lol Pinga, you just found this out now?  Many groups are like that!

Well, I've definitely unimpressed people due to my lack of support for this Ontaio teacher's actions  for multiple reasons, and my questioning of the ETFO's messages/ actions...  Gosh, how can I be someone who voted NDP and not support the ETFO - how darest I.

Some people are just all or nothing!  Maybe we need to write a different 50 shades of grey book.

lol, that could be true.

The other place that I have seen the same phenomena is when asking questions regarding specifics in the Idle No More initiative, or before that the Occupy movement....or way way back, in the women's movement.

Hi Pinga,

No, you do not have to support anything 100%.

Those who have a problem with folk not being 100% for or against are the ones with the problem.  Balance would be a 50/50 scenario.  100% to the left or the right is way off balance.

Still, people who presumed that they could count on you for support will likely be distraught to find that they do not have your support.  How they handle that disappointment is a matter of their maturity.

Grace and peace to you.

John

Ha. I have been experiencing something similar! Some say it's because after a certain point in your life, self-examination & honesty are inescapable. What to do?
Bite your tongue & stick to what you can agree with? That's my default strategy since I can continue to contribute. I keep my less-popular views to myself. Awful idea.

I'm a coward. I've seen the behaviour of the mob attacking like pirrana fish if you question the status quo. We've lost valuable posters that way. I feel genuinely awful for the way differences get attacked.
Maybe it's a way to avoid cognitive dissonance or build safe "us" vs "you guys" community.
At least it's not as bad as Rabble.ca. One slight whiff of questioning the actions of a union, you are soooo dead!
Pings, don't know what to say.
Hang in there.
Ps - I'm with you about the Ontario teachers

I too am rather familiar with the tar and feather boa as a fashion accessory.

Wear it with pride

Hugs

Rita

Thanks Rita.

It is the nature of a group or organization, that disparate people come together for a cause, and then, once the initial high is done, the subsections can start to show their differences.

The successful ones get to learn to listen to their disparate areas and figure out their limits within the whole, when it is important to show a common front, and when it is ok to say "we agree to disagree on this point"

No one has to be 100% in support of anything. It's one reason that I generally refuse to refer to myself (politically or theologically) as either "liberal" or "conservative" because to do so leads to expectations that I'll take a certain line on things. On some issues I'm rather "liberal." On other issues I'm rather "conservative." Sometimes those who insist on trying to pigeon hole me as either one or the other (politically or theologically) will seize on something I've said and use it in a way which I didn't mean it in order to further their own agenda, which generally has nothing to do with my opinions.

That's what's happened with Idle No More, Occupy, the teachers dispute - just to agree on what you've named. Most people have forgotten the issues because various groups (some powerful) want to manipulate the movement to make it look either good or bad. My publicly expressed opinions, questions, etc. can be used to do that. So can yours. That's just reality. We express opinions or ask questions. The spin doctors (of whatever perspective - by whom we can mean anyone who does have a 100% definite and unchallengeable - in their mind - opinion on any issue) will take the publicly expressed questions, opinions, etc. and use them to "spin" issues to their advantage. That's what they do. We shouldn't be surprised by that.

I also don't call myself either a supporter or opponent of any of those groups. I think there are vital issues being raised by all involved in them. I will come to my own opinions on them based on what I conclude from what I see, hear, read and experience. Some opinions I will keep to myself for various reasons; others I will express publicly. The opinions I come to and express publicly will be agreed with by some, disagreed with by others and twisted by some of those involved or interested to further their own agendas. That's the way it is.

First off, read Steven's whole post. I pretty much agree with everything he says.

My wife and son continue to pigeon-hole me as a left-winger even though I abandoned many traditional left-wing causes a long time ago. I self-describe as centrist these days, which really means I lean different directions on different issues. On some I even tilt up or down rather than left or right . Of course, by their standards, I could be seen as left-ish because they are rather right-ish (up to a point). To many leftists, though, I would likely be seen as being rather conservative, at least on some fronts.

In the end, my politics tends to follow my general philosophy of finding balance in life. We need to balance social responsibility with fiscal responsibility with environmental responsibility. We need to stop treating the "other" as a problem and work with that "other". I don't vilify Harper or Mulcair or whoever is leading the Liberals today, but I don't always support or agree with all or any of them, either. Makes it hard to vote sometimes because I can find elements in just about everyone's platform that I agree with.

Mendalla

Also, I find that while I can often get behind an ideal for it's redeeming justice (in a perfect world....), the pragmatist balks. Doesn't mean it's opposition.
Like Steve, I don't accept wholesale the monolithic stand of a particular political party either. Depends on the issue.

We are so much more than our opinions.

 Pinga,

This feels more like a wondermail. However, as others have read butting of heads here and ss someone you may feel has butted heads with you recently, I put this here and hope this helps.

