Are "Negative" Posts a Good Thing or a Bad Thing?

[Brian Essi]

neg·a·tive defined.

adjective
1. consisting in or characterized by the absence rather than the presence of distinguishing features.
2. (of a person, attitude, or situation) not desirable or optimistic.
"the new tax was having a very negative effect on car sales"
synonyms: pessimistic, defeatist, gloomy, cynical, fatalistic, dismissive, antipathetic, critical;

noun
1. a word or statement that expresses denial, disagreement, or refusal.
"she replied in the negative"
synonyms: “no”, refusal, rejection, veto; More

verb
1. reject; refuse to accept; veto.
"the bill was negatived by 130 votes to 129"
2. render ineffective; neutralize.

So is "negative" posting a good thing or a bad thing?

[james fitzgibbons]

Negative posts can be a positive because it can advance discussions and bring about a deeper understanding of issues.
Although a open minded attitude is necessary to have any gains. Confrontations work, as a talk show person has said. So I think negative posts are sometimes helpful.

[cmager]

Mr. Essi,
I believe one is asked to relate the post to Lakewood, as in..."Are Negative Posts a Good Thing or a Bad Thing - in Lakewood?" Think of it as one would fortune cookies..."You will meet interesting people this week" and then append the fortune with "in bed". Works for anything.

[cameron karslake]

negative/positive

dark/light

yin/yang

you can't have one without the other.

both are entirely essential for healthy discourse.

[m buckley]

What the hell is a negative post?
Is it negative to point out that the Mayor and his administration have misled us?
Is it negative to comment on the complete lack of transparency that is the defining characteristic of this administration?
Is it negative to object to a city council that repeatedly slinks off to some broom closet at city hall under the cover of executive session?
Because if that's what is being defined as negative then how do you even begin to come up with the pejorative adjective to define their conduct.
What is glaring about all of this is that the Summers administration has repeatedly acted as a corrosive agent. Dividing this community without even the remotest attempt at reconciliation. You want negative? That is what is negative. Identifying that conduct for what it is, that's just telling the truth.

[Bridget Conant]

M Buckley nails it yet again.

If speaking out against corruption or injustice is "negative," if voicing your opinion about serious issues facing your city is "negative," if asking for clarification is "negative," then how do we ever look ourselves in the mirror? Is the United States a great country because we go along, get along, and keep quiet or is it because we have the right, no the DUTY, to speak out and ask questions or voice opinions.

If I want a steady diet of juvenile and Pollyannaish "good news," I can always go to the new city sponsored Facebook page where only sweetness and light are allowed. "Oh, it's sunny out! There are flowers! Isn't Lakewood awesome?" How about just admitting it's really nothing but a promotional tool to control the message before the election?

Like Cameron said, life is good AND bad. An adult should be able to handle both. If not, don't click.

[Brian Essi]

Mr. Buckley and Ms. Conant,

You are among brightest "flowers and sunshine" in Lakewood.

[Jim O'Bryan]

What the hell is a negative post?
Is it negative to point out that the Mayor and his administration have misled us?
Is it negative to comment on the complete lack of transparency that is the defining characteristic of this administration?
Is it negative to object to a city council that repeatedly slinks off to some broom closet at city hall under the cover of executive session?
Because if that's what is being defined as negative then how do you even begin to come up with the pejorative adjective to define their conduct.
What is glaring about all of this is that the Summers administration has repeatedly acted as a corrosive agent. Dividing this community without even the remotest attempt at reconciliation. You want negative? That is what is negative. Identifying that conduct for what it is, that's just telling the truth.

M buckley

In Lakewood a negative post would be:

1) Any post on the Observer. It is far easier to say that, that think, or check. As we witnessed here, "The Deck is the Hospital Deck" less than a 1/4 of the posts on page one have to do with the post.

2) Any post than is contrary to their belief, or opinion. Conversation has died in America.

3) Any post that couple underline potential issues in a community. This week we found out, looking for someone armed and dangerous, even mention he is on the loose was negative by some of the most negative people in the city. The star chamber, much like the mayor decided resident safety was way down the list, top was preserving illusions.

In the world where everyone gets a blue ribbon, humans erect so many false constructs to get through a day or their lives it is crazy. Survival, the psychology of it is fascinating.

It doesn't matter, but when City Hall engages in state sponsored terrorism on residents, then plant "creeps" to change topics, keep them positive on city hall, and if you persist, follow you to teach you a lesson about being negative in public places. It reeks of history no American should ever walk down.

Funny I am writing a piece on Free Speech, and some of the things I uncovered are pretty weild.

"This branch of the activity was mainly ruled by the Ministero della Cultura Popolare (Ministry of popular culture), commonly abbreviated as Min. Cul.Pop. (with a weird assonance). This administration had competence on all the contents that could appear in newspapers, radio, literature, theatre, cinema, and generally any other form of communication or art.

In literature, editorial industries had their own controlling servants steadily on site, but sometimes it could happen that some texts reached the libraries and in this case an efficient organization was able to capture all the copies in a very short time."

