tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23460707.post6885609549592490477..comments2023-06-13T04:19:36.351-07:00Comments on Thinking Out Loud: Should liberals/progressives use rumors as a tactic to achieve our goals?Gail Jonashttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01112450907788303779noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-23460707.post-9937767141501403802007-11-17T09:10:00.000-08:002007-11-17T09:10:00.000-08:00I agree with you, Gail.To my mind, there's nothing...I agree with you, Gail.<BR/><BR/>To my mind, there's nothing more important than insisting on ethics, integrity, and proper restraint of emotion (the lack of which cause anyone, including ourselves, to give in to the temptation to "loosen the rules" or "fight dirty," which is, of course, self-defeating, if integrity and truth are one's cause). It's tempting to get "carried away" and resort to "giving them a taste of their own medicine," but this is emotion talking, not reason. It's never worth it to bow to this temptation. And so rumors without substantiating proof should be labeled as such, until there's clear evidence establishing them as more than such. <BR/><BR/>The most powerful tool of change is to act as a mirror of what's best in others, so they can see what's best in themselves. That's why we on the left MUST NOT begin to practice Machiavellian tactics in our effort to defeat the widespread impulse in our culture to use such tactics. <BR/><BR/>The non-violence of Ghandi and King is the example, here ... the antithesis of the Tricky Dick Nixon Karl Rove "anything goes" Orwellian neocon school that turns the Golden Rule on it's head ("Whoever has the gold, makes the rules") and posits "Survival of the Fittest" and "The End Justifies the Means" as the best basis for a just society (how anyone can believe this is beyond me).<BR/><BR/>The problem, is that, in the short term, practicers of non-violence (and by extension, actual integrity and ethics) must accept the fact that it's going to hurt. "It's the tall grass that get's cut." How long can one stand the pain and still actually hold to true ethical standards? That's the measure of character.<BR/><BR/>"If you don't stand for something ... you'll fall for anything."<BR/><BR/>Having said that, lying is certainly sometimes justified (as when a burglar enters your home and asks you at gunpoint where your children are), and I admit I'm puzzled by the following questions:<BR/><BR/>How do you compete with someone who cheats?What is the best way to handle that? Is cheating in return justified as "self-defense" at some point? If so, how do you stop yourself from becoming worse than your corrupt opponent?Chris Borlandhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09064420026829425687noreply@blogger.com