Oprostajna zurka za Biljanu Srbljanovic

тако крдо ради, збијете се густо па удри. прво грло кренуло, АААААЈМО

ja? ne verujem ti....

епизоде су за лузере. мејн рол!

i svima toplo preporučujem 'Jungovu mapu duše' by Marej Stajn, a u vezi sa prethodnim komentarom str. 49 'dopiranje do nesvesnog', brzina je nebitna, čak nemoguća .o)

је боље од немишљења. но, коме ја то причам?

Do you enjoy playing the devil's advocate? Are you constantly offering your opposing opinion when it is not asked for? Do you find yourself saying the word "but" often in your conversation with others?
You may be an argumentative talker. There is an effective way to take an opposing view, but it may destroy rapport. There is a way to give your opinion, but it may be received as unwanted advice. When you continue to oppose the comments of your listener, you run the risk of making them feel wrong, stupid, or uninformed.

Men and women seem to view communication differences in different ways. I often notice that men will say, "we had a debate" or "an intense conversation" and women will indicate that they had "a fight" or an "argument."

The argumentative communicator, whether a man or a woman should be aware that their communication efforts may immediately be perceived as a "fight" (the worst of the four above labels) regardless of the intent of the communicator.

I have a confession to make. I was a debater in high school and like Jack Welch (former CEO of GE) I find a good debate stimulating and enlightening.

Debate generally can be described as a structured discussion where individuals cite evidence about an issue in an attempt to persuade another person. Debate is an intellectual process where it is OK and preferable to be "right." While I do enjoy debating very much, I do not enjoy arguing, which is emotionally based.

Arguing is where two or more people disagree about some subject, they raise their voices and make the discussion personal by bringing in the other person's intentions.

What's the difference between debate and an argument?

In debate we cite evidence with the intent to validate our point of view. In arguments we cite evidence, make claims about the negative intention of the other person's behavior, and become very emotional to the point where apologies will be in order after the communication is finished because one or both parties will have their feelings hurt. In an argument the individual feels attacked. When the attack is perceived as hostile, with intention to harm, I call this a "fight."

Perceptions are tricky things. One person may be simply debating or discussing a subject intellectually with no intent to harm. The other person may perceive such communication as intending to harm them and they feel as if they are in a fight with a need to defend themselves instead of their point of view! Sometimes it takes quite a long time for the person who is debating to come to the conclusion that the other person is upset and fighting.

There are no easy and clearly defined answers to rapidly determine whether someone thinks you are arguing, fighting, debating or discussing. Therefore it is vital to ask if it's "OK to have this conversation" or at least smile. It's also important to keep sarcasm out of discussions and debates if it isn't obvious to the other person that you are having fun with them...instead of poking fun at them.

Argumentative communicators need to be right. They want to defeat their opponent as if the dining room or boardroom is a courtroom where only one person can "win."

In interpersonal communications or in business, it's critical to remember that it's very easy for no one to win. This doesn't mean to stop disagreeing or intellectually pursuing what is good and right. But it is very important to make sure those we have discussions with do not feel attacked.

It's important to separate the idea from the person
There is an additional problem. You and I both know that we often take possession of our ideas as if they were our identity. If people's ideas and verbalized thoughts are always experienced at the level of one's identity, then all debate will become perceived as fighting or arguing. Therefore, when this pattern of communication erupts it's important to separate the idea from the person. This doesn't stop discussion and debates from becoming arguments and fights but it does add clarity to the conversation.

If you are discussing something with someone and they perceive you as argumentative, I suggest you ask the person, "How can I present counter examples and other points of view to you so that you are not offended and your feelings are not hurt?" I thought of this wonderful question many times when it was simply too late to ask.

If you experience numerous people saying things like, "You just love to argue don't you?" or "Why do you always argue with me?" or "I don't want to fight with you," then regardless of whether you are fighting with people or not you need to reconsider your approach to communication so you are perceived as less abrasive.

Many times people who are intellectuals (whether they are "intellectual snobs" or not!) are considered argumentative simply because they have such a broad or deep knowledge about something that they are constantly the individual with superior knowledge about a subject. This can lead others to feeling inferior.

In these situations it can be useful for the person pereceived as superior and therefore the one who often puts others "on edge" or "on the defensive" to reduce the number of verbalizations in a communication and "tighten up their communication." Make long speeches shorter. Ask more questions and have fewer total words spoken in dialogue.

Remember: Where one person knows seems to know everything, the other person is not necessary...or at least that's how they feel.

Most brilliant people got that way because they were incredibly inquisitive. This too can become a problem. Asking questions of others is a great way to learn about how others feel, think and believe but believe it or not...there are lines that can be crossed here as well!

Many people process their "thoughts" through their "feelings." You can ask someone what they are thinking and they will say, "I don't know," "nothing", "not much," "nothing important," and so on.

These people aren't planning major life events in their mind, they are simply in the moment...in their feelings and because they process information differently from verbalizing thinkers, they often feel inadequate in a relationship or are pegged as poor communicators. In fact, they may not be good communicators but they can improve their communication skills if others don't put an enormous amount of pressure on them.