"Chattering en plein air was indeed very risky, as a special section of investigators dealt with what people was saying on the roads; an eventual accusation by some policeman in disguise was evidently very hard to disprove and many people reported of having been falsely accused of anti-national sentiments, just for personal interests of the spy. Consequently, after the first cases, people commonly avoided talking publicly." Mussolini, regime, Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_Italy

In Nazi Germany, they Minister of Propoganda would place "citizens" where people gather to strike down anti-government talk. Taking names and visiting them later to "talk to them." Limiting, controlling free speech are the earliest hallmarks of a fascist state.

From "Five New Threats On Free Speech Today"
http://www.spiked-online.com/newsite/ar ... yyObD8wbv4

Reverse Voltaire's - Now, however, we have the rise of the reverse-Voltaires. The cri de coeur of today’s hardcore offence-takers turns his principle inside out: ‘I know I’ll despise and be offended by whatever you are going to say, and I will defend to the end of free speech my right to stop you saying it.’ The reverse-Voltaires do not wish to dispute an idea or an argument that offends them. They would deny the other person’s right to say it in the first place. Voltaire was considered one of the pioneers of Free Speech.

For those that champion the Second Amendment, and forget the first, the second has little meaning as well.

.

[Brian Essi]

I'm a champion of the 28th amendment

[james fitzgibbons]

That would be a great start to help make things equal in America. Never happen! They stick together like Super Glue. Men and women that have ambitions to be in control of others lives are dangerous. Money is the root of all evil.

[Gary Rice]

I think that LOVE of money (rather than money itself) was the root of all evil, but we digress...

Just a little food for thought here, without getting negative.

History shows us that negativity is not a new phenomonon. So-called "negative" people do however, get our attention, and, while virtually none of us will claim to be attracted to negativity, there seems to be some sort of morbid latent universal human fascination with negative stuff.

The thing is, from a logical standpoint, REAL negativity, (being after all, by its very nature, negative) can never be a constructive end in itself, nor can it even serve as a truly legitimate means to an end. (as anyone being fed to the lions would likely attest...)

So the real question would be: Is what we commonly think of as "negativity", REALLY negative? Especially if some kind of good comes out of it?

True negativity only tears down, but some people confuse true negativity with civil disobedience, or with offering resistance to powers that be, when the people involved with resisting believe that they are in the right. Then, people may not feel that they are being negative at all! Pointing out ways for society to improve can also be perceived as being negative, while those who are doing so likely imagine themselves as being heroic.

Perceptions and perspectives are admittedly involved in this discussion. People sometimes accused me of being negative when I stood up for the rights of disabled people. There are also those who look at some politicians as being negative, when I'm sure those same politicians would no doubt feel that they were only trying to provide a different solution.

There is an 1835 quote, reportedly attributed to Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, that I think, would seem to relate to this discussion: (Here, he was referring to religious differences, but you could also arguably plug in other differences that people have, and see whether any of these dots connect)

"The doctrine which, from the very first origin of religious dissensions, has been held by bigots of all sects, when condensed into a few words and stripped of rhetorical disguise, is simply this: I am in the right, and you are in the wrong. When you are the stronger, you ought to tolerate me; for it is your duty to tolerate truth. But when I am the stronger, I shall persecute you; for it is my duty to persecute error."

And that, I believe, my Lakewood friends, sums up very well why someone else's so-called "negativity" may very well not appear to be the same as how you and I may look at "negativity".


Food for thought?

Back to the banjo...

[Brian Essi]

Thanks All.

So back to the definition of "negative" I quoted above, it appears that posts that are aimed at "veto, refusal to accept, to neutralize" etc. of that which is wrong and oppressive are actually a good and positive thing and not "negative" in the pejorative sense.

So, for example, when Mathew Lee claims that the Deck has become 80% hospital posts implying something "negative", it appears that it's largely good and positive

Carry on with the good all you "negative" posters.

[Matthew Lee]

Thanks All.

So back to the definition of "negative" I quoted above, it appears that posts that are aimed at "veto, refusal to accept, to neutralize" etc. of that which is wrong and oppressive are actually a good and positive thing and not "negative" in the pejorative sense.

So, for example, when Mathew Lee claims that the Deck has become 80% hospital posts implying something "negative", it appears that it's largely good and positive

Carry on with the good all you "negative" posters.

Hi Mr. Essi,

I never implied it was "negative". My claim is that it would be nice to split the deck and have all the hospital posts elsewhere. Whether they are "negative" or not is besides the point. If you want to feel that the hospital issue is a good thing for the Deck to be consumed with, that is where we differ. I never even claimed the hospital posts are "negative". What I do claim is that the spirit of the Lakewood General Discussion board, again just in my humble opinion, has been consumed by the hospital issue and has not been as friendly or as useful as it once was.

Again, completely my opinion and certainly respect the rights of those to have differing opinions.

Cheers,

Matthew

[james fitzgibbons]

It was a positive vote for negative posts, glad that has been settled.

[Bridget Conant]

Is the Deck "consumed" with the hospital issue? I'd counter that the community is faced with an issue that will totally alter the future of the city and the the interest in that is reflected in the postings and conversations on the Deck.

But, then again, maybe not. As Jim noted, very few of the topics on the first page are hospital related. At present, only 3 are related to the issue, out of 30. Seems easy enough to ignore the 10% of topics that don't interest you.