The anti-morality majinority
Threnody
Now that I'm staring down both barrels of Age Thirty-One, I think it is
just possible I'm becoming a fuddy-duddy. Some of my closest friends
might say I seem to have no moral views at all. I do have a stronge sense
of ethics but I try to remain objective and open to discussion on any
topic, by the which I accidentally lead people to consider me uncaring or
even sometimes unethical by silent consent.
I have never been much on the in-your-face moralizing of right-wing.
Recently I've been noticing with more and more concern the in-your-face
ANTI-morality leanings of others. Things that say, for instance, bad
things about Christianity or monogamy. I can't help but ask "Why the
hostility?" I suppose one could argue that Christians have been raising
the banners and beating the drums for ages now and it's time they get some
back, but what about all of us here in the middle, those of us who are
quietly just doing our thing? We're not asking to be caught up in the war
cry.
I don't know why I can ignore the right-wing shouting easier than I can
the left-wing shouting. I was raised to the age of 12 in a church-on-
Sunday-only family, but at 12 or 13 my stepfather and my mother became
born-again Christians and I was suddenly in church for two services on
Sunday, youth group on Tuesday, Wednesday night bible study, and then
whatever else might be going on. I ended up going to a Christian high
school and spent my freshman year of college on a Christian campus. I did
a lot of smiling and nodding and calmly discussing points of theology and
humanism with anyone who wished to have that sort of conversation. There
was a lot of rowdy fist-waving around me but I was able to sort of block
it out and find people who, like me, were still trying to find answers
through education and discussion.
I'd like to do that still, but the left-wingers are really starting to
unnerve me. In the past year I've been told I'm worthless because I got
married and it's not an open relationship, I've been told I'm worthless
because I chose to have a child, and I've been told I'm a rabid holy
roller. Huh? Because I know the stories of the Bible and some of history
behind the text? Goodness me. I do beg pardon.
I admit to being somewhat more conservative than others of my age group,
but really when you look at the total population I'm there in the middle
someplace. I'm just very troubled by the anger I'm seeing from the
lefties. Maybe what I'm missing is the quiet voices in the leftist
groups, the voices like mine that are still asking questions and trying to
have conversations about topics that are ethically and morally divisive.
Maybe all of us here in the middle need to learn to speak a little louder.
Or, as I said, maybe I'm really just a fuddy-duddy. Can one be a closet
convervative?
======================================================================
cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com | Please remove the obvious to reply
Homepage: http://home.austin.rr.com/chaoticsheep/crystal
Why am I in this handbasket? Where are we going?
======================================================================
Joel Crum
"Threnody" <cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote in message
news:Xns91AD5420FDD01cr...@216.166.71.233...
>
> I don't know why I can ignore the right-wing shouting easier than I can
> the left-wing shouting.
Sounds to me like you've had more practice and are closer to the right wing
anyway. Plus a traditional marriage (lifestyle?) has worked for you so it
doesn't tend to bother you when people advocate it.
> I'd like to do that still, but the left-wingers are really starting to
> unnerve me. In the past year I've been told...
I find the key to ignoring people is to acknowledge that you don't
particularly like them. If you don't like someone, and you don't want to
_be_like_ them, then why should their criticize of you matter? The only
reason is you, as a human, are hardwired at a subconscious level to accept
the advice of other humans. So bring it all up to a conscience level and it
becomes easier to deal with.
Once you're not being jerked around by a unreasoned reaction you're free to
respond logically. I recommend you be nice to them. It drives people who
are criticizing you crazy when you are unmoved by and disinterested in their
views but you are pleasant and understanding. What with all those years of
charismatic Christianity under your belt you will recognize this for
biblical advice*. Typically they will become confused and either go away or
start being nice back to you.
- Joel C.
*Proverbs 25: 21 If your enemy is hungry, give him food to eat; if he is
thirsty, give him water to drink. 22 In doing this, you will heap burning
coals on his head, and the LORD will reward you.
Alistair Davidson
>
> I have never been much on the in-your-face moralizing of right-wing.
> Recently I've been noticing with more and more concern the in-your-face
> ANTI-morality leanings of others. Things that say, for instance, bad
> things about Christianity or monogamy. I can't help but ask "Why the
> hostility?" I suppose one could argue that Christians have been raising
> the banners and beating the drums for ages now and it's time they get some
> back, but what about all of us here in the middle, those of us who are
> quietly just doing our thing? We're not asking to be caught up in the war
> cry.
Actually, it sounds to me like those people feel guilty about their socially
liberal views and hence anything that challenges those is wrong... or
soemthing like that, I'm expressing myself poorly.
Anyway, ignore them is my advice. For me, being monogamous or otherwise isn't
really a moral issue per se, except in so far as I think that if you agree to
a particular arrangement (ie, monogamy) you should try and stick to it.
> Or, as I said, maybe I'm really just a fuddy-duddy. Can one be a closet
> convervative?