There are often times when people do not agree with each other and it is not personal. They simply do not agree. It is not about happiness or unhappiness with a person.

I think when we are discussing an issue we sometimes have a difficult time removing our person from it. We are human and we like approval and dislike disapproval.

If people demand you feel A or think B, that is their problem.

Speaking personally, I do not believe I have ever 100% supported anything. I tend to support what I support. What I support I try to make clear and what I do not support make equally clear. There are aspects of things I vehemently oppose that I actually support. There are aspects of things I vehemently support that I actually oppose.

The world is too big and there is too much history for us all to live down. Example: The Catholic Church is wonderful. Pedophile priests, not so much.  The UCC wonderfu. Its history of Residential Schools, not so much. I am always aware of fringe elements or whackjobs in the midst. It comes perhaps from not supporting all gay groups because of knowing about NABLA's (The North American Man/Boy Love Association) existence.

It is the same when I speak about abortion. I am pro-choice. That does not mean I support abortion as birth control or for gender selection, etc.

It is the same whan I speak of euthanasia or the environment. I mean I do not support using shotguns or carrying out eco-terrorism.

When disagreeing on issues, and disagreeing in general, it is often not what is said, but how it is said. It happens in my kitchen with my wife and I and it happens online in forums...

When you said,

If, though, I dare to say, that piece of the program -- I'm not so sure about -- I can support xy& z, but w....i'm not confident on

How is that heard versus

If I say, that piece of the program - I'm not so sure about- I can support x,y, &z, but w... I'm not confident on

How does the exclusion of "if I dare to say" change the hearing?

How does "If I dare" sound?

What of how this is worded?

Heh, when you said xyz, you were incorrect and that decreases your overall reputation

I am betting the bank that if I told my wife she was incorrect on the balance of the checkbook and that decreases her overall reputation, she would take a strip out of me. I know that if she told me that my measurement and cut of the wood being incorrect decreased my overall reputation to complete the job, I would be in a mood.

I would ask why you believe that someone saying something incorrect, or being incorrect, decreases their overall reputation? What fo our own reputation, have we ever been incorrect? Are we concerned with reputation? Everyones? Our own? Are we heading in with a bias or a feeling? Is there something you or they are trying to overcome? Is being able to mark right and wrong, so important? Is it so clearly defined?

 IMO people are human and we are all incorrect from time to time. IMO Reputation is more about how one respeonds when told they are incorrect more than the error itself.

How does the "I feel you are out of step at the end of this ... and all the  "buts" change what you are saying? IMO"but"  can be heard to negate the prior. It can make someone feel, not find, but feel that the speaker is being critical of them versus the issue. That they cannot separate a stance from a person.

You know, normally I support you, but on this action.....I cannot .  I feel you are out of step

If someone believes that not being on the same page makes you a distraction, turncoat or on the opposition, that again is their probem.

IMO people are going to disagree. People should be able to agree to disagree. It is not as some others might say, "a copout." It is life.

In my past, I worked in domestic violence. I worked for a shelter for battered women and I was a domestic violence and sexual assault counsellor. It did me no good to look at root causes of why some abuse, that was not my job. It did not matter whether the abused was silent or loud, or who had the worst wounds....
Both parties were not mine to deal with, one was. There was no solving it for someone, there was enpowerment. Trying to solve it, fix it,  was the first thing we untrained folks from. The second was from being critical of the abuser. It was never seen with your own eyes. You see, it undermined what the hope was, clarity in their own vision. It caused someone to defend....

In one of my current workplaces, I start with facts. Feelings, my own position, other stuff... there is no place for it. Facts, meaning what can be proven, verified... not probability, no likely... but facts. Anything else is personal perspective, reading into things, hearsay, gossip, bias... it makes you no good at your job if people know where you fall on A, B or C you fail. If you wander from facts, you fail. It also leaves your ass hanging and makes you liable. Not being able to see a side you oppose or support as unbias as humanly possible means you cannot do said job.

So, I can tend to ask someone for facts versus feelings. I try to do so without discounting their feelings. I will admit it comes across better in person than online. I may even agree with someone on an issue and ask them to defend __ with facts, unmitigated facts. I may disagree and give them a talking point....

In my other workplace,  I am called to walk beside the hero and the heathen, the child victimized and the victimizer, the partner on the receiving end of a beating and the partner who dished it out...

It means I compartmentalize fairly well. I do not mean in the negative, but the positive. It means I separate person from action, person from belief, person from political view.... (It is also something one learns to do when those you care for can be homophobic)

It means I can sit across from a stranger imrpisoned for being a child molestor and find things I agree with them on. It also means I can sit across from my best friend or wife and not agree with them. My hope is that they all know I agree or disagree and it does not change things, how I value them as a person or where they are in respect to me.

