I've heard of selective listening. I've even been accused of that by my wife and others. It's not true, I hear every word but we'll just leave that right there. What I get annoyed by is selective reading. That happens a lot on social media, and by some, in my blog postings. Whereas I appreciate everyone that takes the time to read what I have written I wish they would read the entire statement. Or, if they did read the entire statement, ask questions if they didn't understand it. I'm not saying anyone has to agree with my opinion, but at least read it thoroughly. I admit it is annoying when I get accused of an opinion I didn't say. All you have to do is read it! I have taken to not even responding to those remarks. I figure if that person can't take the time to read what was written I can't take the time to explain what I said.
I've touched on this subject before, this lack of reading and understanding what was written. I would agree that there are occasions when the fault lies with me. Being the author it is my job to make my thoughts understood clearly. I do try to do that as best I know how. The same thing happens in conversation, people not being clear in their thoughts. It can lead to misunderstandings and anger can be the result. I find myself frustrated more often than angry. For many others, anger is the first response. I'll say it again, emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. For that reason, I do attempt to take a more pragmatic approach in my writings. Strangely it is that approach that seems to anger a few people. I can only assume the truth is somehow bothersome to these individuals. They often attempt to dispute facts with emotion. Righteous indignation is the usual term applied to that action. Something will happen alright, but it usually isn't a positive result.
It is certainly your prerogative to reject any text you should read. It is also your prerogative to just skim over the text. It is true that not everything written is of great importance. I enjoy lighthearted humorous things as much as anyone else. Not every subject need be discussed in depth. I do feel that if you choose to comment you should do so only after having read the entire text. If you disagree with the content respond to that content, not to the character of the author. Respond with opinion or fact to the premise the author presented. I think that is one of the big issues we are facing today. How can we have a logical discourse on anything if all we do is attack the character of the other person? That's what is happening with President Trump. Those on the left so busy attacking his character that they fail to see any positive results at all. I'm not hearing any responses from that left other than, Trump is this or that. Often times Generals are tolerated during a time of war but vilified after the battle is won. Patton is an excellent example. Brash, crude and bold he got results. After the war, he wasn't regarded quite as highly. There is a theory he was eliminated because he posed a threat to peacetime politics. His usefulness had been expended.
Now I fully expect someone to leave a comment or remark about my support of Trump. Truth is I offered no such support but mentioned his name in an analogy. I was comparing his actions with those of Patton, similar styles of leadership. I was showing the comparison and how both had their characters attacked relentlessly. Yes, the news at the time didn't always report General Patton in a favorable light. Take the infamous " slapping " incident. Regardless of all the success Patton had, it was an emotional response by the press and the public in general. Was it justified? The emotional response is always, yes! Emphatically yes! A pragmatist such as myself may say it was a necessary action on the Generals part. It was for the greater good. And now I can receive comments about that.
Well, whatever the case may prove to be, either positive or negative the important part is the interaction. It is how issues get resolved. If we continue on this course of just attacking characters we will never solve the root issue. What is that root issue? The issue as I see it is a simple choice. Either we, as a nation, choose to take care of our own first and foremost or we choose to be the stewards of the world. Should we choose the later the United States of America as we know it will be gone, replaced by what? Socialism? A system of government that we know from history just doesn't work. That was explained simply by Margaret Thatcher. She said, " the socialists always run out of other peoples money. " A simple statement of fact unencumbered by emotion. Remember " We the People " is a plurality, not a singularity. What is for the common good?
I apologize for this perhaps incoherent rambling. Try as I might I can't seem to pull it all together. I hope you find something in there to think about for today. I write these thoughts in the mornings and only spend so much time in their composition. This is a subject that may require a great deal more time and effort to fully compose. There are times when I question their worth? Well, it is an amusement only and I need to remind myself of that on occasion. I feel better having written it so there's that.
I've touched on this subject before, this lack of reading and understanding what was written. I would agree that there are occasions when the fault lies with me. Being the author it is my job to make my thoughts understood clearly. I do try to do that as best I know how. The same thing happens in conversation, people not being clear in their thoughts. It can lead to misunderstandings and anger can be the result. I find myself frustrated more often than angry. For many others, anger is the first response. I'll say it again, emotions are great motivators but seldom good guides. For that reason, I do attempt to take a more pragmatic approach in my writings. Strangely it is that approach that seems to anger a few people. I can only assume the truth is somehow bothersome to these individuals. They often attempt to dispute facts with emotion. Righteous indignation is the usual term applied to that action. Something will happen alright, but it usually isn't a positive result.
It is certainly your prerogative to reject any text you should read. It is also your prerogative to just skim over the text. It is true that not everything written is of great importance. I enjoy lighthearted humorous things as much as anyone else. Not every subject need be discussed in depth. I do feel that if you choose to comment you should do so only after having read the entire text. If you disagree with the content respond to that content, not to the character of the author. Respond with opinion or fact to the premise the author presented. I think that is one of the big issues we are facing today. How can we have a logical discourse on anything if all we do is attack the character of the other person? That's what is happening with President Trump. Those on the left so busy attacking his character that they fail to see any positive results at all. I'm not hearing any responses from that left other than, Trump is this or that. Often times Generals are tolerated during a time of war but vilified after the battle is won. Patton is an excellent example. Brash, crude and bold he got results. After the war, he wasn't regarded quite as highly. There is a theory he was eliminated because he posed a threat to peacetime politics. His usefulness had been expended.
Now I fully expect someone to leave a comment or remark about my support of Trump. Truth is I offered no such support but mentioned his name in an analogy. I was comparing his actions with those of Patton, similar styles of leadership. I was showing the comparison and how both had their characters attacked relentlessly. Yes, the news at the time didn't always report General Patton in a favorable light. Take the infamous " slapping " incident. Regardless of all the success Patton had, it was an emotional response by the press and the public in general. Was it justified? The emotional response is always, yes! Emphatically yes! A pragmatist such as myself may say it was a necessary action on the Generals part. It was for the greater good. And now I can receive comments about that.
Well, whatever the case may prove to be, either positive or negative the important part is the interaction. It is how issues get resolved. If we continue on this course of just attacking characters we will never solve the root issue. What is that root issue? The issue as I see it is a simple choice. Either we, as a nation, choose to take care of our own first and foremost or we choose to be the stewards of the world. Should we choose the later the United States of America as we know it will be gone, replaced by what? Socialism? A system of government that we know from history just doesn't work. That was explained simply by Margaret Thatcher. She said, " the socialists always run out of other peoples money. " A simple statement of fact unencumbered by emotion. Remember " We the People " is a plurality, not a singularity. What is for the common good?
I apologize for this perhaps incoherent rambling. Try as I might I can't seem to pull it all together. I hope you find something in there to think about for today. I write these thoughts in the mornings and only spend so much time in their composition. This is a subject that may require a great deal more time and effort to fully compose. There are times when I question their worth? Well, it is an amusement only and I need to remind myself of that on occasion. I feel better having written it so there's that.
No comments:
Post a Comment