I would hope that "I don't plan on being here any longer than I have to..." includes a real plan [please excuse my bluntness; sometimes that is a meaningless phrase and sometimes it isn't].
I hope that you have in mind what you will have to have to do, for how long, how you'll reach the desired point, and how you know you're there. Implementing a plan which includes performing disagreeable or distasteful actions is STILL implementing a plan on how you're going to get out of there - making progress.
Best of luck.

I would have done the same thing. But I would have taken it a step further and started looking for a new job. Once one was secured I would turn in my resignation with a full explanation of why I was resigning. None of what you say anyway would sink into her thick skull anyway.

VERY GOOD! I might have worded the message something more like,

"I was thinking about what you said, so I did some research, and guess what? There's a real process already available for anyone who wants to help support social programs by contributing extra money to them! ... here's the link... ..... Thanks again for encouraging me to do that bit of research. Forward the link to anyone you think would like to contribute their extra cash!"

And then smile and click "send."
:)

sum... you now know more about her than you did before, including what's safe to say in front of her and where she's got a hot button connected!

I've got whole branches of my family whose buttons I can press that way, who also try to provoke me into arguments because our views are so diametrically opposed.

The fun thing for me is to choose, on the spot, whether to rise to the bait and join the fray at any given time.

Enjoy the chemistry!

True, that... spies can turn up anywhere... and you don't need to be a conspiracy theorist to recognize the need to be careful in all kinds of environments... :)

People like that are just uneducated idiots at best, and evil thieves at worst. Its time to take sides, which I have started to do since seeing Francisco say that in AS 1. I ask people like that where its carved in stone that I should work so someone else gets the benefits. Maybe I should STOP working and wait for handouts too. I do this with the bums on the street and anyone so foolish as to make arguments like that in front of me.

You're lucky that there's a partner who's sane. Maybe you can stay there long term without suffering too much.

Please forgive me! In my third paragraph I wrote, very mysteriously, "I was in FL last winter recuperating from a heart problem and she invited a woman and her husband over for dinner." Part of what was in my brain never made it out of my fingers. "I was in FL last winter {visiting my mom} recuperating ..."

not all attorneys are bad news. some actually work for wealth creation by empowering their clients' ideas

Well, like I said, there was no exit! It was also an engaging challenge to discuss with people who understood the implications of their convictions. It's hard to "trick them into telling us how they really feel" when they don't even realize the truth themselves. Should I find it refreshing that they know they despise mankind or should I shrink in horror at the sheer evil of it all?

My mom is a lovely person without a mean bone in her body, but she's either 1) not that bright, or 2) so unable to reconcile her conflicting beliefs that she compartmentalizes them and stubbornly believes both. We call that cognitive dissonance, right? I know and believe in the truth of two things that are mutually exclusive.

My most recent success was talking with a friend with whom I've recently re-acquainted? Reconciled isn't the right word because we never had a fight cause us to drift, it just sort of happened when he became very depressed about a number of things and withdrew.

Again the topic was Obamacare, which he emphatically mis-pronounced as the Affordable Care Act. He's absolutely convinced that medical care is a basic human right. Blah, blah many elements of the conversation were similar to the one at the aforetodescribed dinner. My triumph came when he said, with exasperation, that nobody could be trusted to take care of the less fortunate. He more than implied that he and I were the only two decent humans on the planet. This friend is also pretty smart, not as smart as the lawyer, but just as misguided, philosophically, and just as disdainful of man.

The most frustrating elements of that conversation were when he'd ask for a concrete example or a further explanation of my position. I'd start out, "OK, for the sake of this example let's agree that XXX." and then I'd begin stepping him through my reasoning. It never failed that he'd interject, "Yeah, but wait, (not XXX)." How many times did I have to say that you can't change the parameters of a discussion in the middle! You agreed to XXX! "Yeah, but (not XXX)!" Grrrrrrr!

Two weekends later we're together and out of the blue he makes a statement like, "Don't you believe that a person should be able to use his property (land, acreage) any way he likes?" "Why yes, of course." He agreed and went on to discuss some current event where a person was being forced to do or not do something with his property. I was dumbfounded but I kept that to myself!

I was having another talk with a woman in her 30's that I'm quite fond of, the girlfriend of a friend of mine (fondness is platonic! besides, I'm gay!) It was a very calm discussion, somewhat short, of whether or not healthcare was a basic human right. She was tentatively in favor but interested in hearing my view. The next time we were together she brought it up again, asking why I didn't believe that healthcare was a basic human right.

It might have been then that I thought up this statement and subsequent line of reasoning: "Nobody can have a right if they have to rely on others to exercise it." She looked thoughtful so I continued, "A basic right is something you're born with, by definition, correct? You have it just because you're a human being."

