Weazl's Revenge: Open Thread

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Open Thread

Hey folks, it would be nice to hear your voices. Weazl doesn't want dialogue to be one way. More people than ever are stopping by, but less than ever are posting. Let's try to change that. Otherwise it won't be so fun.

And for your enjoyment, here's a great song for the day.

And if you want to find out where people are visiting this site from, go to the bottom of this page and click "IP2Man of Visitors."

Have a great day.

29 comments:

Anonymous said...: Maybe you should start to think about WHY people stopped posting their comments.; 1:13 PM
Da Weaz said...: Then it would obviously be more helpful to explain.

weazl has many talents, but mindreader is not one of them.; 4:44 PM
Anonymous said...: Nice and wise music you link to. This version is really beautiful with the cellos (?, notice how much I know about music ;D )while the Armageddon version I found from Net is really powerful with raplyrics and Michael Franti's rough voice.

Can you recommend any other music of this kind? Just curious.

-P-; 10:28 PM
Anonymous said...: In the end, you prefer dialogue to be one way....an educated hunch. You have compelling topics to share, that's for sure. And your insight and intelligence on the subjects mentioned is more than appreciated. But how much you are open to others --really open, I am not convinced.

I'm curious how much time you spend with people who are greatly different from yourself, your beliefs, your passions etc. and how much you embrace them even though they are different?
This question is also directed to the others who have shared on the blog.

This question also actually feeds quite well into the political discussions you most often share. In my opinion, political decisions and decision makers, are/is greatly affected by how much a 'different' culture or person is considered. I don't think we have to find a permanent place in our friendship sphere or change our beliefs for those who greatly oppose or disagree with what we believe. But learning compassion despite, and consideration because, is the greatest and hardest lesson for mankind. And the one lesson with the least amount of attention spent. Why? It's the most difficult. Hmm.. who do we admire, those who go head on into the fire, or circumvent it to avoid being scathed?
This world is lacking love in a big way. We can dialogue till the cows come home but how much has anyone learned to care about the person sitting next to them?
Big changes start small. I DO think we need to be educated on the political nightmare that faces our world, and America, at this time. But don't be so crazy to look past the place where you have the most influence...where sometimes is the ONLY place you have influence: right where you stand, with those right in front of your face.

You and those who take part in the blog, spend a lot of time arguing back and forth. I take what I can from the information provided, but tire of the venom that tosses back and forth. What does it accomplish, save a place for you to vent; a much needed opportunity for all of us, as I am even doing it right now.
Yet, you will have more dialogue as well as influence on the world or community as you yourselves personally continue to grow....and beyond your comfort zones, to a place of more understanding. It seems all I see and hear is everyone being mad at each other right now... is anyone different, or better in the end? Is anyone making a profound difference? I am waiting...

Your headed the right direction. But then again, so were many who began their political pursuits but lost it along the way...

Stil, I will continue to read and learn, and I thank you for your time and attention given to the subjects that face us all at this time.; 10:31 PM
Anonymous said...: Also, the point here is that fighting for beautiful ideas such as human rights, democracy and justice is an admirable thing but to make this world a better place, a man should start from the bottom level – from the individuals, people he encounters, people he talks to, people he loves. This goes for everything – whether you talk about politics or not.

How can we make this world a better place when there is so much hatred between us? We should first improve the relations with our closest ones...

We (and especially Weazl) should try to see the world not only through our own eyes... You do not need to be any mind reader for that! Maybe then you will stop asking for a further explanation.

Think big, start small!!

J.; 11:37 PM
Anonymous said...: You're quite right about this that the change starts from little things. I agree also on that that what we need is compassion.

But in one thing I don't agree. I think that Weazl isn't hating those who think differently than himself. He hates the things those people do to other people and he hates the over patriotic and warmongering thoughts those people are spreading. My opinion is that there is an obvious difference in these two.