If you are a person who takes time to process external information and you don't communicate well about information you have just received, a good strategy to appear more competent is to say things like, "I need to consider what you've said...to ponder it." "Let me think about what you've said. I'd like to talk with you tomorrow about it, when I've taken the time it deserves." "My initial reaction is positive and I'd like to take some more time to consider it."

What this does is allow the two parties to know that there is no problem with what was communicated by the verbalizing party and that they are indeed considering the information, not ignoring it as verbalizers often feel others are doing "to them."

"Non-verbalizers" (people who use few words in the course of a day or a conversation) often become angry when they are asked to express more than they already have said. This leads them to argue from their feeling base. "Why do you always make me feel bad?" "You're mean." "You don't respect my feelings." They might raise their voice and repeat the same sets of feelings or thoughts over and over and they are now arguing.

Instead, the "nonverbalizer" can share information like this. "I'm starting to get upset but it's because I'm not able to put my feelings into words yet. I'm not upset with you and I don't want to be, so let me ponder this and let's talk again tomorrow about it."

Meanwhile, a "verbalizer" (a person who share lots of information...almost streams of information in communication) gets upset and angry when others don't respond in like kind. Someone who communicates 50 out of 60 minutes will feel the other person is "holding back" or "covering up" or that they just don't care.

These things upset the "verbalizer" and once upset, as with all communication about to go wrong...emotions will get the best of the verbalizer and communication will deteriorate rapidly. Because the verbalizer is able to deliver words in large volume and speed, the verbalizer also is more likely to be deemed argumentative when she gets upset. Her voice will raise and become angry.

The verbalizer needs to share their feelings now. "I'm starting to become angry because I feel as if you are not sharing with me what I'm asking you for. Am I reading you right?" It's very important that the nonverbalizer doesn't take this communication as "blaming" because the nonverbalizer is by definition someone who doesn't communicate as much and certainly not as quickly as a verbalizer.

pa jel pustio endži da onoliko izvređa corna i to žena koja živi u zemlji u kojoj se ta vrsta diskriminacije sankcioniše debelo.

banovanje za takve stvari je minumum ispod koga se ne ide.

"Da li je smeh u ovom komadu ("Pad", prim. Kiklop) racionalno projektovan, ili se i on desio na taj način o kome govoriš, u teatarskoj komunikaciji? Šta misliš o ulozi smeha u pozorištu koje želi da bude angažovano? Može li smeh da bude iskupljujuć?

Smeh je nešto nekontrolisano, kao kijanje. Imaš najnormalniju psihološku reakciju da ljudi na šok, na smrt, na nesreću reaguju histeričnim smehom. Dakle, ne možeš diktirati da li će se ljudi smejati. Možeš da se potrudiš da taj smeh bude upozoravajuć, a ne iskupljujuć. To pre svega glumci mogu da kontrolišu, jer to najviše zavisi od interpretacije.

Ja lično ne mogu da pišem ukoliko humor nema popriličnog upliva u sve to, što proizilazi iz mog pozitivnog gledanja na stvari. Iako ti komadi mogu delovati dešperatno, crno, ja mislim da je ovaj svet lep, i mi samo treba da se potrudimo da bude lepši. Samo čudo postojanja čoveka na ovom svetu dovoljno je lepo. Naši životi su naša odgovornost, i obavezni smo da od njih napravimo nešto lepo, a ne da preživljavamo, trpimo, delimo sudbinu, propadamo. Suočavala sam se sa kritikama da nudim samo mračnu sliku stvarnosti; mislim da je to neinteligentno čitanje. Jedno od sredstava kojima sam se uvek služila jeste humor, koji nije iskupljujuć u smislu – pa, dobro, mi smo takvi, pa nema veze, meni je moj smrad lep, miluje mi nosnice. To je neki surovi podsmeh koji te tera da nešto napraviš od svog života, da ti ne bude tvoj smrad lep, da zapušiš nos ili da ga oteraš od sebe.

Da li je to smeh prezira?

To je ipak više samoprezir. Ja nikad ne pišem komad ni o kome drugom osim o sebi. To što se moja porodica međusobno ne kolje i ne prebija ne znači da "Porodične priče" nisu moj život; to što se ja nisam iselila u Australiju ne znači da "Beogradska trilogija" nije moj život. Samoprezir i autoironija su neophodni, sebi se beskompromisno podsmevaj, i to jedino može da te izleči od samozadovoljstva i natera na neku promenu. Komad "Pad" nije kritika nekog trećeg. "Pad" nije čak ni kritika, on je samo uvid. On ne nudi nikakve zaključke, on nikome ništa ne spočitava. On samo meni nudi možda malo iskrivljeno ogledalo mene same. Taj komad treba da okupi ljude koji dele tu istu vrstu samouvida na jednoj istoj teritoriji i u jednom istom trenutku. Ja na sceni mnogo više vidim sebe, Gorčina i te iste glumce koji su sa mnogo angažmana ušli u sve ovo, nego nekog trećeg. Na sceni nema Miloševića, na sceni se ne muvaju ti akademici, generali i popovi, nema Nikolaja Velimirovića; to su delovi nas samih, koje su oni kao neki elijeni zaposeli."

