The Respectable Doer-Talker

In reply to SV reX :

Cronyism is particularly related to business and government in relation to appointments to positions of friends and family without regard to ability and frequently in return favors.

From Wikipedia: Cronyism is the practice of partiality in awarding jobs and other advantages to friends or trusted colleagues, especially in politics and between politicians and supportive organizations.[1] For example, cronyism occurs when appointing "cronies" to positions of authority regardless of their qualifications.[2] This is in contrast to a meritocracy, in which appointments are made based on merit.

Politically, "cronyism" is derogatorily used to imply buying and selling favors, such as votes in legislative bodies, as doing favors to organizations, giving desirable ambassadorships to exotic places, etc.[3] Cronyism is a specific form of favoritism.[4]

In reply to Toyman! :

I understand. 
 

It has a slightly different meaning when used these days (particularly by liberals)

In reply to SV reX :

You are correct. I just find it particularly irritating when the left accuses the right of it while doing the EXACT same thing. I'm pretty sick of both of them. 

Toyman! said:

yupididit said:

Being an expert also doesn't give you the authority or audacity to shut anyone up

That's an interesting statement considering the past couple of years. 

 

I agree! 

So, if I understand this, someone who admits to talking more than doing, doesn't like people who get rewarded for doing things well.

OK.

That has nothing to do with it.

The topic of discussion in this thread is "do I get to have an opinion on things I don't do?"

SV reX said:

"Cronyism" is just the word we throw at networking it when we want it to sound negative and we dislike the particular cultural group, or jealous of their success. 

Networking = becoming friends with those in positions of power

Cronyism = appointing friends to positions of power

Edit:  oops I see Toyman addressed this.

pheller said:

The topic of discussion in this thread is "do I get to have an opinion on things I don't do?"

IMHO:

A) Yes, you get to have an opinion.  I can't stop you, after all. :)

B) If you want to be polite, you have to be careful how you share it.  Abstract discussions of principles are OK, specific criticism of someone who's "been there, done that" when you haven't is often not taken well.

For some reason I'm thinking this thread is a Seinfeld bit by the name.  

pheller said:

That has nothing to do with it.

The topic of discussion in this thread is "do I get to have an opinion on things I don't do?"

Certainly. But understand that the people that have BTDT and still are, have a much more weighted opinion. 

Back to Z31 and kids. If he had a suggestion about them, like yupididit, I would listen. If my mother had an opposite suggestion, I'm going to listen to her. Since she managed to raise 4 drug free and successful children, her opinions are going to count more. 

I read every suggestion you post. Every one. Most of them I do not agree with even a little bit. So yes, you can absolutely have an opinion and post it here. If it suggests using regulations and legislature to force people to do what you want, I'll vehemently disagree with you. 

If you want to change your circumstances, get out there and do it. Don't try to get other people to change them for you. 

Opinions are like shiny happy people. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

Everyone will spend time beinga bit of an shiny happy person. If you're not sure whether or not you're being an shiny happy person, you probably are. If it doesn't even occur to you that you might be the shiny happy person, you almost certainly are.

Beer Baron said:

Opinions are like shiny happy people. Everyone has one, and they all stink.

Very much believe this. There was a post earlier (sorry I am too lazy to go back!) that captured my personal goal as well when things seem like they are a bit misaligned.. probing questions. It's way less threatening than open challenge, but seeking to understand and clarify are not just good for you, but good for all and can lead to better outcomes.

In reply to pheller :

Feeling you have a right to make your opinion known regardless of the established processes is a form of narcissism. Go ahead and shout your opinion. Nobody actually cares. I suggest finding a nice mountaintop to shout it from. 
 

In the other thread AND this one you seem upset that no one will listen to your ideas. The reason is because there is an established process for making changes, and you are not following it. 
 

If you want to change the way real estate law is handled at the local level, the proposal should be made through a lawmaker. There are many ways to do this. You can just vote for a guy you agree with, or approach your representative with your idea, or BE the representative. 
 

Just making noise to someone you disagree with is just complaining. 
 

Why should the guy who benefits from the current law agree with you?  You knew he would disagree before you spoke up. 
 

Everyone has a right to their opinion. And everyone also has a right to ignore your opinion. 
 

You only get a seat at the table when you work for it. 

yupididit said:

z31maniac said:

Now for your bolded paragraph at the end. 