There's a lot more to being a conservative than being annoyed by people who
try to push their own moral views on other in areas where no harm is being done.
Actually, that's behaviour I would usually expect from a social conservative*,
anyone who claims to be a social liberal or civil libertarian** and's doing
that ought to go back and rexamine their principles. Or just fuck off generally.
If you were going around saying "Those people have open relationships, they're
EEEEEEEEEEVIL!", then you'd be a conservative ;)
BTW, there are plenty of alternatives to American Liberalism and Conservatism.
If you get disgusted with both you can always become an anarcho-syndicalist***
or libertarian or something :)
* not intended as a troll, though it might look like one. The very definition
of *social* liberal / civil libertarian is that one doesn't push their own
morality on others where no harm is done (the your fist extends to my face and
no further principle). A social (different from economic) conservative is, as
far as I'm aware, someone who tries to get their own morality enforced by law
where this is unnecessary.
** Including both terms because "liberal" and to a lesser extent "libertarian"
have connotations in other areas, and civil liberties is one of the few areas
where the liberal left, the right-libertarians, and the socialist libertarians
all mostly agree. Do we even have any social conservatives in alt.geek?
*** I've been reading up on this lately, anarchism isn't as ridiculous as one
might expect, it turns out. Mostly just an opposition to running society in a
manner that's based around power structures.
--
Alistair Davidson
Read my comic, Bizmatch! http://www.altgeek.org/lord_inh/comic/index.html
"Disloyalty in a democracy is to stop asking questions."
bc90021
> I have never been much on the in-your-face moralizing of right-wing.
> Recently I've been noticing with more and more concern the in-your-face
> ANTI-morality leanings of others. Things that say, for instance, bad
> things about Christianity or monogamy. I can't help but ask "Why the
> hostility?" I suppose one could argue that Christians have been raising
> the banners and beating the drums for ages now and it's time they get some
> back, but what about all of us here in the middle, those of us who are
> quietly just doing our thing? We're not asking to be caught up in the war
> cry.
<SNIP>
I have had similar feelings for, oh, I'd have to say, half my life.
Part of the problem, too, is that the media also tends to get involved -
and obviously, they have quite the leftist slant. So any popular media,
be it magazines you see in the checkout stand, or radio, or television,
you're getting the rants of the left thrown at you all the time.
Also, since the people on the right tend toward the conservative, by
definition, they tend to the quiet, as well. People who spend a lot of
time in church are taught that the meek will inherit the earth; they're
not taught that picketing on the streets of NYC will actually allow your
point to be heard or get you anywhere. On the other hand, most of the
left teach activism from the very beginning (which is a good thing).
Only recently has the right clued in and figured out that you have to
play the game if you ever plan on winning (also a good thing).
Obviously, that is not to say that there are no rants from the right,
either, but typically, they don't get the free air time (getting back to
the media point). You'll notice that MTV only really concentrates hard
on a "Rock the Vote" campaign when there is a Democrat (who has a
chance) running for office. Sure, they technically have them every four
years, but when Clinton was running was the only time they actually made
an *actual* effort to get people out to vote. And yes, that helps them,
too, so they have a vested interest in a more "liberal" president, but
they weren't teaming up to give George Bush Sr. or Michael Dukakis any
free air time way back when. And, you'll notice, that they always
propose "equal time", which means that any time they give to the
Republican has to be matched by that of the Democrat, but that never
includes the free air time given to the Democrat.
Obviously, those of you who know me know which side I tend toward.
You've all heard me rant in the past, and a large part of it was that
things just aren't equal. I've come to realise that they essentially
never will be. Dan Quayle screw-ups/jokes will get recycled as George
W. jokes, but Michael Dukakis screw-ups/jokes will never see the light
of day again (and oh, were there ever a lot of those). Yes, Al Gore may
have claimed to have invented the internet (and he actually didn't; he
merely suggested that without legislation he passed way back when it
wouldn't exist as it did now), but how many newsgroups are there that
have "village idiot" in the name that would ever apply to a Democrat?
(No shots intended Kitz, just pointing something out - obviously, free
speech is free speech, and I have no problems with that. Just because I
don't necessarily agree doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.) I
could go on and on and on - we were the laughing stock of the rest of
the world with Slick Willie and his little flings, but did the media
ever report that?
There are extremists on both sides, and have been for all time, and
there will continue to be. Nothing will change that. And given the
leftward slant of the media, even if the left isn't always as loud as
they should be, it will seem like they are. Of course, when they are,
it just magnifies the sound...
bc90021
- Who suddenly thinks that all this spare time he has might not be such
a good thing... ;)
Threnody
> "Threnody" <cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns91AD5420FDD01cr...@216.166.71.233...
>>
>> I don't know why I can ignore the right-wing shouting easier than I
>> can the left-wing shouting.
