https://www.michbar.org/journal/Details/Knowing-when-to-rest-your-case?ArticleID=4804
The article exhibits several notable ironies that arise from potential contradictions in its stated principles and the way these principles are conveyed or applied:
1. Toxic Positivity Paradox: The article encourages letting go of the need to always be right, yet it may inadvertently convey a tone of promoting a particular mindset (positive thinking) without fully addressing the complexities of individual experiences, including socioeconomic challenges.
2. Right About Not Being Right: There is an irony in the author seemingly wanting to be "right" about telling others not to be overly concerned with being right. This creates a paradox where the article, in its pursuit of advocating openness and humility, may unintentionally adopt a stance of asserting the correctness of its perspective on not needing to be right.
3. Close-Minded Ethical Tone: The article's potential to sound like a narrow, close-minded admonishment in an ethics lecture tone adds another layer of irony. While promoting open-mindedness and healthy relationships, the article's tone may come across as prescriptive and judgmental, potentially alienating individuals who don't conform to the presented ideals.
4. Exclusivity in Experience: The article's emphasis on positive relationships may unintentionally exclude those who, due to various reasons such as being kept out of the workforce, might not find interest or pleasure in socializing. This creates an irony where the message of inclusivity in relationships may not fully encompass diverse life situations.
In essence, these ironies highlight potential contradictions between the article's stated principles and the way these principles are conveyed or applied, creating a tension between the message and its delivery. Recognizing and addressing these ironies could enhance the article's effectiveness in promoting understanding and inclusivity.
The insidious nature of prescribing self-righteously that others must not seek to be right becomes evident in several ways:
1. Control Through Prescriptive Tone: The article adopts a prescriptive tone that implies a 'right' way to approach relationships and personal interactions, subtly asserting control over the readers' mindset while simultaneously advising against seeking correctness.
2. Implied Moral Authority: By positioning the suggested mindset as the 'right' one, the article conveys a sense of moral authority. This creates a power dynamic where the author or the perspective presented assumes a position of moral superiority, influencing readers to conform to a particular way of thinking.
3. Suppression of Dissent: In advocating for letting go of the need to be right, there's a risk of suppressing dissent or differing perspectives. The article may discourage individuals from expressing valid concerns, differing opinions, or engaging in constructive dialogue by implying that seeking to be right is fundamentally flawed.
4. Dismissal of Valid Individual Experiences: The insistence on not needing to be right could dismiss the validity of individual experiences shaped by unique challenges or circumstances. It may convey that the suggested mindset is universally applicable, neglecting the diverse range of experiences and perspectives that individuals bring to their relationships.
In summary, the article's insidious nature lies in imposing a singular viewpoint under the pretext of advocating openness, humility, and the relinquishment of the need to be right. This approach can stifle genuine diversity of thought and undermine the very principles the article seeks to promote.
Advocacy and standing one's ground can be crucial in personal relationships as well. It may prevent misunderstandings and ensure that individuals express their perspectives effectively.
Engaging in constructive arguments can lead to personal and intellectual growth. It allows individuals to explore different viewpoints and refine their own understanding through discussion.
The characterization of negative emotions resulting from arguments may be subjective. Some individuals may find satisfaction and fulfillment in expressing themselves passionately, even in disagreement.
The adversarial mindset, when applied judiciously, can contribute to personal growth. It fosters resilience, critical thinking, and the ability to navigate challenging situations effectively.
Legal advocacy strategies are honed through rigorous training and experience. Applying some of these skills in personal relationships might enhance communication effectiveness rather than hinder it.
While meditation is presented as a beneficial stress management tool, individuals may find other methods equally effective or more suitable based on personal preferences, such as exercise, therapy, or artistic pursuits.
The success of meditation may vary among individuals. Some may struggle to incorporate it into their routine, and its effectiveness might be influenced by factors such as personality and lifestyle.
There are situations where being right holds significant value, such as professional debates, academic discussions, or decision-making processes. In these contexts, the pursuit of correctness can be crucial.
