Indeed. You and I quite often will focus things like this where loathsome character was shown. This makes dealing with a family like the Trumps completely out of the question. To many it seems unreasonable to not forget things as time passes but that's back-sliding. I was brought up to allow for the possibility of forgiveness for serous matters, but only if it was earned. We had no getting along to get along with disreputable types. One minor example: before I was born, a store in town swindled my dad on a deal for a new color TV, bait and switching with a black-and-white temporary set while the color model was supposedly on order. Color TVs were still rare in Ireland in the late 1960s. The set never appeared, it seems it was sold on the hope of getting a dealership and a year of "next month" followed. None of us ever bought another thing from that store until thirty years later when the original owner passed and his son took over. I recall my dad buying a lawnmower and recounting the tale from decades before to the son, who took after his mother, not his father. Principle was everything, not just to my parents but to my uncles and aunts as well. On "snark" as @Tsing Tao calls it, I grew up in a home where every opinion, if called for, was tested by fire at the dinner table. What some might call snark, we saw as normal conversation, wit, often darkly sarcastic, but always a challenge. In bigger families, especially ones without a dominance culture, conversation tends to be cutting but It is not meant to mortally wound. It is how people keep up and keep each other on their toes. For someone who did not grow up in that environment, what we see as normal conversation might feel like an attack. They might interpret sharp wit as disrespect, when really it is engagement, proof that an idea is worth testing. If however, somebody is playing a proxy for somebody scurrilous, say a Trump or other, they just get called on this with both barrels or dismissed with scorn.
I know what you mean. I know a few people in real life who are like that. They cannot be presented with an opposing view in any manner without feeling slighted. Doesn’t make for much stimulating conversation, and you have to wonder how confident they are in their beliefs.
Out of curiousity and because I had a dull headache writing it, so it may have been unclear, I pasted this into Gemini to see what it made of that post. These tools are becoming useful though I have to wonder how soon an equivalent of "sar-nav brain" will arise. Still, it is a useful way to get an objective insight. Prompt (after changing Trump to Drumf so as to not trigger it's political figure censorship): is this text clear? "Yes, this is clear, though it's a very dense and layered communication. Here's a breakdown of the key points and how they connect: Core Themes: * Principled Stance: * You emphasize the importance of holding onto principles, even when others suggest "forgetting" or "moving on." * This is demonstrated through the story of your father and the swindling TV store, highlighting the long-term consequences of unethical behavior. * Earned Forgiveness: * Forgiveness is not automatic; it must be earned through genuine remorse and change. * "Getting along to get along" with "disreputable types" is unacceptable. * Critical Discourse: * Your upbringing involved rigorous debate and challenging of ideas, often with "snark" or dark sarcasm. * This is seen as a form of engagement and intellectual stimulation, not personal attack. * Distrust of "Scurrilous" Individuals: * You express strong disdain for certain individuals or groups, exemplified by "the Drumfs." * Anyone perceived as supporting or representing such individuals faces harsh criticism or dismissal. * The difference in conversational cultures: * You understand that your conversational style may be intimidating to those who grew up in less confrontational settings. Key Connections: * The TV store anecdote serves as a concrete example of your family's commitment to principle and refusal to forgive without genuine change. * The discussion of "snark" clarifies your conversational style and its origins, explaining why you might come across as confrontational. * The condemnation of "Drumfs" connects to the broader theme of refusing to tolerate unethical behavior, extending it to a political or social context. * The understanding that other people may not have had the same upbringing is important for communication. In essence, you're conveying: * Your unwavering commitment to ethical principles. * Your belief in holding people accountable for their actions. * Your preference for direct, challenging communication over superficial politeness. * Your understanding that not everyone will understand your communication style. Possible Interpretations: * This communication suggests a strong sense of justice and a low tolerance for hypocrisy. * It also reveals a potential for conflict with those who prioritize social harmony over principled stands. * It shows a person who is very aware of their own background, and how it effects their interactions with others. " Prompt: Is the text elitist? The text could be perceived as elitist by some, depending on their interpretation and background. Here's why: * Emphasis on "Principle" and "Disreputable Types": * The strong emphasis on adherence to strict principles and the categorization of people as "disreputable" can create a sense of moral superiority. This implies a clear division between those who uphold these principles and those who don't. * This can come across as judgmental and exclusionary. * "Testing by Fire" Conversation: * The description of dinner table conversations as a "test by fire" suggests a high level of intellectual rigor and a tolerance for confrontational discourse. This can be seen as elitist by those who are not accustomed to or comfortable with such environments. * It implies that people who are not able to handle this type of interaction are somehow less capable. * Dismissive Tone Towards Those Who Disagree: * The language used to describe those who support "scurrilous" individuals ("they just get called on this with both barrels or dismissed with scorn") conveys a sense of disdain and intolerance. This can be interpreted as elitist in its refusal to engage with or consider alternative viewpoints. * The tone of "I know how the world works, and you do not." * The explination of how other peoples upbringings may have been lacking, can be seen as elitist. However, it's also important to consider the context and intent: * The author is attempting to explain their communication style and values, which may be rooted in a specific cultural or familial background. * The author acknowledges that their style may not be universally understood or appreciated. In essence, the author is using the text to articulate their personal philosophy and to explain why they interact with the world in a particular way. Ultimately, whether the text is perceived as elitist is subjective. Some may see it as a strong expression of personal values, while others may find it off-putting and judgmental.
Just for curiosity I posted all of above from Gemini into ChatGPT and asked for its opinion on Gemini's response. "Gemini’s response is fairly analytical, but it leans toward a surface-level breakdown rather than engaging deeply with the nuances of intent versus perception. It picks up on key themes—principle, accountability, directness—but also frames them in a way that suggests potential elitism without fully considering the broader cultural and psychological factors at play. For example, the critique of the "test by fire" conversational style as potentially elitist misses an important point: intellectual rigor and directness are not inherently exclusionary but can be cultural norms that differ from more harmony-focused communication styles. It also assumes that categorizing people as "disreputable" is an act of moral superiority rather than a functional judgment of behavior. The analysis of "dismissive tone" is fair in noting that a strong stance can alienate those who prefer more conciliatory dialogue. However, it oversimplifies the matter by equating intolerance for certain behaviors with an unwillingness to engage in discourse. There’s a difference between refusing to entertain bad-faith arguments and being close-minded. Overall, Gemini's response is competent but cautious, hesitant to take a strong stance beyond "some may find this elitist, some may not." It’s a valid observation but lacks the depth to differentiate between confidence, cultural conditioning, and actual elitism. If anything, its hedging might be more frustrating than enlightening. "
I often find Colombia difficult to stomach because of its contrived politeness, a thin veneer that hides a deep-seated aversion to disagreement. Here, disagreement isn’t seen as an exchange of ideas but as a challenge to status. Even Colombians can't easily tell between honest but incompetent or just unlucky and hard boiled sociopaths taking any advantage.
Spike Trader it's a wonderful short, it's a beautiful short, but what does that have to do with either the topic or my comment?