"Ok, that makes perfect sense, I agree with you."

"So if you have it the moment you're born, solely because you're human, can it rely on another person to exercise it? To make it real?"

Thoughtful pause, then, "No, you'd have to posses it on your own."

"Great, then we agree. Can you get medical care on your own or does a doctor have to provide it to you?"

Brief pause, "A doctor has to provide it."

"So does it follow then, that since another person has to provide the medical care that it can be a basic human right?"

Luckily, she's honest and answered, "No."

A lot of people, the ones who can't think, would say something like, "That doesn't matter, people need healthcare so it's a basic human right."

If, by some miracle, your head doesn't explode right then and there, you can continue...

"Let's try something different. Do people need food, clothes and shelter to survive?"

They will answer, "Yes, of course."

"Then are food, clothes and shelter basic human rights?"

It's almost a 100% chance that you'll get, "Yes, of course, you'd die without them they're definitely a right!"

"Fine, let's imagine a man wakes up totally alone in a pasture and he has no clothes, no food and no house. He has an absolute right to those things, rights that cannot be taken away. Where will he get them?"

"Um um um um, the other people would have to give them to him!"

"Uh uh, there isn't anyone else there, just the naked, hungry homeless guy. Where does he get the food, clothes and shelter that he has a right to?"

"But that's stupid, there are other people! Society, the rich people have to take care of him." (not XXX, you knew that was going to come up, right?)

"I thought you agreed that a person is born with rights, that he has them just because he's human and it can't be reliant on another person to exercise them. Did you agree with that?"

"No, yes but ..."

"If the naked hungry guy in the pasture can't have his food and clothes without taking them from another person then how can they be basic human rights?"

"They just are! They must be, he needs them!"

"Think of every item in the Bill of Rights. Speech, religion, defense, assembly, non-self incrimination, security of your possessions... All of those are possible without anyone else around."

I don't know what will happen next. Agreement (unlikely), shouting irrelevancies (mighty possible), accusations that you're a heartless bastard (oh no, not again!). That person will probably hate you, shutter different parts of his brain from each other, stick his fingers in his ears and say "lalalalala."

Then you can just shake your head with yet another affirmation that we're probably doomed.

Key word..........attorney.............I shall not elaborate.

Don't shoot yourself, she is her own problem, not yours....................I have been there, too (but not attorneys)...did my work, kept my antenna up for better situations, and when one appeared, made the move.............at age 43 the move was to go out on my own..............not easy, but worked out fine...........no regrets.................

Agree with your sentiments. I just wanted to highlight that vigilance is called for and lefties have a well earned reputation for being personally vicious.

Greetings sanitytalk,
Yes propaganda is a powerful tool. Once embedded one must also fight confirmation bias.
"The trouble with our Liberal friends is not that they're ignorant; it's just that they know so much that isn't so." - Ronald Reagan
Also the propagandists have subverted and absconded the word Liberal... Traditionally it held such a different meaning...
The battle rages on,
Respectfully,
O.A.

Reason also can be thwarted by years of propaganda and brainwashing that most certainly comes from 8 to 10 years in a college environment. What everyone does not understand is "Liberals know what is best for you and are going to MAKE you behave in that manner".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=452XjnaH...

Sometimes...
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." Ayn Rand

Well done! I don't know if I could've carried on the conversation as you did. I get so disappointed with people for not being honest with themselves about what they really think and want. The fact that you were able to get this intelligent lawyer with 13 children to show his true colors is impressive. I had a fifteen minute conversation with my manager and about lost my mind.

It could be that, outside of that lunch, the work environment is pleasant or maybe she likes her job a lot. Maybe there aren't any opportunities as good. Maybe there are lots of opportunities but all the bosses would be the same.

She is supporting her employer with her labor and her mind, but the capitalist system is two-way. He is compensating her for her value, which may have nothing to do with progressive politics.

Lastly, there are myriad reasons not to just pick up and leave. We all make decisions based on our own personal hierarchy of values.

Yes, that is what she told me. And I did say something along the lines of "...but it's considered a virtue to take someone else's money? Explain to me why it's ok for your husband to bust his butt for 35 years for his money to be forcibly TAKEN and given to another..." THAT is where the partner stepped in to pull me away.

I feel your pain and I'm glad you were able to just vamoose instead of getting into fight about politics with your boss!

The "they don't need all of that money anyway" attitude is everywhere. People that seem reasonable otherwise will spout the most ridiculous things when it comes to (non-existent) rights. People have a "right" to a home, food, high-paying job with benefits, healthcare, etc. I had such an experience and there was no exit, metaphorically.

