masterwordsmith-unplugged

When one partakes in fallacious thinking and then divides the world into black and white spheres where neither shall the twain meet, it could either signify the effects of subliminal programming or could herald the dawn of a new age whereby immaturity and narrow mindedness rule the day.

I believe that when people disagree, it shows they care, albeit to different degrees about different aspects of a particular issue/problem/situation. The argumentative state could indicate attempts to unravel better solutions to the issue. If that is the case, why are there others who try to stifle any expression of opinion - supportive or contrarian?

To disagree is not equivalent to betrayal, unkindness, disloyalty or insensitivity.

There is no use in:

• sweeping issues under the carpet
• being delusional by pretending with a smile that all is well
• being blind by living in oblivion that a particular issue does not exist when many are aware of its existence
• condemning voices of dissent
• taking an angry or retaliative or childish stance

If the rough and rocky road of angry rumblings is taken, surely tension will be the name of the game and it does no good at all. In fact, it only exacerbates the situation because progress is not attained and the cold wall of denial or confrontation or inertia drains people thereby making it even more difficult to reach conciliation. Then, the longer the problem will be unresolved and the more frustrated and negative would be one's reaction or perspective to change for the better when mutual respect fizzles through the air.

To me, it is largely due to how different individuals/groups communicate their frustration or concerns and how the other party reacts - positively or negatively. That makes all the difference.

At the same time, some may choose to remain silent. If that be the case, this cold wall can be interpreted as support, tolerance and/or ambivalence to the heart of the matter. Some may say they don't have the courage to say or do anything about it and then they are written off.

The more vocal ones are more than often ready to vocalise but have inertia in really getting down to the brass tacks of serious work. It is easier to be an arm-chair critic than to be in the thick of things doing real serious work - as an employee, team member or a volunteer.

In an environment where critical thinking skills are absent, where herd mentality rules, when the pressure to conform reigns or when one is subject to propaganda, it is very easy to forget that each concerned person should review and discuss critical issues and work it out together for a favourable win-win situation.

For example, I have my concerns about the state of education here. And I do have legitimate reasons to rant because I am directly involved in education and can see and assess the downhill trend. At the same time, apart from ranting, I have also given many suggestions many times as to why the problem exists, how it can be tackled and why there seems to be no progress, only regression.

However, there are also non-teaching Malaysians who share similar views and they can listen to explanations, make rational observations and discuss honestly in an environment where positive energy can flourish. In that way, differences in opinion can be appreciated, valued and taken into consideration while viable solutions are being worked out.

To me, there is nothing wrong in looking at what's happening, listening attentively and questioning passionately because of a heart that cares.

I advocate inquiry and not the dogma of advocacy or authoritarianism where one party says 'SIT' and everyone else sits.

Honestly, I perceive this is the root of the matter in this country where differences are played up, loyalties questioned, inquiries treated with disdain and quelled and then opinion leaders proclaim only theirs is the right way with the right answer and the right solution. Everyone else is wrong so zip up. Tragically, such overtures reflect the immature and low mentality of leaders who indulge in the 'gospel' of advocacy and then avenues of dialogue are slowly sealed one by one.

Why can't we have healthy debates? Why must it be angry debates/accusations in a win-lose kind of communication model?

We have to differentiate diversity, freedom of expression and also accountability. To give a blanket judgement that one has to accept A and reject B and that is the way it goes for otherwise, you are an outcast is a move which robs us of our thinking faculties to differentiate and to assess what would be the critical problem.

And this situation begins in the classroom right from kindergarten to even university or at the work-place. For instance, I always tell my students that they are free to disagree with me in issues discussed in class. If they feel natural disasters is an act of God whereas I may feel that it is due to man's irresponsible acts, it is completely fine with me and I will still give them the marks they deserve based on the rationality and maturity of their arguments, style and flair in sewing the whole case together and other aspects of the marking scheme.

The reality is this - for at least two to three months, few dare to offer their opinions. Why? Because they were shot down by teachers or classmates or they faced negative responses such as 'This is not in the syllabus' or 'Don't try to be funny..' and other attempts to derail their journey to inquire and to learn. When they grow up, they may carry with them this baggage of nonchalant ambivalence  and kow tow to others who are perceived to be more credible and vocal and in a better position to argue to fight the case.

We see this in the political sphere. When one party says one thing, attacks ae launched, denials churned out at supersonic speed and red herrings thrown along the way for good measure.

Tragically, a few intelligent ones even spin the whole story to detour the whole focus of the discussion to a topic based on popular sentiment that is known to trigger umbrage. And then - tar da - people are led by their noses and rant and curse on that non-related issue, forgetting the main issue all the way. And they also forget to pick out nuances in the main issue because they forgot to ask, to inquire, to do research and then to collate, digest, analyze before they verbalize.

Sighs.

And that, dear reader....is the state of affairs in this country.

Where outspoken ones take the wrong track, miss the journey and face consequences.

Or how cunning ones are employed to confuse the masses.

Or non-thinking ones go with the flow.

The time has come to be rational, logical and fair in our assessment of conflict/issues/people.

Pin point the main issue and do not target the person. Forget not who is affected. The victim has the right to voice the heart of the matter. On-lookers may not have the same frame of reference. As such, they would view the problem or the road to the solution differently.

Let us focus on solutions and stay away from dramas and problems. Leave that to Hollywood, Bollywood, Hong Kong tv stations or Korean soap opera experts.

Observations should come first before opinions and we have to do our research to test the veracity of arguments/evidence.

Give others respect and listen to their arguments without any interruption or cajoling.

Question to illuminate, not to humiliate or to interrogate unless we are in a formal position that empowers us to do so,

Ask pertinent and not leading or loaded questions that could affect the response of the receiver.

Respect others always. Speak when we have the opportunity or else remain silent until the next opportune moment arises.

I always tell my students that they need to pay special attention to the tone and style of their writing and I try to practise what I teach.

Much like fashion where one adopts a particular style of dressing by choosing certain types of clothes, style in communication is our choice of words used in any form of communication.

Tone is the effect of those words.

Hence, to maintain peace, harmony and order in our society, especially during the election campaign period, let us respect and honour fellow citizens and set the right tone in our forms of communication be it at a ceramah, dinner, email, interposed or interpersonal communication and encourage a healthy discussion and debate.

Sometimes there could be no right or wrong response but it is important that we do not comment on what others say lest it triggers a row. The best bet would be to listen respectfully. I know it is very difficult, especially when one is aware of certain problems or unresolved issues and all one can see is the brick wall ahead with no road behind it.

Laughing is a good way to defuse a tensed situation, especially when we listen to witty, clever and amusing responses. Such a relaxed ambiance could encourage congeniality and a willingness to accept differing opinions till we agree to disagree.

However, logically speaking, each of us must now list out pressing issues of this country, our concerns. And to question our outgoing ADUN, candidates who are contending for those seats and to ask them to present their views and solutions.

Now I am not at all proposing conflict avoidance because the absence of a healthy debate and/or dissent and differences could be causal factors for faulty decisions!

That way, we can have a healthy and open debate to empower us to make intelligent decisions in our voting when deciding WHO IS THE ONE WORTHY OF OUR VOTE and whether or not, THEY CAN DELIVER - based on their record of service, character, manifesto etc.

As the nation moves into a major decision-making mode, may diversity be celebrated in such a way that we can attain harmony and unity, not factionalism.



Let's embrace differences without compromising ethics, values or principles. May God bless Malaysia with leaders - fine men and women of God who are intelligent, courageous, ethical, responsible and the heart to serve the people - truly, honestly and sincerely.

According to Yahoo News:

Here's a thought-provoking article on 4 Freedoms in America That Don't Exist Anymore by Paul Bucheit.

If asked why we live in a great country, an American is likely to respond: "Because we are free." Fortunately for the respondent, explanation is rarely required. Freedom is difficult to define, and today it seems to exist more in our minds than in reality.

In a 1941 Message to Congress, Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to explain what it means to be free. He outlined the "four essential human freedoms":

The first is freedom of speech and expression. 
The second is freedom of every person to worship. 
The third is freedom from want.
The fourth is freedom from fear.

The 2013 version shows how our freedoms have been diminished, or corrupted into totally different forms.

Freedom from want? Poverty keeps getting worse.

For every three people in poverty in the year  2000, there are now  four. Almost  50 million people were impoverished in 2011. Over 20 percent of our  children live in poverty, including almost half of young  black children. Among industrialized  countries only Romania has a higher child poverty rate than the United States.

It goes well beyond economics. Not long after the FDR era, in 1960, the U.S.  ranked near the top among 34 OECD countries in life expectancy and infant mortality. By 2008 we were close to the bottom. A 2007 UNICEF report ranked us last among 21 OECD nations in an assessment of child health and safety.

Freedom from want has been least attainable for people of color. For every $100 a white family has, a black family has $2. For every $100 a single white woman has, a single black or Hispanic woman has 25 cents.

Freedom from fear? The new Jim Crow.

