal relationships to a certain extent (falling short of enabling destructive behaviors by those close to us--as you are well aware), but that same thing cannot be said of the relationships between the elected and the governed. It is our right and often our duty to dissent.

From:

Yeah, I'm still unsure as to the best way to deal with people who sit on their brains (aside from ignoring them).

I also think that these are 2 distinct modes of communication - one for interpersonal relationships and one for dealing with organizations. (basically I agree with you)

From:

thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com

...Could [we] successfully use only positive terms and still achieve results?

I think there was quite a bit of miscommunication occuring in that thread... which is kind of funny considering the topic. Negative uses of words are purely a matter of interpretation along a spectrum of possibilities with "The President is an idiot and you're an idiot for supporting him" at one end and anything but blind patriotism being considered negative at the other. Polyanna and Pangloss are never right. And one must be able to recognize and name a pest in order to work in Candide's garden.

Before meeting certain neocons (online and in RL) I would have been inclined to say that negative speech is almost always detrimental. But their willingness and facility at twisting anything and everything said makes it paramount to be very clear, explicit and repetitive about things that are wrong. The inclusion of solutions along with criticism is most useful, but that lack of a solution doesn't mean one should remain silent and in so doing support the wrongs that are on-going.

From:

naruki-oni.livejournal.com

I think if you wanted to implement a solution such as "hrh" was suggesting, then you should follow the model laid out by "Lisa" right here.

It still allows you to accurately describe the situation, even the bad stuff, without engaging in "negativity".

That won't stop the neocons and their ilk from claiming it is negativity. Nothing will ever force them to speak the truth. But at least reasonable people will notice the change.

I don't really care to avoid negativity myself, but then I don't believe in spiritual matters at all. To me, the only consequence of being negative about things I loathe is someone using that against me.

From:

That would be my modified approach. I would describe the situation, but I would also explain the repercussions. People don't seem to think things through anymore. For example, running a saw through your arm will deprive you of more than 50% of your manual dexterity if not reattached and you could die from blood loss if the wound isn't treated in a timely fashion. Long-term, the loss of over 50% of your manual dexterity will prevent you from doing many jobs and curtail your earning capacity as well as making it more difficult to successfully mastubate.

It doesn't even really take being negative about things you loathe to get them used against you. I've had idiot women try to shove infants at me simply because I have a vagina and breasts. There are too many morons out there who make assumptions that have the end result of using something you loathe against you. May they die horrible, embarrassing deaths.

From:

lionsphil.livejournal.com

Reads mostly as the "be nice" crowd, once again following their delusion that saying only nice, friendly things will result in a nice, friendly community.

Instead of a whole load of catty subtexts.

From:

thewrongcrowd.livejournal.com

Some places should have signs posted:

"Attention. Entering Carebearville."

From: (Anonymous)

*LOL*

I have Furbeiki to unload on such people...

From:

Someone on the thread posted:

"We can use exclusively positive terms to describe a bad situation. For example, we can offer solutions. We can visualize and describe a situation that's better. We can find the silver lining in the cloud."

Unfortunately, the government does this in a most Orwellian way, by using euphemisms to describe negative things in positive terms. For example, "national security" means "anything we can do to advance our own interests, everyone else be damned, including our citizens."
"Patriotism" sometimes means "blind obedience of the government without question" and "friendly fire" means "oops, we shot our own troops by mistake."

And I've run into this in New Age circles, as well. You are not allowed to speak of "problems," only "opportunities." Any illness, from the common cold to terminal cancer, becomes a "health challenge."

This has been used by those in power to keep their followers in check. Churches are especially good at this; they tell their followers to "make a sacrifice of praise" and be thankful at ALL times, especially in times of sorrow. Criticism is NEVER allowed or you are accused of negativity and not having enough faith.

Of course, complaining instead of taking personal responsibility for your problems is equally counterproductive, for nothing gets done, you still have the problems, and you get a reputation as a whining, immature bitchy crybaby to boot and no one wants to be around you.

From:

The stupid thing about such reframing is that (according to Bandler and Grinder, the "inventors" of the word "reframing) the reframing isn't going to work for an individual unless it's customized for that particular person's "world map" -- so for someone, calling cancer a "health challenge" may actually help hir deal with the illnes, whereas someone else may really NEED to "declare war on the tumor" in order to actually get his/her body to fight the cancer successfully.

One of the things we all need to be vigilant about is the powers that be euphemizing our problems into "non-issues". They've been trying to do this for a while now, to varying degrees of success.

George Carlin said something like this in one of his routines, describing how we name things - for example: "Shell Shock" in WWI became "Battle Fatigue" in WWII, and now it's "Post Traumatic Stress Disorder"

Just because in Chinese, we are told that the glyph for "problem" is also the glyph for "opportunity" does not mean that one word really CAN be substituted for the other.

From: