About
Friends
-
Loading...updates 1 day ago -
Loading...erstgeborener about 24 hours ago -
Loading...tlg847 about 5 hours ago -
Loading...robi42 2 days ago -
Loading...hungryforlife 17 days ago -
Loading...c3o about 5 hours ago -
Loading...LaneVids about 4 hours ago -
Loading...CLaueR 5 days ago -
Loading...Erikmitk about 8 hours ago
Click here to check if anything new just came in.
March 07 2010
“— A Simple Model of Increasing AccessThe sort of thing boosterism doesn't account for; increased Balkanization of individuals:
increasing access now has the sole effect of giving agents more potential partners to select from. Since agents prefer similar partners, increasing access allows them to find more and more partners of the same type to form connections to. Thus, the number of affiliations per agent will decrease and Balkanization increases. For our particular society, with universal access, all agents connect only to those of the same type, so the Index of Balkanized Affiliation reaches a maximum of one."
”
“— Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues" By Alasdair MacIntyre at Google Books"[T]o flourish, humans need to develop virtues of independent thought and acknowledged social dependence"
In "Dependent Rational Animals: Why Human Beings Need the Virtues" under "the conditions for human flourishing", Alasdair MacIntyre notes that, "The virtues of rational agency need for their adequate exercise to be accompanied by what I shall call thethe virtues of acknowledged dependency" including, as Carol Taylor points out in her "Health and Human Flourishing", includes "the attentive and affectionate regard for others".
”
"Discourse variance" ... two faced in daily life
The first thing to note is that there's nothing "flaming" about the prejudiced statemets. The material is substantially racist, but it is stated as though reasonable and balanced ... nothing obviously inflammatory in the style.
And with the "sympathetic" statements we find something similar; these are almost as under-stated as they are vague.
And now we get to the crux of the matter: the attributions in the "racist" heap actually cross over into the "sympathetic" heap. If there's "variance" in the attitude, I read a consistent set of foundations. What qualifies the reference group for "sympathy" is the same set of attributes used in the racist heap to qualify them for scorn. The difference in attitude is an attitude towards an invariant set of characteristics, characteristics which (need it be said?) are actually not supported by sociological data. (That a large proportion of a visible minority are living in poverty is not evidence that this group is characteristically lazy or pre-disposed to criminality!)
One aspect in particular here attracted and held my attention, given my project's brief and mandate. (I.e.: how do we generate, support, and nurture wholesome community? Design and deploy a community decision making system that serves this end.)
Setting aside motive (I think in both cases the woman aimed at image maintenance; she wanted to be seen / known as thoughtful and considerate.) I imagined how she, as presented, could be subjected to manipulation, with her two heaps of variant discourse utterances serving as hooks.
And what came to mind was this: the "sympathetic" heap seemed to me the stuff of "Damned with faint praise"; though the material was cast as benevolent it was actually presented as a basis for paternalism. (I can practically hear her, voice shrill, lamenting how "Those people are never grateful for what we're trying to do for them" or some such.) The Aboriginals were presented as being "other" by their nature, and requiring integration for the reason of their being distinct. The "sympathy" was actually patronizing and superior. So these utterances set the stage for the imposition of authoritarian activity ... in the name of "doing good for others". There was something like pity in her words, but nothing like a call for justice.
The "prejudiced" set of statements were, essentially, defeatist. The attributions were so substantial and so fixed that ... except for wanting to seem caring ... the situation was to be accepted as hopeless.
In neither of the heaps was there any jingoistic call for some sort of "crack-down". And yet both heaps (or either, played individually) could serve the support the most draconian policy decisions e.g. eugenics.
My contention is that "debate" of the facts absent appreciation for subjective narrative will only lead to polarization. The participant in this experiment exhibited a consistent world-view, regardless of variation in her discourse. Any policy position that challanged that world-view would, necessarily, threaten her attempts at image maintenance and would, probably, give rise to energetic reaction.
"I can see how you'd form that view; it does look that way from here" is very different from, "You're closed minded on this, but actually the facts aren't at all in support of your position".
I can't care about those people (from an authentic sense of solidarity) and not care about this one (because she makes my skin creep).