I am proud to say I am able to have close friendships where we are vehemently opposed on issues and can still share a meal and have a drink together.

Again, 100% support of anything is IMO naive.

People can and should agree to disagree sometimes.

I hope you know where I am coming from.

When I read through the comments here I'm struck by how everyone justifies themselves and their own point of view.......

...of course PP

Regards

Rita

Justify is a word with various meanings. One can be trying to show they are right and/or just. One can be trying to defend and/or uphold themselves or their actions as warranted and/or well grounded. One can be trying to declare themselves innocent and/or guiltless.

Or, or,  they just seriously trying to get at conflict resolution, win-win with communication and explaining of self and reasons without it being about rightness or wrongness.

Conflict resolution is not about winning and another losing. It is about a win-win. Both air. Both are heard. Both are understood if not agreed with. It is about reaching compromises both accept and maybe it is just saying "we agree to disagree". Or, "I see where you are coming from,  I ain't there"....

Pinga and I have long discussed words and their power and baggage and how they are heard versus their intent.

I see PInga as using her life's work to explain herself and her perspective.

I do not see Pinga as saying "I am right here and anyone else is wrong".

One can hope Pinga sees the same from me.

If others do or do not... well, we all see what we see... sometimes we only see what we want to see....

i'm trying to picture a politician.  Let's say he was raised a Progressive Conservative.  He generally agrees with them - he studied economics in university and over the years he has studied their budgets and fiscal policies.  He thinks they are by far the best party to manage this country's finances.  (Remember, this is a fictional character in a fictional situation).  So when the Harper Conservatives court him to run in his home riding he agrees and is elected. 

Now imagine.  Everything goes well for the first few months.  He agrees with and is happy to vote for the party line.  But then something comes up that he questions in his own mind.  And he discovers many people in his home riding are quite concerned about it. 

Back in parliament he lets his views be known.  He cannot support the party line in this matter.  He will be voting against it. 

What happens now? 

...its simple seeler .... he will be kicked out of caucus and punished.....

There is a price to pay for going against the party line....

Regards

Rita

I think it will depend on many variables.

Have they been always in one party or wandered? How high are they or how entrenched are they? How much of an identity is there? How well is he/she representing the riding? How well can she/he articulate that to the caucus? How well can he/she articulate the caucus results back to the riding?

If we go to the 38th Parliament and the issue of same sex marriage, we will see this.

No Liberal cabinet members voted against same-sex marriage (to be expected per cabinet solidarity). 32 backbenchers voted against. 3

Can saying you will vote with the Conservative budget as a Liberal get you tossed from the caucus? Joe Comuzzi will say yes.

Joe Cullen would say you can vote against same-sex marriage, break with the Liberal caucus and vote to extend the mission in Kandahar and not get kicked.

You can be Rodney Cuzner and send out a survey and show you are voting per your riding and against same-sex marriage and stay in the Liberal caucus.

So, for me, seeler, the answer is "that depends"

I didn't put quotes in...if I had it would have been,if i dare to say " that piece of the program -- I'm not so sure about -- I can support xy& z, but w....i'm not confident".   I can't imagine saying the "dare to say",  mentally I am aware that I am treading on ground that the other person may not agree with, however, true dialogue involves risk.

There are times when the person is incorrect and naming it is good.  It happens.  There are times when it is iffy, ie they may have jumped to a conclusion.  There are times, though, when someone is flat our wrong.

Regarding the being incorrect impacting reputation,...absolutely.

*** my reputation in my field is based on solid analysis, repsonse and action.  I am known as someone who has information of value and coming up with solid solutions.  Do I make mistakes-- absolutely.  Do I do my best to ensure that my word and answers are accurate -- beyond the shadow ofthe doubt.  Being correct and being known for being clear about when I know something versus suspect something is what gets doors open, people and $$$ assigned and actions done.  Reputation based on being correct has been the basis of that, along with other items.

** when I look to a source of information, in the news, in books, I also dothat based on the reputation of the author and source.  I have resources that I use for news...and I trust them more than other

** with friends, same thing...there is an element of that via social media and resources.  I don't share news unless I have ensured it isn't a hoax.  I share back with folks if they are sharing a hoax.  Reputation is important

yuppers, it is quite a prevalent reaction, i find :3

no one is immune :3

i'll be dealing with this tangentially in an upcoming thread of mine, a book study of one of two possible Robert Anton Wilson books, Quantum Psychology or Prometheus Rising...

Pinga there are times when we should question if it's just our opinion that someone "is flat out wrong".

Truth can be an elusive concept...........

Just as we're apt to see beauty in the eye of the beholder, so too truth.

Because I value this principle - I'm loathe to spend much time "naming it". 

Being concerned about my own behaviour is more than enough to contend with.

I agree with Pinga, especially when it comes to a group rather than an individual.  Putting out incorrect information leads to a loss of credibility, which is a part of one's reputation.

I don't think any of us expect people to be perfect.  If someone is wrong quite a bit of the time on a particular topic I will stop trusting them when it comes to that.  If I am unsure what they know about another topic, I may not trust them, even if they seem confident in their answer.

When it's an organization that does so, they lose credibility in my opinion even quicker, as I would expect someone within the group to pick up on it.

Whether or not Pinga was having the same line of thinking here, I'm not sure, but that's my take on the reputation comment.

Thanks Chemgal, that is exactly what I am thinking of.

Pilgrim, it is absolutely essential to correct false information especially when problem solving.  There are also areas which are grey or unknown which also need to be named, such as , are we sure that is a fact?  What evidence do we have of that.

There are truths.  There are facts.    There are 60minutes in an hour.  There are 24hrs in a day.  We can do the math to calculate how many minutes there are in a day, that is af act.  How many of them are usable is a different topic, or how valuable some hours are will depend on your shift, life, health, etc, but...the question of how many minutes there are in a day is a fact.

editted to add:

There are also incorrect statements.  If someone says, all gallons have x ounces, and they are working in a global application, then it is important to clarify:  US gal (fluid or dry) or British gallon

Another incorrect statement is "ALL issues are resolved, or ALL people do it this way", especially if you are aware of serious differences within the dataset, ie not just an outlier, but a serious difference

Obviously, the style of saying that information is inaccurate, or leading them to understand it is inaccurate themselves depends on circumstances and criticality.  

If' I'm dying, and someone reads my bp incorrectly, I sure hope someone corrects them...pretty quickly and directly

Must agree with you Pinga about the importance of trying to get accurate information but it never felt like a priority in the days when I was a regular visitor. Instead, I got responses like this,
.
http://www.wondercafe.ca/discussion/politics/sources-and-big-picture
.
I've given up, just drop by now and again to see how folks are doing.

Pinga,

I agree with the examples given.......

What I'm trying to express here is that  there are areas of life where we treat our opinions as having the same validity as scientific fact.

I see this happening in the field of journalism more and more. Social media sites are growing in number and so much of what are claimed to be facts are opinions. It concerns me that in time we'll lose the capacity to differentiate fact from opinion........

I would agree there are facts.

There are also hard facts and soft facts.
Hard facts are income, assets, liabilities.
Soft facts are "what drives the customer?" How  much cash does a customer hold at any given time? What are their most important goals? How much money can they lose before they sell?

Soft facts can drive hard facts.

There are falsehoods that are accepted as facts.
We can look at history and prejudices and stereotypes that were accepted as fact.
We can look at times when the best knowledge was simply wrong. The fact was Lance Armstrong did not fail drug tests.

There are times facts change.
Tomatoes were once considered poisonous.

There are also good hypothesis and bad ones.

There are subjectives.

How much we connect an individual to a group is up to us.  Is Livestrong a bad organization or one with a bad reputation, solely because of Lance Armstong?

Our answers there will vary.

What are the facts related to Livestrong and Lance? We will find that the hard facts are few. They do not allow us to say it is fact that he doped after a date he says he quit. That has not stopped the levelling of that as fact.

All the vast other stuff and it could be volumes and we are entitled to it....may not be fact but feel like it.  It is personal. It is morals and ethics, not facts. It is media driven. It is a feeling. It is an ick factor. It is fear. It is measured by the past and present and worries of future.

A reputation can be built or ruined on all that.

so, back to the concept of questioning the party line...

sure, the way you question is dependent on the situation and the criticality.  just like you use a different voice and language for teaching a child versus when they are running out in front of a car.....

but...what happens within an organization when people quit questioning?

is there a critical time when questioning is not valid, or when questioning should only be done within the inner circle

do people who are the underdogs get a buy on being questioned?

Hi Pinga,

How one asks a question is a most half of the problem.

How another answers either takes things back to zero (problem wise) or bumps it to 100% problem.

A quick spin through WonderCafe.ca gives us several examples of how this works.

There was a time when we trusted the leadership of organizations and then there is now.  There was a time when the leadership of organizations thought it necessary to earn trust and then there is now.

In modernity there was a time when we realized loyalty to the cause was a value.  In post-modernity it is pretty much everyone for themselves so all authority is questioned pretty much all the time and there is very little corporate loyalty simply because every day we get new evidence of how those we trusted have actively worked to take advantage of us.

They shouldn't.  1 John 4:  1 encourages Christians to test every spirit.  Only in that way can we determine if the spirit is of God or not.  So, we should be testing everything and part of the testing will be questions.

Moving to more secular endeavours asking questions is how we keep a project on track or decide that something is wonky with expenditures.

Grace and peace to you.

John