Rule 5:

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Rob Grand Haven on August 21, 2009 at 1:33am

Hmmm.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Margaret Gustafson on August 21, 2009 at 9:28am

Gee...sounds like ACORN and SEIU as well as a few other folks in our government.

Rob Hopp said:

Hmmm.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Cyndi Kuhlman on August 21, 2009 at 12:08pm

Yes it does. We need to study fast!

Margaret Gustafson said:

Gee...sounds like ACORN and SEIU as well as a few other folks in our government.

Rob Hopp said:

Hmmm.

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Jerry Wildrom on August 30, 2009 at 3:05am

I would think that it would be better to ridicule the ridiculous...

1) Perhaps the best way to disarm ridicule is to identify it and push it back.
2) A cool head may infuriate the opposition quicker. (Not taking it personally)
3) Perhaps exposing insults, profane language or a higher, more vicious volume and tone for what they are infuriates more effectively.

Something to think about...

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Tina Dupont on April 29, 2010 at 11:47am

I have a question about this one. I always look at people ridiculing people as the person doing it is just very stupid. Does it serve our purpose to do this? Does the ridiculer win with the audience? I know if they can make the victim blow his or her stack they win against that victim but if their is an audience at what cost might there be? I think we saw this with Mr Overbeek at our rally. He unfairly attacked his opponents in his congressional race and they had no opportunity to fight back. I think he came out the loser with the audience. What does everyone else think here?

▶ Reply to This

Permalink Reply by Rob Grand Haven on April 29, 2010 at 1:21pm

One point worth making is the old "You can't un-ring a bell" theory. If the counterattack or response is not extremely strong (not in anger, but pithy in precision and fact) and concise the ridiculer wins by default.
Many, if not most of our side are shaking (internally or externally) with outrage by the time they have a chance to preach to anyone but the choir, they are fairly easy to represent as extremists. Kudo's to those of you on the front lines speaking out and making a difference. Quelling my outrage is a work in progress. Made harder by a new bolder outrage almost daily.

Tina Dupont said:

I have a question about this one. I always look at people ridiculing people as the person doing it is just very stupid. Does it serve our purpose to do this? Does the ridiculer win with the audience? I know if they can make the victim blow his or her stack they win against that victim but if their is an audience at what cost might there be? I think we saw this with Mr Overbeek at our rally. He unfairly attacked his opponents in his congressional race and they had no opportunity to fight back. I think he came out the loser with the audience. What does everyone else think here?

▶ Reply to This

▶ Reply to This