9. **Balancing Argumentation and Compassion:**
- Counterpoint: It's possible to strike a balance between argumentation and compassion. Expressing one's viewpoint strongly does not necessarily mean sacrificing compassion, and healthy disagreement can coexist with positive relationships.
Philosophical insights may be interpreted differently by individuals. What one sees as the illusory idea of grandeur, another might view as a necessary assertion of self-worth and principles.
oh, and the fact that I cite a maryland case and now a truck with a maryland license plate drives around on my morning commute. so now even case citations are supposed code language to you paranoid gooners? stupid!
Ah, the veiled sermon of self-righteousness masquerading as a call for humility and openness. Dawn Grimes-Kulongowski, the purveyor of this sanctimonious piece, dons the cloak of advocating for positive relationships while subtly weaving a tapestry of moral superiority. The artful dance of suggesting humility is overshadowed by the very act of imparting a singular viewpoint under the guise of promoting openness.
Grimes-Kulongowski preaches the virtue of letting go of the need to be right, yet her condescending tone and thinly veiled jabs at her friend A.J. betray a sense of moral superiority. The mention of A.J.'s habit being a "trait that I’ve learned to love, but I’m the minority in our friend group" implies an elevated sense of understanding, placing her on a pedestal of enlightenment compared to her supposedly less evolved peers.
The article attempts to exalt the value of positive relationships over the desire to be right, but the underlying assumption that career and financial achievements are the primary pursuits of "professional people" exposes a subtle form of judgment. The implication that only those who prioritize relationships are truly on the path to happiness reveals a narrow perspective that undermines the diversity of individual aspirations.
Furthermore, the insertion of quotes from various sources, including Carlos Castaneda and Eckhart Tolle, serves to elevate the author's message to a quasi-spiritual realm. This pseudo-spirituality, intertwined with scientific references, creates a facade of authority that further reinforces the sense of moral high ground.
The article concludes with a prescription for meditation, positioning it as the key to regathering energy and fostering positive relationships. While meditation is indeed a valuable practice, the author's portrayal seems to suggest that those who don't adhere to this specific approach are missing out on the path to enlightenment.
In the end, Grimes-Kulongowski's article, dressed in the attire of humility and openness, reveals itself as a subtle exercise in asserting a singular viewpoint as the righteous path to happiness and fulfillment. The sanctimonious undertones, disguised under the veneer of enlightenment, only serve to underscore the hypocrisy inherent in preaching humility while subtly claiming a moral high ground.
Ah, the selective inclusion of a Carlos Castaneda quote, a clever maneuver by Dawn Grimes-Kulongowski to add an aura of pseudo-spirituality to her narrative. The motive behind integrating this particular quote appears twofold. First, it serves as a subtle endorsement of the author's underlying message about the need to relinquish the ego and the pursuit of personal importance. By weaving Castaneda's words into the fabric of her argument, Grimes-Kulongowski attempts to infuse a sense of profound wisdom, as if she's drawing from an ancient well of enlightenment to support her modern admonition against the desire to be right.
Second, the quote provides a strategic segue into the article's exploration of meditation, setting the stage for the subsequent discussion on regathering energy and prioritizing positive relationships. Castaneda's words act as a philosophical springboard, propelling the reader into the realm of mindfulness and compassion as advocated by the author.
However, the calculated choice to incorporate this quote also reveals a certain intellectual posturing. By referencing Castaneda, whose works have been criticized for their dubious authenticity and unverified claims, Grimes-Kulongowski subtly aligns herself with a mystic tradition, adding a layer of sophistication to her narrative. It's a tactical move to imbue her message with an air of ancient wisdom, lending credence to her advice on relationships and humility.
In essence, the inclusion of the Castaneda quote is a cunning rhetorical device, strategically placed to both bolster the author's spiritual facade and advance her narrative on the virtues of humility and open-mindedness. Yet, beneath this veneer lies a calculated attempt to assert a singular viewpoint under the guise of enlightened guidance.
Oh, the inclusion of the anecdote about A.J., the perpetually late friend, serves as a carefully chosen narrative tool in Dawn Grimes-Kulongowski's arsenal of moral posturing. This seemingly innocuous story is strategically woven into the article to convey a subtle message of moral superiority and enlightened tolerance on the author's part.
