Civil Discourse

I am starting a new thread in response to comments on the “Truck Parking; Carpe Diem” thread regarding my invective, which I will state below what I think Rookie Doyenne considered my invective.

I have also copied the posts from that thread here so that everyone has the topic in context.

Rookie Doyenne made the following comment, that was somewhat perplexing, because I didn’t understand the invective from the “Truck Parking; Carpe Diem” thread.

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

However, Rookie Doyenne is correct, in that I am frank and blunt in my language and opinions, often insensitive, sometimes to the point of being brutal, in being inconsiderate of others. I won’t get into the details of my perspective on cultural values and the rule of “polite society.” Suffice it to say, that I waffle back and forth between completely disengaging from all social interaction and speaking my mind as I choose.

But I did not start this thread to be “all about me.” Rather, as the topic says, and as Rookie Doyenne has pointed out, sometimes you need to say something in a particular way to get your point across. Because of certain cultural values and the rules of polite society, your message is not heard because you have offended the listener. And therein lies the age old problem of communication and why I don’t moderate my message—people often only listen to what they like to hear; or people will hear what they like, regardless of what the speaker says.

This goes back to Ancient Egypt (again, pontificating which is probably another reason why people don’t like my posts). It is the mark of a successful salesman—flatter your customer and tell them what they want to hear, and you can sell “ice to eskimos.” And when you become a good enough salesman, you can sell ice to the entire tribe of eskimos. Such dynamic people become cults of personality and people will believe whatever those dynamic people say, no matter if two minutes of internet research tells you they are wrong.

But there are certain independent thinkers in this world, who don’t subscribe to the belief du jour. Rather they make up their own minds. Brett has challenged the current belief du jour. Brett started this website because of the plethora of disinformation about trucking. IMO, (which I think Brett’s actions substantiate), Brett is an independent thinker. And independent thinkers often receive scorn when they challenge the belief du jour.

I believe this is the invective that Rookie Doyenne did not like:

They act like they WANT this to be worse than it is, which is one of the reasons why I don't like to watch the TV news.

I’m sure it offended Rookie Doyenne as well the others who argued against Brett’s position. I followed that up with a comment on what drives the media to sensationalize tragedy for the benefit of their ratings. My comment pointed out that those who want to believe the media hype are almost championing that people die. I also made another comment about Governor Cuomo’s comment about 26,000 people dying. While it may be harsh, this is great ratings for the media and the politicians are using this as a political football.

While I may be harsh in my language and opinions, I do consider myself a compassionate person. In my stalker mentality (again, making people feel uncomfortable), I had noticed Rookie Doyenee’s absence of posts. I have also noticed that Diver Driver has not commented since I made the comment about him on the meet-up thread.

If you’ve made it this far, I do have a point that relates to the topic of civil discourse. Is it my language and opinions that offends people, or is it the fact that my language and opinions deviate from cultural values and the rules of “polite society” and may be what people don't "like to hear." In other words, am I not a good salesman because I don’t flatter people and tell them what they want to hear. If I did that, I don’t think that I would actually make my point. Because as Old School said in my training diary thread:

Expect to be tried beyond what would normally unsettle you.

You don’t grow if you stay in your comfort zone. And you don’t have productive civil discourse if everyone just listens to what they like to hear and lives in the echo chamber. So I will probably continue to speak my mind as I have, because to a certain extent, it makes people think, even if they don’t like what I say or how I say it.

I hope that Rookie Doyenne continues to voice her opinion, even if it means she "attacks" me.

I hope that Diver Driver tells me that he thinks my comment was disturbing, as my good friend Packrat told me.

I endured the barrage of daily insults from my DIs in Marine basic. There is very little you can say to me that will make me run off with my tail between my legs.

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

Unsubstantiated opinions have a place - it's called free speech or written expression.

I believe they undermine credibility when mixed with other ideas. Not just your post below. Many here of late.

I've just stopped reading many posts after the first line or two. Free choice of listening or reading.

You may have heard the U.S. Interstate System referred to as the Eisenhower Interstate System. One would think that it is because Eisenhower was President when the interstate system was envisioned and planned, which is true to a certain extent. But Eisenhower championed the interstate system because of his experience as an Army General in Europe. Specifically, the Autobahn. His experience with transportation logistics, from a military strategy standpoint, influenced his role in promoting the interstate system. The full name of the U.S. Interstate System is the Dwight D. Eisenhower National System of Interstate and DEFENSE Highways. In addition to facilitation of traffic during peacetime, Eisenhower considered the U.S. Interstate System as an integral part of a military strategy in the time of war.