In my social work studies the teachers are always pointing out that approving and accepting a person is different thing than approving and accepting the person's acts and manners. Accepting a person is giving human rights and value to a person, no matter what he/she has done. You might disagree but I think that Weazl does accept them as persons though he doesn't like the way they are thinking.

But anyway, wise thoughts and interesting ideas, Anonymous.

-P-

(I'm sorry, I don't know English well enough to be sure that these verbs approving and accepting express the very thing I want to say.); 12:18 AM
Anonymous said...: Correction: with "giving...value" I actually meant giving human worth / human dignity. Sorry, English isn't my second nature.

-P-; 12:33 AM
Anonymous said...: http://www.spearheadvibrations.com/
media/audio/EveryoneDeservesMusic.mp3

-P-; 12:51 AM
Anonymous said...: P -
Thank you for your thoughts. let me supplement my original thread (or rather, my dissertation) so that you better understand what I meant. No, I don't think Weazl is necessarily a 'hater', but I see numerous accounts of venom spewing back and forth. My question to this was--does this really invoke a new wave of thinking in the person(s) engaged in the dialogue? Or the community that Weaz may or may not be involved in?

Perhaps, but I doubt it. How much is Weaz--and ANY OF US--truly desiring a dialogue that is just that - a two-way (or more) dialogue consisting of listening, considering and, with all good intentions (minus the venom) responding back. Most angry individuals just look for a way to fuel their fire, not diminish it.

To effect change--which I would guess is Weazle's intent as well as anyone else who cares about our world--we have to be smarter, move beyond the relational stage where ideas are incommensurate (and where most of the anger resides) and find that other 'level' that other place of discourse that effetively reaches and teaches those involved in the dialogue, or in our community.
finding that place beyond incommensurability takes an understanding of the other, and an acceptance of diffferences. But if you are dialoguing more to hear yourself, and to stubbornly expect to make changes... well, good luck, is all I can say.

Lastly, my comment wasn't directed towards understanding and trying to effect change with the Bush Cabal; hats off to anyone tryin to do that! But instead I was directing it towards those of us dialoguing (here and anywhere), those who want to create change. It's starts small, within our personal sphere and within ourselves...

That's all I was saying. Hope it makese sense.

S; 1:49 AM
Da Weaz said...: Kinda tough to argue with the proposition that weaz wants one way discussion, with post entitled "Open Thread" asking for different opinions about anything.

And yes, weazl has surrounded himself with people different from himself, his passions, and beliefs.

And weazl has tried to both recruit and encourage others with differing opinions to come here, though with less than stellar results.

And weazl doesn't think there's a premium on making a difference where you stand or not, but simply making a difference where you CAN. That may be in front of you, or a thousand miles away depending on the situation. In my opinion.

But it is perhaps for others to judge whether weazl has been open to other opinions, respectful of others, or has created a safe environment to share opinions.

Maybe, maybe not.

But weazl definitely thinks issue of what he tries to accomplish on macro scale should not be conflated to an assessment of weazl's personal life. Weazl is an EXTREMELY private person. But one thing weazl knows FOR SURE is that when weazl loves someone, that person knows it.

And THAT person doesn't have to be a mindreader. But as far as for what could encourage people to post, I think that might need a bit of explanation. Especially from those themselves who might feel such way.

Anyway . . .; 1:50 AM
Da Weaz said...: Trying to engage in the discourse you mention is what this site has been about. And I invite you to point attention to where weazl has been "venomous." There have been instances where weazl has responded nastily to certain people, but the content had nothing to do with ideas, but rather personal (and childish) attacks that lacked any rational thought. That type of discourse will not accomplish anything. But if you check the threads, you'd find that for example "doc" has called weazl nearly every name in the book, and weazl hasn't responded at all with aggression (at least as he sees it). If you think otherwise, it would be helpful to give an example.

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to respond, It is appreciated, whether you actually believe it or not. ;-); 1:59 AM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for your explanation, I think I got your point better now.