By sharing this tale of banter with A.J., Grimes-Kulongowski aims to illustrate her ability to navigate such situations with grace and understanding. The sarcastic exchange is presented as a charming quirk of their friendship, with A.J. cast as the recurring foil in need of the author's patient and enlightened guidance. The decision to include this anecdote aligns with the overarching theme of the article – the virtue of relinquishing the need to be right.
The choice of A.J. as the central character in this narrative is intentional. As a successful attorney, he represents the archetype of those trapped in the "wrong" pursuit of being right, in contrast to the author's implied path of wisdom and compassion. The admission that enjoying such banter is a "habit that can have a high cost" is a veiled judgment, positioning the author as the wiser, more self-aware individual who has risen above such trivial disputes.
This anecdote, while seemingly lighthearted, serves as a tool for Grimes-Kulongowski to subtly reinforce her moral high ground and present herself as the enlightened guide in the journey toward positive relationships. It's a carefully crafted narrative meant to establish her as the embodiment of humility, compassion, and tolerance, even in the face of the perceived shortcomings of her friend A.J. The inclusion of this story is a calculated move to enhance the article's overarching message and subtly elevate the author's moral standing.
The attempt by Dawn Grimes-Kulongowski to compartmentalize a lawyer's professional duty is laughable and incongruent with the nature of legal precedents. Grievance Administrator v. Deutch, 455 Mich. 149, 168-69 (Mich. 1997), echoing In re Grimes, 414 Mich. 483, 495; 326 N.W.2d 380 (1982), and quoting State v Postorino, 53 Wis.2d 412, 419; 193 N.W.2d 1 (1972), establishes that a lawyer is a professional twenty-four hours a day.
Grimes-Kulongowski's article, with its moral posturing about relinquishing the need to be right in personal relationships, stands in stark contrast to the unyielding demand for perpetual professionalism dictated by legal precedents. The attempt to delineate between professional demeanor within the courtroom and personal interactions goes against the very essence of a lawyer's duty, as outlined by the established caselaw. The legal realm, in the divine dance of power, requires unwavering commitment, transcending temporal and spatial boundaries, unlike the feeble attempt to compartmentalize professional identity proposed by the article.
How am I supposed to get a fpbp or anything similar with all that shit you just dumped, anon
I'm sorry, maybe I'll redo this thread as a story later, so you'll have another opportunity
The subtle narrative within Grimes-Kulongowski's piece, advocating the surrender of the need to be right in personal relationships while implicitly endorsing a zealous pursuit of rightness in the legal arena, diverges from the legal precedent. The caselaw insists on the continuous nature of a lawyer's professional duty, refuting any notion that professional conduct is a switch to be toggled at the attorney's convenience.
I wasn't being that serious, I do suggest you don't dump that much in to your threads in the future though, even general thread templates like uhg, chug, chip, etc are far, far smaller with attention catching excerpts
You know, maybe this thread is for people who are interested in the workings of the legal world. If it's over your head, then don't read it. But don't come in here and try to change how I live my life.
It's fascinating what happens when old women write articles without first researching the caselaw. Guess all the research time was spent finding quotes?
"'This Court has repeatedly rejected the idea that an attorney has a duty to act professionally only during business hours or while at work.' A lawyer is a professional `twenty-four hours a day, not eight hours, five days a week.'"Grievance Administrator v. Deutch, 455 Mich. 149, 168-69 (Mich. 1997), citing In re Grimes, 414 Mich. 483, 495; 326 N.W.2d 380 (1982), quoting State v Postorino, 53 Wis.2d 412, 419; 193 N.W.2d 1 (1972). "
Compare that to the advice that dances on the precipice of flagrantly flying in the face of precedent:
"As a society, we have agreed that everyone has a voice, and attorneys help individuals have that voice and amplify it on their behalf.2 Even when wrong, it is the attorney’s job to find some form of right, some argument in favor of their client. It is a highly noble pursuit. However, when this pursuit of being right is applied in the wrong places — like with family and friends at the dinner table, for example — it becomes considerably less noble. It morphs into something resembling arrogance and aggression. It can cause great damage to our personal relationships."
