Different Worldviews

[kevin_standlee]

I find myself wondering what Jonathan McAlmont and Danny O'Dare do to put bread on the table, and musing over whether whatever that is compared to my Day Jobbe is one of the reasons we are talking past each other to the point where I have taken Mary Kay Kare's advice about saying anything else over there. (In short, I am "Just [letting] people be wrong on the Internet…", as he asks.)

My Day Jobbe, which I should be doing right now and will be again in a few minutes, is a computer database programmer. I primarily write and maintain Microsoft Access-based small database application for quick deployment. (Warning: People who snark that Access isn't a "real database" will be considered discussion derailers and treated accordingly. I'm allowed to do that on my home turf, evil person that I am.) Being a programmer gives me a certain view of how I approach the world, process-wise. The character traits that led me into computer solutions engineering possibly are what drew me to an interest in parliamentary law, which is also a large rule-set that a knowledgeable person can "program" to accomplish certain tasks. I find satisfaction when the rules have been followed and everyone has had their say within those rules, even if I don't necessarily get my way. (Besides, if I lose, I often have a way to come back another day when the conditions have changed.) That doesn't necessarily mean I like the result, but if the decision was legal, I have no grounds for attacking on that basis.

(Example: the Mark Protection Committee's decisions in Australia in 2011 2010 were legal within the rules framework, even though their substance infuriated me. I therefore worked within that same framework to overturn the decision legally. I never claimed the decision was illegitimate, only ill-advised, and I'd have a very difficult time having a meaningful discussion with someone who doesn't see the difference.)

Not everyone thinks rules are worthwhile. That doesn't make them inherently evil (c.f. the Dungeons & Dragons "chaotic good" alignment; I'm probably lawful good on that scale, recognizing that paladins and their ilk can be a right pain to be around), but it often makes it nearly impossible for me to have a useful debate with them, on account of we differ so badly on basic assumptions. It's as though I brought a golf club and they have a tennis racquet, and we're standing in the middle of cricket pitch trying to play the game. (Of course, being adverse to rules, they probably aren't interested in any competitive sports anyway, but that's another story.)

Comments

[kevin-standlee.livejournal.com]

If it weren't for the fact that I'm desperately trying to stay out in the hope that the whole discussion will die, I'd go in and say something about shouting at clouds, which is exactly what he's doing.

And thank you so much for the political analogy. I, of course, am Not Allowed to have an opinion about UK politics in his world view.

He'll likely end up a old, bitter, right-winger. See "Why Conservatives Think the Ends Justify the Means" spotted on Jay Lake's blog. I identify strongly with the liberal, process-oriented people, not the "do anything to win because I'm right" conservatives.

[daveon.livejournal.com]

From an interesting personal perspective of British politics, given her recent demise. One of the things that worked well for Thatcher was a version of the attitudes I'm seeing there. A navel gazing desire for ideological purity over pragmatism and actual effort, which gave her, an organized and focused person, a great way to pick off the various factions of the left one by one without having to worry all that much about the competition.

In some respects the GOP are doing something similar now with the primary process and the impact on candidates.

I'm with Andrew, I'm done with him. He's lost all coherence of his position except for a feeling that people are picking on him.