Beuracracy, compromise, and other icky things in real life

[the]

Ah, already everybody here knows your trolling posts! Very attractive at that as well!

1.Is this directed at me?

2. The bolded makes no sense.

 

[Norton]

Regardless of your stand on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, the following article describes how an extremely complex bureaucracy was streamlined by General Stanley McChrystal during his tenure in managing the Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC).

http://www.washingtonpost.com/world...mand/2011/08/30/gIQAvYuAxJ_story.html?hpid=z1

 

[After the Rain]

People make mistakes - I'll get over it.

 

[bickelz]

1) I do not think that you are easily offended type

Truth.

2) I think this is fun for you

I like to argue and am famous for it on this forum.

3) Why is so important for you that I should answer you when you will mock my answer anyway?

I haven't mocked you so you have no reason to believe that I would. I asked for clarification and you try to make an ass out of me.

4) You think that you are not condescending when you say to a female and older person than yourself "on your ass"

Is that meant to be like a sexual harassment thing? Because I'm gay so there's, again, no reason for me to be using those types of connotations. Not to mention you took that completely the wrong way and didn't even understand the reference to James Madison and Pluralism.

5) If you seek respect give respect first - this is why I think that you do not care for my answer but just want to argue

I don't seek respect, I seek to clarify your statement which still makes no sense. Your statement "if you seek respect, give respect first" is also kind of ironic considering that it implies a sort of hierarchy that is exactly like a bureaucracy. One which you chalked up to conspiratorial levels when saying...

Bureaucracy and politics exist to make humans depersonalized, and to boost

 

[After the Rain]

You are mocking other people so why my not my point of view which is about change of this world system through the means of higher power (you mock my religious views - you are already insinuating that it is about an authoritarian figure - not about a loving figure that frees not oppresses) when bureaucracy will not be needed to exist because it will not be necessary to exist, it will not be able to exist as a human system, and it is flawed as such. Humans will be free of any kind of repression and manmade rules including artificial man-made structures called religions (semi-belief systems in most cases), not the bride of Christ which true church is (not a building or a structure but people).
It is about change not about existence of bureaucracy what I meant in my post; it is about its consequences and one of its purposes in this system of things; because you went into existence of it in the first place (reason why they begin to exist) not about why they continue to be encouraged (continue to exist). Democrats or republicans do not interest me or their agenda. I do not see point in arguing when the result of arguing is going to be the same. I do not need to think about my beliefs deeper, I am already doing so whether you want to believe that or not, and arguments such as these will not change my beliefs so why argue with a person who does not understand my point of view in the first place and will not change his/her opinion whether I argue or not. It is waste of your time and my time - and nobody will challenge anybody's beliefs anyway.

Respect for me is to allow one not express him/herself when he/she does not want to - live and let live; do not push when we already disagree. It does not work as you can see - misunderstanding after misundersanding. Do not be so controlling and possessive that everybody has to answer when they do not want to. Let me be myself, and I will let you be yourself (believe what you want without pushing that you call "makes you think about your beliefs much deeper" to change someone's beliefs- because you will not).

No, I am not trying to make an ass out of you - such thing is overrated anyway and for the immature.

No, it is not a sexual harassment thing, and I really do not care about your sexual orientation - it does not matter to me. It is the language that some of the younger generation nowadays thinks they are entitled to - nothing related to James Madison and Pluralism really interests me. It does not prevent you to write about it - at least I do not whether it interests me or not.

 

[Kgal]

....

I'd appreciate hearing from anyone who has successfully learned to deal with such situations. And if anyone else wants to vent, go for it!

Shalom

@bickelz @After the Rain



While I can appreciate the fact you guys are "venting" - please try to keep your discussion to venting about bureaucracy - NOT each other's perspectives.

Thank you.

 

[randomsomeone]

I deal with beaurocaracies a lot and, despite their shortcomings, I have found over time that in most cases there is a legitimate role they serve. However, being a free-thinker and quasi-anarchist, I always seem to find myself somewhat askew of the prevailing beaurocratic mindset (go figure). Some people actually seems to thrive on this stuff, but I tend to play a different role. This actually seems to work out nicely for all parties concerned (for some odd reason).

I think the first step is to see that beaurocracies are not necessarily "the root of all evil" (some can be even beneficial). This helps one gain a little perspective on things. Patience and deep breaths. Then find your best path for engagement. The immediate outcome may not be as positive as you would like, but it's best to not put the weight of the world on your own shoulders. Failure (should this happen) is just a setback and generally is not the end of the story. Some things just need to play out a certain way before any successes emerge.

Group dynamics is a whole other matter...especially groups stuck in a rut where nothing can get accomplished. That's tougher I think as the universe is much smaller and one has fewer options for finding modes of positive engagement.

 

[Radiantshadow]

Considering the size of the human race and technological advances - to say nothing of clashing theological and political positions (sorry, I know that's an abused line) - I would say bureaucracy is necessary on some level. More people = more opinions and conflicts. More options (tech., religion, social stuff, et cetera) = more ways to spread your ideas and influence the world. Put the two together and raw pandemonium will erupt rapidly without a funnel to channel these energies. Humans are still composed of Tribes seeking dominance/whatever, it's just more structured now. I don't see a problem with the idea itself, just the execution. That's where revolution comes into play, but that is another thread I imagine...and I'm not legitimately qualified to speak about political theories anyway.

Just my two cents, of course.