51 thoughts on “Sandpit

  1. A dangerous self unseen elephant.

    J-D. In answer to your question, ” I would be particularly interested in any third-party opinion on that question: is there disagreement between Svante and me, or is there agreement?”

    J-D imho the “disagreement” is in definitions, correlations, causation, and reasonable dialogue vs populism and bullying.
    And more dangerous, swlf unseen elephants.
    Imho I think you, and I, want to be specific leading to a more nuanced discourse. Svante is saying,  rudely, over and over and over,  “ponzi migration, misgovernment,  corporate conspiracy ” 
    … all the while railing at your nature of specificity. 

    Svante has been able to reel off words words words and finally thanked you for providing the contrast for him to keep repeating himself. And further embed chosen cognitive biases.

    “You have demonstrated only disagreeableness not disagreement of any substance” leading Svante to further strength his own walls and miss the woods and trees he is destroying.

     I ended my words at Svante by asking ” please provide non polarising populistist solutions”. I have not seen this yet but I do see more and more shrill statements by Svante such as – “tidal wave swamping the country” – such statements are dangerous really. 

    Julie Thomas, what an astute comment on Svante’s gishgallops;
    “Are you sure you are seeing all of this elephant or maybe you have ahold of just one small part and can’t see the wood for the trees? ”

    I’d point out Svante does not realise he is also another type of elephant in the room.

    Svante sees a real elephant. We get it!  Mike M-B’s elephant goes from a calculated 2.7M to a lazy in the conversation 3M. News corpse headlines use the same “round the elephant up” to bolster the argument division and polarisation. Lazy disingenuous and bordering on dog whistling.

    I assume myself, Julie T and J-D would not dispute a scenario of 6M new workers here in one day tomorrow being elephantine. So it becomes about management and dynamics. Over time. 

    Svante’s rehetoric – the elephant he is in his room, he chooses not to see – is a dangerous fire breathing dragon more than an elephant imo, sparking social unrest, tribalism elephants and the very opposite of generosity toward “how you treat a guest” behaviours.

    But if Svante’s wealth generator or superannuation was dependent on 6M workers money being spent here and Peter Dutton rejigging the “you can’t stay here” rules and turfing 5M out when the infrastructure built and money spent, Svante would be ok with that, if all the production was distributed to it seems, “us” who happen to live here before “the great “guest worker” migration misgovnment ponzi scheme”.

    Svante is arguing by abjection… misgovernment and media is…
    “One such method is that of “collective instruction,” which refers to a strategy often used to defer, render abject and hide the inconvenient “dark side” of the organization, keeping it away from view through corporate forces.[25] This is the process by which an acceptable, unified meaning is created – for example, a corporation’s or organization’s mission statement. Through the controlled release of information and belief or reactionary statements, people are gradually exposed to a firm’s persuasive interpretation of an event or circumstance, that could have been considered abject. This spun meaningdeveloped by the firm becomes shared throughout a community. That event or circumstance comes to be interpreted and viewed in a singular way by many people, creating a unified, accepted meaning. The purpose such strategies serve is to identify and attempt to control the abject, as the abject ideas become ejected from each individual memory.”

    …. the above is “exposed” by Svante’s use if the words elephant, ponzi, and ever more scare phrases ala “tidal wave swamping the country” rendering this next paragraph onto Svante’ being accepted in Svant’s “tribe” as “people adopt roles, identities and discourses to avoid the consequences of social and organizational abjection”. And discussing their own elephantness.

    “Organizational theory literature on abjection has attempted to illuminate various ways in which institutions come to silence, exclude or disavow feelings, practices, groups or discourses within the workplace. Studies have examined and demonstrated the manner in which people adopt roles, identities and discourses to avoid the consequences of social and organizational abjection.”

    “Feelings are never true. They play with their mirrors.
    Jean Baudrillard”

    Svante is being news corpse / daily telegraoh all the way… we must drink his cool aid and see the elephant. This way of abjecting the other just leads to populism,  polarisation and othering instead if reasoned dialogue and solutions. 

    And blinds those shouting “ELEPHANT!” to seeing themselves as another elephant. 

    Svante says: “But we are (and we are many)” which is the seriously big whistle polarising and exposing Svante as, ANOTHER ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. Svante sees a big elephants footprint squashing “us” out – underemployment,  lower gdp/, and “we are many” being hurt. Some of us understand these effects as real, yet try to not blame guests and manage the situation without abuse, populism and polarisation. 

    J-D imo you are the master here at specificity which some with polarised or base views take as pedantry. Your requests for accuracy or definition expose the debater as an opposition looking for agreement with their “argument”. 

    Populist one sided arguments are dangerous elephants too.

    Finally as to Svante and Mike M-B using ” a very well visited site” who are “really good at tearing up government arguments ” [ paraphrasing ] I note a site like say stormfront, the ultra white supremaist blog now underground was also able to be characterised as really good at pointing out elephants. Of its choosing. And ignore the damage of itself.

    The reason I read JQ is usually the elephants foot he may write about is nuanced and with a solution to the dynamics. 

    I have yet to see svante or mike mb provide such. They have imo just yelled like fire – Elephant! and no way out. If they had their tribes way the rest if us will be trampled by THEM ELEPHANTS. 

    I suppose in faireness to elephants their eyes are small, with big ears attuned to their chosen adaptations and able to “feel the drumbeat of misgovernment and ponzi ness” via feet, all the while being unaware they have the potential to destroy both the trees and the forest, just as much of their chosen seen elephants.

    And just to remind us all…
    Some fallacies are committed intentionally to manipulate or persuade by deception, while others are committed unintentionally due to carelessness or ignorance. The soundness of legal arguments depends on the context in which the arguments are made.[4]

    Cognitive bias
    For example, when getting to know others, people tend to ask leading questions which seem biased towards confirming their assumptions about the person. However, this kind of confirmation bias has also been argued to be an example of social skill: a way to establish a connection with the other person.[8]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s