I'm 40 years old and don't have children, how much would you value my opinion on how YOU should raise YOUR children?

Yes, Id consider your advice and value your input, because all adults were kids. Their parents could've done it not did subverting that significantly impacted you as a kid. You could def share that advice. Perspective doesn't have to be from a position of expertise. Or you could be a child-less child psychologist or pediatrician, so not a parent but an expert. Being a parent doesn't make you an expert.

Owning real estate or a business doesn't make you an expert either. Being an expert also doesn't give you the authority or audacity to shut anyone up.

Toyman! nailed it, you might listen to my opinion, but you'd likely put more weight behind the opinion of someone who has actually raised children vs someone with only tertiary knowledge of it. 

pheller said:

In my personal life however, its way harder to be the Respectable Doer-Talker. I just had a local long-time businessman tell me in a personal setting "shut up" about my opinions of how local policy changes might our city for the better. He's VERY liberal. We agree on a lot of topics, but some topics for which he benefit are "off the table" in terms of my input. His contention is I'm attacking his livelihood (real estate), so unless I'm there in the trenches with him, I shouldn't voice my opinion. 

What are your thoughts on contributing, both in personal and business settings, on things for which you might only have a minor stake? In your opinion, in order for someone's opinion to be valid, do they have to have had major experience, or daily interaction with that topic?

First of all I'd say it's pretty rich for the guy with a vested interest in the unhealthy status quo to argue that your opinion on the situation as less valid than his. He might as well be an oilman telling you to shut up about energy policy or a cigarette vendor telling you to shut up about how smoking causes lung cancer.

Second I'd say stake is irrelevant, arguments should be made on logic and facts, sometimes summed up as expertise. Major experience and daily interaction are one way to gain expertise, but an expert should be able to explain why you're wrong and not just tell you that you're wrong and they're right because they're an expert.

SV reX said:

Why should the guy who benefits from the current law agree with you?  You knew he would disagree before you spoke up. 

There are all kinds of laws I benefit from, but I am happy to A) listen to opinions on and B) support changing myself.

I think the call the behavior OP is speaking of is called "not knowing what you are talking about."

talkytalky thinkythinky. just do some stuff, then talk about that, then do some more. stop thinking and talking about the doing.

Why are you worried about..whatever the ferd you're worried about, so much?

GameboyRMH said:

pheller said:

In my personal life however, its way harder to be the Respectable Doer-Talker. I just had a local long-time businessman tell me in a personal setting "shut up" about my opinions of how local policy changes might our city for the better. He's VERY liberal. We agree on a lot of topics, but some topics for which he benefit are "off the table" in terms of my input. His contention is I'm attacking his livelihood (real estate), so unless I'm there in the trenches with him, I shouldn't voice my opinion. 

What are your thoughts on contributing, both in personal and business settings, on things for which you might only have a minor stake? In your opinion, in order for someone's opinion to be valid, do they have to have had major experience, or daily interaction with that topic?

First of all I'd say it's pretty rich for the guy with a vested interest in the unhealthy status quo to argue that your opinion on the situation as less valid than his. He might as well be an oilman telling you to shut up about energy policy or a cigarette vendor telling you to shut up about how smoking causes lung cancer.

Second I'd say stake is irrelevant, arguments should be made on logic and facts, sometimes summed up as expertise. Major experience and daily interaction are one way to gain expertise, but an expert should be able to explain why you're wrong and not just tell you that you're wrong and they're right because they're an expert.

Sometimes they're so vested that they literally can't see the other sides perspective unless they've recently lived it. It can be rather condescending.

I know in the OP's other thread it was just shut-down city in there. It seemed like some folks enjoyed shutting down his probing questions and ideas in a condescending (to me) way. If I was Pheller I wouldn't bother asking a group of folks on the internet these questions. Especially when they're not interested in understanding his perspective instead just waiting to swat his shot. But for some reason he just keeps going and they just keep going with him lol. Just ignore each other. 

I've gotta be honest. You lost me at "doer talker". 
 

And Gameboy: I see what you did up there. I chuckled. 

Being opinionated and knowledgeable are two different things. It's also important to be able to adjust your opinion as you gain knowledge- both strengthening and weakening your opinion. Forming an opinion and only accepting evidence that supports it is a tough way to sway other's opinion. 