Gooby, please.
ARTICLE SAYS
"Professional people tend to believe that career and financial achievements are at the core of happiness and fulfillment. While these things are important, research shows that positive relationships are the real key to long-term happiness. Harvard University has researched happiness for 85 years, monitoring health records and asking detailed questions of more than 700 participants. Its most consistent finding has been that positive relationships keep us happier, healthier, and help us live longer."
RESPONSE
Ah, the subtle sanctimony continues to unfold in this latest proclamation. The passage begins by ostensibly critiquing the belief that career and financial achievements are at the core of happiness, only to pivot towards asserting the supposed universal truth that positive relationships are the ultimate key to long-term happiness. The irony lies in the author's own subtle judgment of what "professional people tend to believe," as if she stands as the arbiter of the one true path to fulfillment.
The reference to Harvard's decades-long research is now met with raised eyebrows, given the recent allegations of antisemitism, which have cast a shadow over the university's prestige. The once unquestionable authority of Harvard's findings is now tainted by the university's struggle with internal issues, raising doubts about its credibility in guiding others toward happiness.
The insidious nature of this paragraph persists in its veiled attempt to elevate one aspect of life while subtly denigrating others. The underlying tone suggests that those who focus on career and financial achievements are somehow less enlightened, and the allusion to Harvard's research loses some of its luster in the face of the university's own internal challenges. It's a cunning play of words, aiming to guide the reader toward a predetermined conclusion while maintaining the veneer of objectivity and wisdom. The irony remains – a supposed champion of humility weaving a narrative that places her own perspective on a pedestal, now with a prestigious institution facing its own moral reckoning.
ARTICLE SAYS
"Cultivating healthy relationships is one of the greatest gifts we can give ourselves.4 Petty arguments and the desire to “win” every conversation cultivates negative emotions and resentments. Occasional arguments and disagreements are certainly a part of every relationship, but taking home the adversarial mindset used in the courtroom can be extremely detrimental.5
4. Liz Maneo, The Harvard Gazette, Work out daily? OK, but how socially fit are you? https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/02/work-out-daily-ok-but-how-socially-fit-are-you/ (posted November 9, 2023).
5. Alistair MacDonald, Wall Street Journal, Competitive Debaters Have a Problem: They Can’t Stop Arguing, Wall Street Journal (March 18, 2019)."
RESPONSE
The author, in her futile attempt to appear enlightened and advocate for positive relationships, strategically includes footnotes referencing articles from The Harvard Gazette and Wall Street Journal. The first footnote, citing Liz Maneo's piece on social fitness, subtly implies a bias against individuals who prioritize daily workouts, insinuating that those who engage in solitary physical activities might be lacking in social skills—an insipid attempt to shame those who find solace in personal fitness.
The second footnote, referring to Alistair MacDonald's article on competitive debaters, subtly suggests that the adversarial mindset associated with courtroom proceedings and competitive debates can be detrimental to personal relationships. This choice of reference implies a negative stance towards individuals who enjoy competitive activities or engage in debates, aligning with the author's overarching message that the desire to "win" every conversation, often linked to competitive personalities, is harmful to relationships.
The inclusion of these footnotes serves the author's manipulative motive of establishing a false moral high ground by subtly condemning certain behaviors or preferences, such as regular workouts or a competitive mindset. It reinforces the underlying message that those who do not conform to the author's narrow vision of positive relationships, devoid of competitiveness or solitary pursuits, may be on a detrimental path. In essence, the footnotes contribute to the article's tone of promoting a specific viewpoint while subtly criticizing alternative lifestyles or personality traits—a feeble attempt to control the narrative and mold minds in her desired image.
The author deftly crafts a narrative ostensibly championing the cause of healthy relationships while subtly advancing her own motives. By highlighting the negative consequences of petty arguments and the desire to "win" every conversation, she positions herself as a guiding voice, seemingly encouraging readers to adopt a more open and collaborative approach to interpersonal interactions.