And then:

"But weazl definitely thinks issue of what he tries to accomplish on macro scale should not be conflated to an assessment of weazl's personal life. Weazl is an EXTREMELY private person."

In my opinion, the private person and his/hers opinions and missions (macro scale targets) cannot be separated. Isn't it a bit like this: what is wrong in US politics is that some people (and not just few) have lost their minds and have become warmongers (or have they always been?) and then they have harnessed a whole war and propaganda machinery to promote their PERSONAL insanity. This is a simple person's simplification, so, please, be merciful while commenting, which I hope you both do.

-P- (THAT I want to be ;D); 6:40 AM
Da Weaz said...: I think the issue of global geopolitical struggle and strategic decisions to accomplish certain aspirations are more complex than simply saying someone is insane. The people you have made reference to have in large part conned the entire world, and have had many people from many countries speaking the same language. Is everyone crazy?

Weazl thinks things are more complicated than that. And weazl thinks people can be married, with children, many friends, etc. and be quite evil. Humans have complex minds and it might be wise to never underestimate people's abilities to compartmentalize different areas of their existence.

So though I hear your voice, understand what you're saying, I repectfully disagree :-); 3:22 PM
Da Weaz said...: Maybe the best way to prove a point, might be to lead by example. That would really be nice.; 5:03 PM
Anonymous said...: I think that P is correct. Whether it be a simplistic explanation, or a bit of the whole, it's just that - a part of the situation and needs that recognition. P, you don't need to be grandiloquent or a scholar to have a worthy opinion, as your opinion already affects the whole--whether here or where you stand, just by thinking what you think you already affect those around you. Doesn't take much. Interesting thought, eh? So good to talk about it, whatever it is.

Political systems are complex, but those at the helm aren't. I question anyone who chooses such a role, as President, or any leadership role for that matter. Only very few are mentally, emotionally and socially capable of it, of not f*@#ing with the masses.

One last thought to the thread...Weaz, I would like to propose that my original comment be read not from a defensive stance, as that defeats the purpose of finding 'higher ground'--a place where ideas and comments are commensurate, but instead to take the whole of the message, including the many rhetorical questions that were present and chewing on that instead.

It's not all about you Weaz. It's not all about me. But how can we - you and I - find a place of discourse that provides the learning and growth we desire within the subjects your present? Again, rhetorical.

I think you have done an EXCELLENT job with this blog and hope that you continue.

S; 7:11 PM
Da Weaz said...: Dear S,

I appreciate your input. Hopefully, I will try not to be defensive. I think we can engage is a healthy exchange upon the selection of a topic (other than myself). Perhaps I was a bit disappointed that I invited open commentary to find myself being questioned about whether I in fact wanted the very think I proposed.

But I would like to think that I am open for discourse. Yet I would be even more excited if other posters engaged in more conversations within and among yourselves. That started to happen until someone errantly suggested that I did not want that, and encouraged conversations to take place off line, and some other posters also were quite abusive.

There are challenges in creating the type of space that I see as desireable and healthy. I am trying to create such a space. Hopefully, you will contribute towards that end. I see no reason to think otherwise. And as I wrote before, I appreciate the input, and hope that you will find time to contribute, so that the weazl will know that this TRULY isn't a one way street, but rather a dialogue. Hope you understand. Thanx.; 10:57 PM
Anonymous said...: Thank you for the comments. Sorry for getting again back to this conversation.

What I still want to define is that I think that Weazl has succeeded in creating quite a good and safe space for discussion: otherwise I wouldn't be posting.

My grounds for the statement are that I find his way of letting people write down their thoughts and say their opinion quite constructive and good. This is of two reasons: First, as a social worker I've noticed that nothing is as laming, "dispowering" (is there such word?) and devitalizing than not letting people to say their thoughts. When you listen to the people and let them tell their history, they are feeling much more powerful and helped even though you would not be able to help them or even though you need to say no to their request for (financial) help. Letting to speak is giving human worth to the people. When Weazl allows people, also those who disagree, to speak up their thoughts, that diminishes anger, in my opinion.