I'm a very opinionated person, in case nobody has noticed. But realizing that, I'm extremely careful about weighing in on a subject. I tread lightly when someone else brings up a topic that I may be less informed about. I sure as heck don't start the discussion and share my opinion unless I did a boat load of research and know 100% what I'm talking about- especially if I'm taking to an "expert" on the subject. And I try to play devil's advocate and see the other side before I share my opinion. 
 

As far as having a discussion with an expert. I do believe that their opinion should be given some extra weight, until they show that they are not worthy of it or I prove that I have similar knowledge on the matter. That said, I've often found experts are sometimes too close to the subject and get complacent. They can miss things a knowledgeable outsider can notice. But such a opinion should be shared in a respectful and tactful manner. 

yupididit said:

GameboyRMH said:

pheller said:

In my personal life however, its way harder to be the Respectable Doer-Talker. I just had a local long-time businessman tell me in a personal setting "shut up" about my opinions of how local policy changes might our city for the better. He's VERY liberal. We agree on a lot of topics, but some topics for which he benefit are "off the table" in terms of my input. His contention is I'm attacking his livelihood (real estate), so unless I'm there in the trenches with him, I shouldn't voice my opinion. 

What are your thoughts on contributing, both in personal and business settings, on things for which you might only have a minor stake? In your opinion, in order for someone's opinion to be valid, do they have to have had major experience, or daily interaction with that topic?

First of all I'd say it's pretty rich for the guy with a vested interest in the unhealthy status quo to argue that your opinion on the situation as less valid than his. He might as well be an oilman telling you to shut up about energy policy or a cigarette vendor telling you to shut up about how smoking causes lung cancer.

Second I'd say stake is irrelevant, arguments should be made on logic and facts, sometimes summed up as expertise. Major experience and daily interaction are one way to gain expertise, but an expert should be able to explain why you're wrong and not just tell you that you're wrong and they're right because they're an expert.

 

Sometimes they're so vested that they literally can't see the other sides perspective unless they've recently lived it. It can be rather condescending.

I know in the OP's other thread it was just shut-down city in there. It seemed like some folks enjoyed shutting down his probing questions and ideas in a condescending (to me) way. If I was Pheller I wouldn't bother asking a group of folks on the internet these questions. Especially when they're not interested in understanding his perspective instead just waiting to swat his shot. But for some reason he just keeps going and they just keep going with him lol. Just ignore each other. 

I disagree. He already admitted that he's just trying to reword his previous question because he didn't get the answer he wanted. 

So he's not looking for an open, honest debate, he's looking for validation of his preconceived notions. 

That's false. Sorry. 

This topic is completely separate from that one, but was rooted in the fact that someone in that thread said "what are you doing about it?" As if in order to have an opinion, I needed to be a real-estate developer. 

This topic is based around that idea: does someone need to be intimately involved in a subject in order to have an credible opinion about it. 

 

It should be noted however that I didn't start that other topic to convince ya'll of my opinions, I wanted to see what others were experiencing and if they agreed there were problems, what solutions they might have. Not sure if any consensus was formed, but in that topic I came away with one very clear point: the housing market in different parts of the country is different, and asking people about commercial vacancies, vacancy taxes, 2nd home taxes, etc who might live someplace with cheap housing is obviously not going to be the same type of response I might get from a group of locals all experiencing (or witnessing) the same issue as me. 

SVreX is right. Even if I asked a local about this topic, if that local benefited from the status quo, I still wouldn't have much luck convincing them that we should institute a vacancy tax, or charge a higher non-primary residential property tax. Or charge high taxes on vacant land. 

In reply to pheller :

I only own the house I live in and zero other real estate.

I'm in the construction industry so I directly benefit when stuff gets built or renovated.

I do not benefit from the status quo in any particular way.

You still haven't convinced me that it would be a good idea to institute a vacancy tax, charge a higher non-primary residential property tax, or charge high taxes on vacant land.  At all.

As I mentioned in your other thread, taking any of those government-as-activist strategies is just begging the Law of Unintended Consequences to bite you (and by extension, society) in the ass.

Would I do any better to convince you if I owned a large development company and was reducing the cost of rent to my tenants at the expense of my own profit? Like "hey, I think other developers should suffer like I do?" 

Wouldn't you be inclined to say "hey good for you, but no?"

So in that regard, me having a stake in the game, or trying to make positive changes in the world doesn't really matter either because you might disagree with my approach.