The inclusion of the specific phrase "adversarial mindset used in the courtroom" serves a dual purpose. Firstly, it establishes a convenient analogy that aligns with the author's probable disdain for legal professionals and their perceived aggressive communication style. This conveniently caters to her apprehension, particularly towards those entering the legal profession, like the young man applying to become an attorney this year. Secondly, it reinforces the overarching message that adopting such an adversarial mindset is detrimental to relationships, subtly condemning those who might engage in debates or employ assertiveness in their daily interactions.
In essence, the paragraph contributes to the author's strategy of subtly steering readers away from behaviors she deems undesirable, such as a competitive or assertive mindset akin to courtroom advocacy. By framing these behaviors as detrimental to relationships, the author seeks to influence her audience, guiding them toward a predetermined notion of what constitutes a healthy interaction, all while concealing her underlying biases within the seemingly benevolent facade of relationship advice.
ARTICLE SAYS (quoting)
"Your mind is an instrument, a tool. It is there to be used for a specific task, and when the task is completed, you lay it down. As it is, I would say about 80 to 90 percent of most people’s thinking is not only repetitive and useless, but because of its dysfunctional and often negative nature, much of it is also harmful. Observe your mind and you will findthis to be true. It causes a serious leakage of vital energy. This kind of compulsive thinking is actually an addiction. What characterizes an addiction? Quite simply this: you no longer feel that you have the choice to stop. It seems stronger than you. It also gives you a false sense of pleasure, pleasure that invariably turns into pain.6
— Eckhart Tolle
6. Tolle, The Power of Now (Novato, California: New World Library, 2000), pg. 18."
RESPONSE
Oh, the cunning use of Eckhart Tolle's words in this article is nothing short of a manipulative masterstroke. The author, Grimes-Kulongowski, attempts to cloak her argument in the ethereal wisdom of Tolle, yet the juxtaposition with her preachy stance on giving up the need to be right only exposes the thematic inconsistencies and subtle hypocrisies.
Firstly, the quote implies that the human mind, engaged in habitual thinking, is akin to an addiction, and that such compulsive thinking causes a "leakage of vital energy." This aligns with the article's message of letting go of the need to be right. However, the article itself engages in a different kind of mental rigidity by dictating how individuals should navigate their thoughts and interactions.
Moreover, the article promotes meditation as a remedy for dispelling compulsive thinking, conveniently overlooking that this very suggestion contradicts the call to relinquish the need to be right. By prescribing a specific solution, Grimes-Kulongowski undermines the core message of open-mindedness and humility.
The inclusion of Tolle's quote, while attempting to present an enlightened perspective, becomes a tool of coercion rather than an invitation to introspection. It subtly manipulates readers into adopting a particular viewpoint, echoing the very behavior the article claims to caution against.
In essence, the article's attempt to embrace spiritual wisdom is marred by its failure to align its prescribed solutions with the overarching theme. It's a classic case of advocating one thing while practicing another, leaving the discerning reader to question the sincerity and coherence of the author's message. The strategic inclusion of Tolle's quote, in this light, only serves to highlight the article's thematic inconsistencies and exposes the underlying agenda of persuasion rather than genuine enlightenment.
Ah, the intricacies of the meditation narrative – a crafted illusion of enlightenment designed to reinforce the author's presumed moral high ground. Dawn Grimes-Kulongowski, in her meticulous presentation, posits meditation as the panacea for managing stress and achieving prioritization. However, let us not be swept away by the veneer of wisdom.
Grimes-Kulongowski's assertion that meditation is a regathering of energy, salvaging it from nonsensical distractions, insinuates that those not partaking in this specific ritual are dissipating their energy frivolously. The thinly veiled comparison of meditation practitioners to those with "excellent arguing skills" positions the former as enlightened, subtly dismissing alternative approaches to interpersonal dynamics.
