Originally Posted by bingle
I'm actually making very few value judgments here, I don't know why I can't get that across :-) People seem to think I'm in favor of a lot of things that I just see as realities.
I think today, you're explaining yourself pretty well, actually. At least I'm getting what you're saying better today than I was yesterday, but that could just be me.
One of the things you're running into is that it's a human reaction to want to reject things we don't like (denial). Also, our present human culture tends to want to treat everything
as an opinion, even when it's a fact. The statement "Rocks are hard" would be less likely to meet with agreement, than with an extended discussion of how rocks can't be that hard or we'd never be able to cut them, for example.
About the only thing I can see that might make what you're saying clearer would be to say specifically that you see these things as coming realities, not things you're trying to make
happen, and you've more or less done just that now.
So let me throw one more rock on the pile and say that it seems to me that your list above isn't so much things you want
to be, or even believe should
be, but rather realities you see as emerging or already emerged, with which we, as a society, will have to come to terms, and to figure out how to operate under, whether we like
them or not.
Does that about sum it up, bingle?
From that perspective, I see two
three discussion options:
1) discuss ways to deal with these perceived realities,
2) discuss whether these perceptions are indeed accurate, or
3) pretend that they're solely opinions and continue to debate why things shouldn't be the way you describe.
The root of it, as I see it, is that discussing how things should
be is less helpful than exploring how to deal with the way things actually are
, unless there is actually some hope of changing
the way things are. But then I'm a pragmatic sort that way.