----- Original Message ----- From: "Baardwijk, J. van DTO/SLWPD/RZO/BOZO" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Monday, April 29, 2002 3:43 AM Subject: RE: Scouted: Commentary: Why Europe Sides Against the Jews / tim e.com
> What, someone was still taking me seriously? Jeez, I thought that all the > right-winged anti-European pro-Israel Americans on this list had long ago > stopped taking me seriously and considered me some lunatic who is totally > out of touch with reality and living in a paranoid fantasy world... :-( Well, compiling a website of all the times that someone hurt's one's feelings is not a behavior that is helpful to one's mental health. We all need to practice behaviors that help us maintain good mental health, just as we need to eat properly and exercise in order to maintain good physical health. In doing this, I have developed certain habits that furnish as reality checks. Among them are watching for patterns in people's responses to me. Clearly, I don't need to have everyone agree with me. But, I do have red flags concerning patterns of responses. An example of my doing this is the "lurkers afraid of flames" thread. When I feel alienation, I have friends I can email asking for reality checks. I do not pick them because they agreed with me in the discussion. FWIW, I haven't always had this bag of tricks for a reality check. Being married to a psychotherapist for about 18 years (I've been married longer, but my wife received her masters about 18 years ago) has certainly helped in this. As I mentioned before, IMHO it would be a very good thing for you to drop the website of hurt feelings as an effort and concentrate on other things. For example, 1) Finding ways you can express sympathy for valid strong feelings of those you debate instead denying them. Denying the effects of the Holocaust on the lives of Jewish people who are alive today (including those on the list) harms both you and your argument. It harms you because it cuts you off from the humanity of others. It hurts your argument because it adds credence to the concept that its not just the policies of Israel that you are opposed to, but you have antagonism towards Jews. If, on the other hand, you showed honest sympathy to those still suffering as a result of the Holocaust, then you would have added credence to the argument that you have no ill feelings towards Jews. 2) Gracefully retreat from positions that prove to be in error. An example of this is your claim that you never read a post you quoted and that I was unfair when I assumed you have. It may be a momentary unpleasantness, but acknowledging mistakes is good for both oneself and one's credibility. 3) Research the topic that is discussed. Instead of claiming that your opponents must prove their points to you beyond a reasonable doubt (with you as both judge and jury), you could look for support from noted historians and/or new data. An example of this is when Gautam quoted an Oxford historian on the collaboration of Europe in the genocide of the Nazis. Is there a good American historian that argues that the occupied countries showed strong resistance? Are there data that indicate that a significant fraction (say 20%) of the population of the Netherlands was involved in trying to protect the Jews? 4) Watch for how your arguments play in the community. In particular, you can see the responses to your "threat" to put people in you "these bad people hurt my feelings" website. No one has written in support of this. The tone of the jokes about it should indicate to you that it is not taken very seriously. Making threats that are not taken seriously is usually a bad thing. Indeed, who is the intended audience for this webpage? It seems to me that you are talking about a hypothetical group of reasonable individuals that will see how terrible the people who differ with you are. It is not healthy to count on hypothetical people that support you when you are not getting on list support from the other posters. 5) Search for truth instead of proof that you are always right. Part of this should be the use of techniques of logic (like reversing arguments) instead of semantic hair splitting (like detailed arguments on the critical importance of the difference between warn and threaten). I know that I argue long and hard for a given position, but others on this list have caused me to reevaluate my positions. Indeed, IMHO, I've developed deeper and more nuanced understandings of a number of topics through discussions with people...even when I argued tooth and nail during a thread. 6) Develop friendships with those who's ideas you differ with severely. An example of this for me offlist are my numerous friendships with fundamentalists. Anyways these are just a bunch of my thoughts. They are given with nothing but good will towards you. Dan M.