In the decades before FDR, young black men were under constant threat of arrest for "vagrancy," and the resulting slave-like conditions of forced labor. Today vagrancy has been replaced by petty drug offenses. In The New Jim Crow, Michelle Alexander documents the explosion of the prison population for drug offenses, with blacks and Hispanics the main targets even though they use drugs at about the same, or lesser rate as white Americans. In  Colorado and Washington and New York City and Seattle the patterns are disturbingly similar: minority arrests are vastly out of proportion to their percentages of the population.

Freedom of worship? Distorted by visions of the Rapture.

In 2005  Bill Moyers wrote about the far-right evangelical beliefs that dominate much of conservative American thinking and which impact social and environmental policies. He repeats a theology professor's summary of the Rapture credo: "The world cannot be saved." Believers are not responsible for the environment, and should focus only on personal salvation. Droughts and floods, which have been occurring with greater regularity as the earth warms, are simply signs of the apocalypse as foretold in the Bible, and thus should be welcomed.

With this attitude, freedom of worship is twisted into a radical dogma that threatens the health and safety of our entire population. Senator James Inhofe (R-OK), like many on the conservative right, favors the Bible over science. "My point is," notes Inhofe with reference to a verse from Genesis, "God's still up there. The arrogance of people to think that we, human beings, would be able to change what He is doing in the climate is to me outrageous."

MORE HERE.

If there is one concept on Earth that has been the absolute bane of human existence (besides global elitism), it would have to be the concept of the “majority opinion”.

The moment men began refusing to develop their own world views without first asking “What does everyone else think?”, they set themselves up for an endless future of failures.

We are, of course, very social beings, and our natures drive us to seek those of like mind and spirit in what some might call a “tribal imperative”.

However, this imperative to organize is often manipulated by those who understand the psychological mechanisms behind it.  Oligarchs and tyrants abuse and exploit the inherent social natures of the people in order to fool them into abandoning their individuality for the sake of the group, or some abstract and dishonest ideal.

When successful, the organization of a culture becomes bitter and twisted, changing from a tribe or a community of sovereign individuals, into a nightmare collective of soulless sheep.

Human beings desperately want to belong, but, they also desperately want to understand the environment around them.  Often, the desire to belong and the desire to know the truth conflict.

In some societies, in order to be accepted, one must give up on his search for truth and avoid eliciting the anger of others.

This causes a severe mental and emotional disturbance within a population.  In order to reconcile their conflicting needs within a system that does not nurture their quest for transparency, they tend to unconsciously cling to the “majority view” as if their very existence depends on it.

The idea of the majority view or the “mainstream”, gives people the sense that they are a part of a group, and at the same time, gives them the illusion of being informed.

Their rationale is:

CLICK HERE for the rest of the post by Brandon Smith.

It is always good to consider both sides of an issue. Consider the following commentary by David Weidner on Aaron Swartz posted in Market Watch.


Swartz was a rebel with a flawed cause
Commentary: 'Aaron Swartz’s legacy doesn’t need martyrdom '



We all know that on Wall Street money is power.

In the tech world the principle is the same, but the equation is different: Knowledge is power.

And Aaron Swartz, the programmer, writer and activist who died in an apparent suicide Friday, tried to upset the balance of power — by messing with the people who control the knowledge. Read more on the death of Aaron Swartz .

We all know that on Wall Street money is power.

In the tech world the principle is the same, but the equation is different: Knowledge is power.

And Aaron Swartz, the programmer, writer and activist who died in an apparent suicide Friday, tried to upset the balance of power — by messing with the people who control the knowledge. Read more on the death of Aaron Swartz .

Good for him. But let’s be honest. As admirable as his talent and ambitions were, as persecuted as he was, there are two key things to remember:

First, Swartz sometimes went too far and encouraged taking the work of others.

Second, his persecutors are not responsible for his death.

By suggesting otherwise sullies his legacy and creates a phony martyrdom.

He doesn’t deserve that. Swartz, you may know, is credited with developing RSS, the standard Web feed for news and other updated content. RSS and Reddit, which Swartz helped create, are so pervasive most everyone on the Internet uses or benefits from them whether they know it or not. Swartz created RSS when he was 14.

Wikipedia owes much to Swartz who helped strengthen, clarify and enforce standards. See Swartz’s Wikipedia page .

He was also known for promoting free distribution and access to information on the Internet, sometimes called “free culture” — he also clashed with authorities over this. Last year, he was accused of illegally downloading 4 million academic articles.

For Swartz, this wasn’t stealing. To him knowledge truly was power. He believed access to information on the Internet was a basic right — or should be — for everyone. To him, the idea was that unfettered access to knowledge would help everyone to realize their full potential.

Put another way, Swartz advocated a redistribution of intellectual wealth.

CLICK HERE FOR MORE.

CLICK HERE for an article by Carla Mozee.