Opširnije:
http://www.vreme.com/arhiva_html/497/13.html

P.S.
Isto kao prvi i drugi put. Hvala.

Kiklop

Mod, nije sve tako bezazleno-idilicno kao u crtacima.

BS se danas odjavila uz sledece reci: "Nema mesta paranoji - ni ovo nije nikakav strajk. Ali nema mesta ni lazima, Zox."

Pa kad nema mesta lazima, onda rekoh, hajde da isteramo stvari na cistac. Meni je rekla da nema mesta lazima, Mod, ne tebi.

BS u danasnjoj odjavi sa zokster something: "Nije istina da sam predvodila, organizovala ili ucestvovala u "strajku" na blogu B92."

Uporediti njenu izjavu sa Bloga B92 od 12. juna:

"ali ipak najviše zbog toga što novi blog osećam kao okupaciju, kao razvodnjavanje, kao i neku vrstu kompromitacije i zatrpavanja onoga što smo zajedno uspeli da predhodnih godinu dana napravimo - da zatalasamo javno mnjenje"

Kako BS oseca novi blog? Kao "kao okupaciju, kao razvodnjavanje".

Sta je tu 'okupirano'?

Nesto sto ona dozivljava kao svoje, tj. njeno, tj. uslovno receno 'nase' - nesto "što smo zajedno uspeli da predhodnih godinu dana napravimo", kako sama kaze.

Tu nesto jednostavno ne stima. BS lepo ovde kaze kako Blog B92 smatra svojim, a ovamo tvrdi da nema nista sa strajkom itd.

BS u u odjavi sa zokster something: "Nije istina da su ljudi koji se dopisuju na zatvorenom blogu Otpor strajkaci."

Upotrediti njenu izjavu na B92 od 12. juna: "... naš medij se pretverio u šarenu lažu, u lilihip za usamljene dracenice, u govno s mlekom, u ništa."

Opet ista prica. Ciji medij?

NAS.

Ponavljam: NAS MEDIJ.

Ko to kaze?

BS.

Na koga se to odnosi?

Na BS i njeno drustvo sa bloga (koje je najvecim delom preslo na Otpor).

Tu opet nesto ne stima.

Uostalom, evo celog teksta BS i linka koji vodi do njega.

Resistance!
Biljana Srbljanović (12 Jun, 2007 - 17:54)

Drugari, na ovom tajnom mestu, osećam se kao De Gol na Radio Londonu, however pretentious it might be! Dobro - i zato što imam tempiš i upalu grla, pa malo ne znam gde udaram, ali ipak najviše zbog toga što novi blog osećam kao okupaciju, kao razvodnjavanje, kao i neku vrstu kompromitacije i zatrpavanja onoga što smo zajedno uspeli da predhodnih godinu dana napravimo - da zatalasamo javno mnjenje, da utičemo na njega u važnim trenucima i oko agresije novim ustavom i tokom predizborne kampanje sleš izbora (setite se samo jednog primera, eksploziva pod službenim vozilom LDP-a, informacija je preko Bloga nekako procurela u javnost, u toku farsične izborne ćutnje, da bi iz javnosti odmah bila proterana, a pravo na slobodu informisanja jedino je isterao Blog).

Sećamo se svi da smo posebno bili aktivni oko tragične farse izbora nove vlade ove mučene mučene zemlje. Nekontrolisan medij, koji je ipak imao veliki broj čitalaca i jos veći broj prepričavanja, čiji je čaršijski potencijal postao opasno veliki (gde čaršiju precvali advertajzeri nazivaju sondažom, skeniranjem, spinovanjem, ali je sve to u našem slučaju samo dobra stara andrićevska čaršija) neko je morao malo da zauzda. I to kako? Uzmu kofu, u kofu naredjaju dracene i njenu zbirku pesama "Moje prve akne", zatim netalentovane dosadne kič pričice na temu cvećai proleća, poruke lične prirode (Ozon), udvaranja, masturbiranja, napadanja, kačenja fotkica mrdalica, prozivanja na prazno, forumaškom oruk radnomakcijom, naš medij se pretverio u šarenu lažu, u lilihip za usamljene dracenice, u govno s mlekom, u ništa.

Dok traje ova mogućnost da kačimo nove tekstove na staroj ruini, daj da probamo da u potaji održavamo "Radio London". Samizdat može iznenada da postane neophodan kao nekad. Mislim, možda je od tempiša i razočarenja, ali ja imam neku potrebu da se borim do kraja. Šta kažete? PS: Ne mogu čak ni da se logujem sa sopstvenog kompjutera, ovo moram preko veze i preko male krsne da šaljem, pa da se kači sa druge adrese. Kakav trud, prosto me zastrašuje. Stvarno sam otkačila.

http://blog.b92.net/arhiva/node/6007