March 06 2010
Happening now: OpenCity Workshop
* search Twitter for #OpenYEG hashtag
----
back to UserProfile: BenTremblay --19:26, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
March 05 2010
"Fake" participation
- from IAP Journal Symposium on Obama Administration and Public Participation
- "Deterring Fake Public Participation"; Snider, J. H. (2010)
- "Practicing a Participatory Presidency?: An Analysis of the Obama Administration’s Open Government Dialogue"; Konieczka, S. P. (2010)
slightly related:
March 04 2010
“ Disputatio: (Scholastic) Out of the quaestiones disputatae developed gradually a rigid form of scholastic disputation. The defensor theseos proposed his thesis and explained or proved it in syllogistic form. The opponentes argued against the thesis and its demonstration by repeating first the proposition and the syllogism proving it, then either by denying the validity of one or the other premises (nego maiorem, minorem) or by making distinctions restricting the proposition (distinguo maiorem, minorem). In the disputations of students under the direction of a magister the latter used to summarize the disputation and to "determine the question". --Rudolf Allers ”— Dictionary of Philosophy
“ 7:37AM 1MAR2010 @timoreilly tweeted: "Apps for the Army is live! http://bit.ly/cOjSkn Many thanks to @ArmyCIOG6 and @corbett3000 for carrying this idea forward #gov20 #apps4army" ”— Twitter / Tim O'Reilly: Apps for the Army is live! ...
“— Archon Fung - Creating Deliberative Publics: Governance After Devolution and Democratic Centralism - The Good Society 11:1Archon Fung begins his "Creating Deliberative Publics: Governance After Devolution and Democratic Centralism" with the following: "In the Public and Its Problems, John Dewey lamented the stagnancy of democratic political forms in the face of a rapidly changing economy and society."
I can depict my long-historied pre-occupation with a variation of that: in the face of a rapidly changing society and economy I lament the ineffectiveness of democratic political forums!
”
March 03 2010
“ What's the right approach to new products? Pick three key attributes or features, get those things very, very right, and then forget about everything else. ”— Paul Buchheit: If your product is Great, it doesn't need to be Good.
“ It's not that I'm so smart, it's just that I stay with problems longer. ”— Albert Einstein
Re: Facebook integration
I really look forward to implementing this; thanks kindly.
p.s. sort of odd to have what are comments to this blog showing up in my Soup ... I didn't want that. Shows how targetting / streaming / directing this sort of material gets complicated.
p.s.2 Got it working. Very nice. Know what would be sweet? (RFE!!) To be able to edit the material on the FB side. Publishing in a different context calls for slightly different text; FB is a /very/ different context.
I came here expecting "Click this then click that and login here and then go there" sort of instructions. But you've held back the details.
Is there some other page with an explanation? or have I overlooked something here?
“ Deliberative democratic theory continues to “come of age.” In this contribution to its development, we assume that deliberation should clarify conflict as well as help participants to discover and forge common interests.— "Jane Mansbridge et.al. on Deliberative Democracy" from the "Political Theory - Habermas and Rawls" blog
Although we want to stress the importance of seeking a genuinely common good, we argue that deliberation can and should in certain conditions include both self-interest and the negotiation of conflicting interests. Convergence, incompletely theorized agreements, integrative negotiation, and fully cooperative negotiations are compatible with deliberative ideals. They are forms of deliberative negotiation.
Voting and the negotiation of cooperative antagonists are not themselves deliberative acts but, when they are justified through deliberative procedures and preceded in practice by such procedures, can be accepted by deliberative theorists as legitimate components of democracy complementary to and in some cases integrated with deliberation. ”
“ Cohen's first line in this book:— Ted Cohen's "Jokes: Philosophical Thoughts on Joking Matters" at Google Books
"A lucky man lives in many communities."
What came to my mind when I read this was, "Who knows only his side of an argument knows little of that" ... Hume?
But what does this mean these days? We are, typically, historically, closed-minded and biased, at least partial if not prejudiced. How to communicate notions of eclecticism and pluralism to people who are increasingly scattered and superficial? ”
March 02 2010
“ Our mission is to provide non-partisan information for voters in the Presidential election, so that votes can be based on issues rather than on personalities and popularity. We get our information daily from newspapers, speeches, press releases, and the Internet ”— OnTheIssues.org - Candidates on the Issues
And the beat goes on
But re-visiting this brought me again to http://MindMeister.com ... their collection of public maps is very attractive; Best Online Collaboration Tools (Robin Good; 2009) recommends itself.
On a different tack, SpinScape. This YouTube video manifests ... what? Gilding a lily? Not quite ... though that's nice and gentle. What I'm thinking of is more in line with "beating a dead horse". I mean exhausting a limited concept ... bringing a tragically constrained conceptualization to it's logical conclusion.
"Oooh, look mommy! They let us color different items different colors!" *sigh*
And why does it matter? "Civil society" seems so abstract. How about "Participatory Budgeting"? No, don't tell me, let me guess; too boring ... was I close?
*sigh*
March 01 2010
“ Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy states that in any bureaucratic organization there will be two kinds of people: those who work to further the actual goals of the organization, and those who work for the organization itself. Examples in education would be teachers who work and sacrifice to teach children, vs. union representative who work to protect any teacher including the most incompetent. The Iron Law states that in all cases, the second type of person will always gain control of the organization, and will always write the rules under which the organization functions. ”— Chaos Manor
Maybe Soup is currently being updated? I'll try again automatically in a few seconds...