Second, often it is so that when you think of something just in your head, you cannot see how weird and unlogical your way of thinking is. For example, my statement on the US politics seemed quite logical and wise to me when I was thinking of it in my head, but when I watch it in black and white now - after 10 hours of sleep - it seems even more simplified than I had thought before - honestly, it seems quite stupid. So, what brought us here, me saying I wasn't correct? It was the possibility to write, think and get comments - and if one is wise enough, he might even adopt thoughts that are argumented well enough. And if he doesn't want to change his/her opinion, it's his loss. Hopefully, your thoughts affect him little by little and he will realize it later.

To conclude, I think that the owner of this blog has let people speak and get new views but he has also been quite open to new thoughts himself. A proof of the latest statement can be find up this page: Weazl hasn't used his "delete power" towards my childish opinion. ;D

Important discussion, thanks for the time.
-P-; 2:21 AM
Da Weaz said...: "dispowering" (is there such word?)

Disempowering.; 2:12 PM
Da Weaz said...: "I find it unusual that it is more socially acceptable to complain about what you have than it is to ask for what you want."

Phil Lout; 9:54 PM
Anonymous said...: Asking what you want? Asking what one wants has left my sister alone with two kids, my cousin sitting in front of TV and waiting for the next day to come, and myself hurt and lost. We have definitely thought of what we want and have made choices based on that. Others around us have known what they want and have made their choices based on that. Knowing what you want in one moment and following it may result to huge consequences that affect your life a lot and may break others around you.

That what you want changes every day, sometimes every minute, and cannot build up a stable base for life.

So I ask, what does it help to know what you want?

"When you try your best but you don't succeed
When you get what you want but not what you need
--
When you lose something you can't replace
Or you love someone but it goes to
waste
Could it be worse"

Couldplay: Fix you; 1:23 AM
Da Weaz said...: Oxymoron: "alone with two kids"

Maybe if your desires weren't described as blowing leaves in the wind, they might actually help you define your life rather than simply confuse you. Abstract thought and goal setting is what mostly distinguishes humans from other animals (including our very close cousin, the chimpanzee). Sounds like you'd have had more fun as a fish or a plant. Sorry.; 8:34 AM
Anonymous said...: "Oxymoron: "alone with two kids""

Yes, oxymoron ;D I mean: without another adult on the side to help to raise the children, which I find quite important.

"Maybe if your desires weren't described as blowing leaves in the wind, they might actually help you define your life rather than simply confuse you."

Okey, maybe knowing what you want isn't as I described but what you don't take into account is other people: one may know what he or she wants, but others may prevent him/her from making it true or someone elses behaviour may cause that he/she is left without choices. I know that you are so independent and rational that it seems like impossible thought to you but some people are affected by other people, too. ;)

"Abstract thought and goal setting is what mostly distinguishes humans from other animals (including our very close cousin, the chimpanzee). Sounds like you'd have had more fun as a fish or a plant. Sorry."

Regards,
Taraxacum maskros / dandelion / smörblomma / Löwenzahn / dent-de-lion / diente de león / voikukka ;D; 11:57 AM
Da Weaz said...: I do try to be rational. But other people affect me. Some can be annoying, others can simply represent the very best life has to offer. In my life, I have both. ;-)

But that other people may challenge or prevent one from achieving goals is to be expected. And overcoming them can be even that much more satisfying.

"Someone else's behaviour may cause that he/she is left without choices." Very rarely possible, unless killed. No one is as blind as the man (person) who refuses to see.; 12:32 PM
Anonymous said...: "All things are wearisome,
more than one can say.
The eye never has enough of seeing,
nor the ear its fill of hearing."