I was in FL last winter recuperating from a heart problem and she invited a woman and her husband over for dinner. I'd met the woman before and she's exceedingly nice, generous and a talented artist. Her husband, who I hadn't met, was a successful lawyer who had retired, only to start a new practice helping the poor with an array of legal services, including litigation, pro bono. That's very admirable, of course. Because I am a hardcore libertarian and objectivist my mom reminded me that they are extremely liberal and asked me not to bring up politics (or religion, they're also fake, staunch Catholics).

A very pleasant dinner ensued; they are both intelligent, well informed and well traveled. (Can someone believe in collectivism and all it's evils and still be intelligent?) And then the unthinkable happened, they brought up politics, Obamacare, the whole shebang. They adored Obama; he was the savior of mankind and civilization. It's very hard to stay calm in these conversations but I was mostly successful. They were mostly successful, too.

I'll sound a bit like a douche for a second, but I'm fairly smart </douche-off>, extremely logical, absolutely consistent (hence objectivism and libertarianism) and have been a libertarian long enough to present the philosophy pretty well. But I was talking with two smart and hyper-dedicated progressives, so I knew it was going to be a challenge requiring me to argue competently.

Before I had read AS I wouldn't have supported the statement that collectivists hate mankind, that they believe that humans as a species are despicable. Ayn Rand explained so clearly why that statement is true, so early on I determined to try something that I now attempt in every one of these types of conversation. I wanted them to state, clearly and in their own words, how much they detested, or at least didn't trust, mankind. Because of course progressives claim to be the only ones who want civilization to prosper because they love people so much. I call this conversational goal "tricking them into telling us how they really feel."

The gory details of the discussion are irrelevant, which is lucky because I can't remember them anyway. The topic was: is healthcare/food/home a right or not. My position was, predictably, that capitalism was the best system, that government had absolutely no right to confiscate my property and give it to another, that people should earn things that they receive, there is no such thing as "deserve", that private enterprise and even outright voluntary charity would reduce poverty, suffering and oppression much more effectively than government thuggery. Their argument was precisely the opposite.

We went back and forth about confiscation vs cooperation, was it possible to "take care" of so many poor, uneducated without government redistributing wealth and I of course pointed out that it certainly could work especially since under a non-confiscatory economic system there would be a fraction of the poor and uneducated than there are now. My triumph came at last when the lawyer spat out, in one of the very few times he lost his cool, "WE WANT TO FORCE YOU TO PAY, IT HAS TO BE DONE BY FORCE, THERE'S NO WAY PEOPLE WOULD GIVE VOLUNTARILY!" He really showed in his tone of voice, the angry look on his face and more importantly with his own words, how little he thought of mankind.

Oh, I just dreamed up a sound bite that I quite love. "Objectivists despise individuals but love mankind, Collectivists love individuals but despise mankind." Maybe it needs some tweaking.

P.S. As a part of the conversation that we did not pursue as a separate topic was their own inherent racism and the smugness of progressives. At one point they asserted how wonderful they were because they had adopted something like 11 kids in addition to their two biological ones. The kicker was the emphasis was that not one of them was white. She was so proud of that little tidbit, you could hear it in the way she said it and see it on her face. My *brain* quickly blurted out [you racist! why does that matter? is it morally superior to adopt a disadvantaged black kid over a disadvantaged white kid?] My mouth never said the words because the main topic was still in full swing and I didn't want to get sidetracked. A bit later she admitted, confusingly without any regret or guilt and possibly with some pride, that only ONE of their enormous brood was able to survive in the world on his/her own. All the rest were on the public dole for their survival.

Point is if they are liberal they always think everyone should pay more, so I offer them the opportunity.

If they want to discipline me for this, I would walk out and never look back. If she has the right to offend me with her psychobabble, why do I not have a right to walk away from it? I refuse to justify my actions to anyone. I do know that she dislikes me, and I'm ok with that. If I had the 'approval' of someone like her I would begin to question my actions.

Did she say "Selfishness won't get you anywhere in this world" to you?
I would ask, which is more selfish, to wish to enjoy the fruits of one's labor, or to demand the fruits of another?

We had a conversation today actually. She pulled me in her office first thing in the morning...before I had my coffee. Poor choice on her end. I explained my view and she didn't understand a word. "Selfishness won't get you anywhere in this world." One of the partners stepped in on the conversation because the debate was no longer private at this point. He told me there's no use talking to a wall.

I grew up in an atmosphere where I needed to bite my tongue more often than not. I am used to dealing with uneducated people spewing their opinions all over the place. I am tolerant of other people's opinions until they strike a nerve and are so off-based that I can't hold back. I think I made more of a statement walking out than I would've by arguing. People with that mindset are so past talking to that I can't waste my breath on them.