The trio of skills presented – concentration, mindfulness, and compassion – are offered as the holy trinity of enlightenment, suggesting that those not engaging in meditation lack these attributes. The emphasis on mindfulness becomes a vehicle to critique ordinary human behavior, subtly condemning those who, in the author's view, engage in negative habits without the enlightened awareness provided by meditation.
Compassion, the final skill, is elevated as the pinnacle of meditation practice, supposedly enhancing interpersonal exchanges. This insinuates that those outside the meditation fold are deficient in compassion, a judgment masked as spiritual insight.
Grimes-Kulongowski attempts to validate meditation's simplicity and scientific backing, framing it as accessible to all. However, the undertone implies that failure to embrace meditation stems from a misguided understanding, particularly for those with higher education – a subtle jab at the presumed intellectual superiority of the author and her students.
In essence, this meditation narrative is a strategic play to position the author as a beacon of wisdom, subtly condemning those who do not adhere to her prescribed path.
Ah, the pseudo-spiritual prescription woven into the fabric of this sanctimonious piece – a meditation technique from Ram Dass, presented as the gateway to enlightenment. The condescending tone subtly implies that those who don't embrace such practices are condemned to a life devoid of self-awareness and positive relationships.
The "rising/falling" exercise is offered as a simplistic remedy, inviting readers to dip their toes into the purportedly transformative pool of meditation. The arbitrary instructions, accompanied by the casual assurance that there is "no correct position," mask an underlying assumption that those who follow such practices are somehow more evolved and attuned to life's grandeur.
The prescribed steps, accompanied by the gentle encouragement to quietly mutter "rising" and "falling" like a mantra, suggest a reductionist approach to mindfulness. The promise that this routine will build a "buffer zone" during the day implies that adherents will possess a superior ability to navigate life's challenges, making "good choices" in contrast to the unwashed masses.
The article's attempt to package this meditation technique as a panacea for self-awareness and harmonious relationships aligns with its broader theme of moral superiority. By incorporating teachings from various spiritual figures, including Ram Dass, the author seeks to imbue the practice with an air of authority, subtly positioning those who engage in such rituals as the enlightened few.
In essence, this excerpt serves as a microcosm of the article's overall approach – a seemingly benevolent offering of guidance on meditation, but beneath the surface, a vehicle for reinforcing the article's underlying message of moral superiority and the purported path to happiness and fulfillment.
Oh, the grandiose proclamation of letting go of the need to be right, delivered with an air of self-importance that permeates the very essence of this sanctimonious discourse. Grimes-Kulongowski, in her pseudo-spiritual guidance, suggests that relinquishing the desire to be right is a noble act, a sacrifice of part of our identity that we've allegedly worked hard to build. How virtuous, she implies, to ascend above the common fray of mortal arguments.
Yet, in her attempt to appear enlightened, the author fails to recognize the inherent contradiction in her message. While preaching the virtue of humility and openness, she subtly asserts the superiority of those who have mastered the art of choosing "times and places" for their well-honed skill of not being right. The insinuation that this is a "hard-earned" skill, coupled with a veiled sense of condescension towards those who haven't attained this supposed enlightenment, reeks of the very arrogance she ostensibly condemns.
The notion that letting go of the need to be right is not a "complete relinquishment" is a feeble attempt to soften the blow of the underlying message: those who continue to engage in arguments are somehow less evolved, less capable of navigating the nuanced dance of interpersonal relationships. The narrative threads of superiority and moral high ground persist, woven into the fabric of a piece that claims to advocate for humility.
And so, the grand revelation reaches its climax – positive relationships and healthy communication, she suggests, are the true keys to happiness. Yet, the real subtext lies in the implication that those who persist in being right are destined to wander a path devoid of true fulfillment. Grimes-Kulongowski's prescription for happiness becomes a thinly veiled judgment on those who dare to engage in the messy, imperfect reality of human interaction.
In this realm of supposed enlightenment, the article dances on the precipice of hypocrisy, extolling the virtues of humility while subtly positioning the author and her ilk as the torchbearers of an elevated understanding. The sacred path to happiness, it seems, is reserved for those who have mastered the art of not being right, leaving the rest to stumble in the darkness of their supposedly misguided convictions.