Ecclesiastes 1:8

:)

in pessimistic mood,
-P-

PS. Your new complete profile helps me in believing that there is still trust in the world. What affected the change?; 12:20 AM
Da Weaz said...: Actually, P, it is the exact OPPOSITE of trust. It's the sad acknowledgement that sheeple cannot simply take the merits of what someone says (or writes) as sufficient evidence of one's credentials. People seem to want to feel that this information somehow makes what I have written somewhat more reliable or intelligent. And in fact the number of hits to both my profile and the website in general reveal the heightened interest. Of course, the video clearly might have helped. And it's the realization that since the idea of speaking WITHIN and AMONG the readership didn't really catch on, I simply decided to reveal more of those credentials that people seem to value, talk AT the people, make the website more popular (which it has become and is becoming) and not give a shit about the zero comments under the articles, while more people than ever actually read the articles themselves.

That change is actually an admission of how mistrusting people are, and how people would rather be led than join hands and walk together.; 9:59 PM
Anonymous said...: >>Actually, P, it is the exact OPPOSITE of trust. It's the sad acknowledgement that sheeple cannot simply take the merits of what someone says (or writes) as sufficient evidence of one's credentials. People seem to want to feel that this information somehow makes what I have written somewhat more reliable or intelligent.<<

I don't quite agree with you on this. I found your writings believable, important, well-written, and wise even before this information revolution. I believe that many people think the same. For me this "yales-staff" isn't a merit but just a way of knowing more (facts, background) about you as a person. And that's what I'm afraid of in my previous message: I think you need to trust people to reveal so much (facts, not the way you are) about yourself. It wouldn't be very difficult for someone from your country to identify you. This doesn't matter when it's a friend who finds it nice to know about your opinions and thoughts. But there are people who might misuse that information and get you into trouble.

>>And in fact the number of hits to both my profile and the website in general reveal the heightened interest. Of course, the video clearly might have helped. And it's the realization that since the idea of speaking WITHIN and AMONG the readership didn't really catch on, I simply decided to reveal more of those credentials that people seem to value, talk AT the people, make the website more popular (which it has become and is becoming) and not give a shit about the zero comments under the articles, while more people than ever actually read the articles themselves.<<

Congratulations! I don't find zero comments a bad thing as long as people have a change to say something - and you answer, which you have done very diligently (picked up from dictionary, might not be the right word), good! But how do you think that over 20 comments a day and probably three times more viewers before this change "didn't really catch on"? :D

>>That change is actually an admission of how mistrusting people are, and how people would rather be led than join hands and walk together.<<

People like to be led but I don't think that people like to be led in every sides of their lives: some want to criticise the politics and the blind led masses in that area of life, some question the importance of career chasing, and for some, for example me, this consumerist way of living in Western world is something awful: I don't want to be led in that area of life by the Perfect Model of Life (big detached house, family, dog, and three cars). ;D

So, do not get deprivied by this assumed mistrust: there are also people who want to think with their own head.

-P-; 10:56 PM
Anonymous said...: And anyway, the picture is cute. ;}

-P-; 10:59 PM
Anonymous said...: ... but in one way misleading: you don't like anyone to lurk over your shoulder when you are working with your computer. XD

-P-; 11:04 PM
Da Weaz said...: I don't think there is anyone lurking over "my" shoulder in this picture. So how would that be misleading?

And I don't consider zero comments something worthy of congratulations. I value other people's opinons and have tried to create spaces to allow that. The funny thing, however, is to watch those who stubbornly resist to contribute but nevertheless search the site every hour or so, like ghosts. Well, I guess that's their way of expressing their appreciation (or something). Some people seem to enjoy doing the opposite of what they're requested.

But not you, P! You're a real trooper! You even put up with my little sarcasms and short patience. Thank you. ;-); 11:27 PM

Weazl's Revenge

About Me

Memory Lane

Secret Info

Weazl's Small Blog Specials

Blog Archive

Sponsors

Feeds

Labels

Thursday, April 13, 2006

Open Thread

29 comments: