Tactics and Pushing

ObamaCare supporters delight in using the rhetorical tactic of focusing on the supposed good outcomes when responding to critics.

“I don't understand why people get so bent out of shape when a law is passed that actually benefits the citizens of this country…”

There’s a lot going on there. The statement begins with confusion, suggesting that the speaker is encountering something that goes against either the normal assumptions, which implies that the opposing view is not a natural way of looking at things. Note also that it focuses on the (supposed) positive outcomes only, implying that there is nothing negative about it that might justify someone’s bent shape on the matter.

Statements like these make me groan in frustration. The persuasion tactic is glaringly obvious and it almost comes across as deliberate flamebait. It also forces the other side into the defensive as well as into a very critical mode. Consider the automatic response:

“Yes, it probably benefits people, but at what cost? How are we supposed to pay for it? With Monopoly money? You can’t squeeze blood from a rock. We all want to have nice cars, too, but you can’t just pass a law that says ‘everyone gets a Toyota’ without also saying how exactly you’re going to afford to pay Toyota for all those cars. Or is Toyota just supposed to do it anyway, fuck ‘em, they’re evil corporate bastards anyway just sitting on cash, they can afford to help us little guys out once in a while!”

The Recent Ruling

It doesn't count as kindness if you have to steal to do it.

If you support policies to steal my money to pay for some stranger's insurance, that doesn't count as compassion on your part. It's just lazy and immoral.

It's lazy because if you really want to help them, you should do something about it yourself, not force me to be your unwilling proxy. It's immoral because you stole from me to do what you thought was good. I realize you have good intentions, but stealing bread to feed your starving kids is still stealing. We can sympathize, which might get you forgiveness, but it won't erase the crime.

I love humanity, I do. I want people to be prosperous and healthy. I want them to be safe from those that would harm us. I truly believe, across all political spectra, that most folks want these things, too. We don't disagree on the goal, just the path to get there.

The Supreme Court ruling was wrong. ObamaCare is wrong. Not because I don't want people to have access to quality healthcare, but because it's the wrong way to do it. We can be better than this. We shouldn't have to steal just to ensure that people don't die from preventable/curable conditions, etc.

The end does not justify the means. Because in the end, all we have are means. And immoral means are still immoral means.

If we all agree on the goal, why don't we see if there's a moral way to get there first? Don't assume that force is the only path. Don't let the politics cloud your reasoning. Be open to hear alternative and potentially superior ideas. Be eager to look for them yourself.

Working hard versus working smart

It isn’t every day that I get one of those moments of clarity. (Actually, if you’re a recruiter/interviewer reading this, that’s just narrative hyperbole! I get epiphanies, like, hourly. Yeah. Hire me.)

I’ve been tasked lately with some rather… interesting… problems at work. Really the circumstances around them drive me nuts and will have me bald from ripping my hair out but I can’t and won’t get into that here. I’m having to generate a lot of records to be imported into this other system as a sort of systems integration thing. Due to the fundamental differences in their database structures, it involves a lot of redundancy.

It also involves a lot of Cartesian products. What we would normally implement as a pair (or more) of drop-down lists to pick from we’re having to store as related elements. Allow me to illustrate with a contrived example.