Original Intent and Purpose of the Interstate System

So what does this have to do with truck parking? As everyone is aware, lack of adequate parking is a major problem for drivers. But it also represents the same type of “bottleneck” from a transportation logistics standpoint that the U.S. Interstate System sought to alleviate.

As you are also aware, the narrative with regard to the Coronavirus has referred to this crisis as a time of war. And people have become very aware of the importance of transportation logistics. With the current focus on transportation logistics, IMO, this would be a great time to develop a narrative for expansion of available truck parking. Both Trump and the Democrats have already floated a proposal for infrastructure funding as the next phase of the Coronavirus crisis. While much of the focus has been on rebuilding the current interstate system as it is, among other things, interjection of trucking parking could easily become part of the narrative and any infrastructure plan, if promoted properly. From a transportation logistics standpoint, because truck parking is already a significant bottleneck during normal freight volumes, it will get only worse during a crisis when more trucks fill the interstate. No matter how efficient your supply chain and interstate systems are, your freight volume capacity will be limited by its weakest link—truck parking. So developing a narrative of how important truck parking is with regard to crisis transportation logistics, would help solve the already long standing problem in trucking.

I already have a soundbite for Governor Cuomo. “You decide the people who die, because a truck hauling ventilators has no place to park!”

While I’m not a big fan of politics, let alone sensational politics, you get my point.

I have other ideas as to some specific solutions in addition to simply building more truck parking, but I would like to hear other thoughts on the topic and my perspective first.

Rob, do you think your idea would be enhanced without invective? I do.

Unsubstantiated opinions have a place - it's called free speech or written expression.

I believe they undermine credibility when mixed with other ideas. Not just your post below. Many here of late.

I've just stopped reading many posts after the first line or two. Free choice of listening or reading.

Where's the invective?

I thought Rob's post and idea to be articulate, forward-thinking, and thought-provoking.

Free choice of listening or reading.

Indeed. Free to move on, as well.

Nope. That is not my opinion, G-Town. I didn't write anything like that. Counting on you to be fair.

My opinion is that unsubstantiated statements - opinions or otherwise - can be problematic in functional communication or in higher-purposed "like minded", "meeting of the minds" comprehension.

My opinion is that it does not necessarily enhance concrete, fact and reference-based points and material to include unsubstantiated opinions. That is my own - unsubstantiated - opinion!

Why doesn't that fly?

Rob, after reading much on here that frankly doesn't go over well with me, I picked your post to effectively disagree with something. This wasn't entirely an arbitrary choice. From my view, I'm not picking on you or attacking you. Can only ask you to trust this was not my intention.

Two things I'm not going to explain:

1. which statement Rob made that I consider "invective"

2. why I picked Rob's post to make a point of disagreement that could have been made elsewhere, and in doing so it was for reasons quite opposite to picking on or attacking Rob

Does anybody understand why I'm making a deliberate choice not to explain?

I strive for high standards in interpersonal communication. Before this thread or others builds on assumptions to any unspoken meanings on my part, kindly point out where I've failed.

Rob wrote:

If the general consensus is that my posts don't contribute to the forum or that they are too offensive, I will stop posting. I'm sure that once I'm out there driving, I wont' have as much free time to post on the forum, so it won't be a major loss to me.

That is not the general consensus Rob. One person's opinion.

I wouldn't worry about it too much. We all come from different walks of life, raised differently and view different things more strongly. It's no different than talking to a group of people in person. Somebody will misinterpret what you're saying or twist it to fit what they want to believe. It may or may not make them happy. It isn't your job to hold back on what you think or feel because it may offend someone, same goes for the person involved in the other thread.

Also I wouldn't worry about the diver driver comment. He randomly pops in and out so I doubt him not commenting lately has anything to do with your comment.

I love that we have a variety of personality types and people with different life experiences here. I enjoy seeing how people's past affects their ability to overcome challenges they face in this industry. Will they run at the first sign of trouble or find a way to overcome it.

I agree with Rob T. You're perhaps putting more thought into the reactions and opinions of others than is necessary, or warranted.

You sat potato, I say potato.

We welcome opinions and arguments from all sides when given in a respectful manner. I took issue with Rookie's remark simply because it had nothing to do with your otherwise innocent thread, and derailed it completely.

Rob D., your comment on the interstate system was very informative. There was nothing I read that was invective about it. In fact, many of your comments are straight shootin' to me....mainly because it's how I think. Tho, I don't speak a lot of my thoughts out loud to people because it can cause issues and for me, it's just easier to wash my hands of the matter.

Anyway, don't 2d guess yourself, keep posting and have a good weekend.

Laura

That's the longest post I have ever read that when I finished had no idea what I had just read. Your first post said nothing bad and bringing the ancient Egyptians into it did not change that. HAHAHAHA