> <....>
> Sounds to me like you've had more practice and are closer to the right
> wing anyway. Plus a traditional marriage (lifestyle?) has worked for
> you so it doesn't tend to bother you when people advocate it.
I suspect you are correct. For some reason this bothers me almost as much
as my original complaint about hostility from the left.
>> I'd like to do that still, but the left-wingers are really starting
>> to unnerve me. In the past year I've been told...
>
> I find the key to ignoring people is to acknowledge that you don't
> particularly like them. [...] So bring it all up to a
> conscience level and it becomes easier to deal with.
Good advice. I am doing that, and I guess this posting is a way of
dealing with it.
> It
> drives people who are criticizing you crazy when you are unmoved by
> and disinterested in their views but you are pleasant and
> understanding.
Yeah, I'm doing that. And you're right, it makes them bonkers. I used
to get people foaming at the mouth when they started coming down on
"breeders." I'd start talking about biological imperatives and how it
manifest itself in the urge to procreate *AND* the urge to supress
conception. They didn't like it that I could argue both sides using
science. They wanted the moral upper ground, not a similarity in
difference.
I was recently asked why I chose to have McKinley since my pregnancy was
an accident. I responded by showing them this picture (warning, it's
huge):
http://home.austin.rr.com/chaoticsheep/images/RenFaire2001/princess.jpg
Kill them with cuteness, I always say. They said it wasn't an adequate
answer. I told them an abortion wasn't an adequate answer either. The
problem was that I had an urge to have sex and, even using protection and
being careful, became pregnant. To fix that I'd have to fix my biology.
Pregnancy was, for lack of a better term, the symptom of a larger illness.
> What with all those years of charismatic Christianity
> under your belt you will recognize this for biblical advice*.
Not to mention turning the other cheek and the directive to forgive as
many as seventy times seven. ;)
> Typically they will become confused and either go away or start being
> nice back to you.
They don't, and this is why I said I was becoming unnerved. They continue
to blow spittle in my face as they scream at me. Reasonable people do not
do that. It's like they've all gone insane.
======================================================================
cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com | Please remove the obvious to reply
Homepage: http://home.austin.rr.com/chaoticsheep/crystal
It is necessary to help others, not only in our prayers, but in our
daily lives. If we find we cannot help others, the least we can do
is to desist from harming them. -- The Dalai Lama
======================================================================
Threnody
> Threnody wrote:
>
>>
>> I have never been much on the in-your-face moralizing of right-wing.
>> Recently I've been noticing with more and more concern the
>> in-your-face ANTI-morality leanings of others. Things that say, for
>> instance, bad things about Christianity or monogamy. I can't help
>> but ask "Why the hostility?" I suppose one could argue that
>> Christians have been raising the banners and beating the drums for
>> ages now and it's time they get some back, but what about all of us
>> here in the middle, those of us who are quietly just doing our thing?
>> We're not asking to be caught up in the war cry.
>
>
> Actually, it sounds to me like those people feel guilty about their
> socially liberal views and hence anything that challenges those is
> wrong... or soemthing like that, I'm expressing myself poorly.
I think I understand you. What is the adage about reformed drinkers and
smokers? That they come down the hardest on the people who are still
drinking and smoking? Something like that.
Anyway, yeah, at times it reeks of self-justification, like it's a
performance put on more for their peace of mind than for my enlightenment
or conversion to their point of view.
Isn't the whole thing just silly, though? Not only that people can't just
back off and leave one another alone, but that I spend so much time and
energy worrying about it? It's just that I feel perhaps I'm missing some
larger point, like I'm so out of touch with humanity that I'm doing things
that bring censure from society as a whole.
I hate being a social animal. I think I'd rather have belonged to a race
of bears.
> Anyway, ignore them is my advice. For me, being monogamous or
> otherwise isn't really a moral issue per se, except in so far as I
> think that if you agree to a particular arrangement (ie, monogamy) you
> should try and stick to it.
That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about it. I
made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not only to my
husband, but to my government, my society, and to my church.
Aside from any promises made, monogamy works best for me because I really
do shine when I have one person I can devote myself to. I tried dating
more than one person a few times during my life and I was always
miserable. I had a strong sense of guilt because it seemed like the
balance of power was largely in my favor, and power of that sort is not
something I have ever really wanted.
>> Or, as I said, maybe I'm really just a fuddy-duddy. Can one be a
>> closet convervative?
>
> There's a lot more to being a conservative than being annoyed by
> people who try to push their own moral views on other in areas where
> no harm is being done.
Phew. I was about to start hunting for a cure. ;)
> If you were going around saying "Those people have open relationships,
> they're EEEEEEEEEEVIL!", then you'd be a conservative ;)
As long as both parties are aware, and the other parties they become
involved with, I have no problem with it. There are ancient societies in
which "open" relationships work very well, and have done for untold
generations. They can truly help a community's bonding process, which is
obviously very important. It just doesn't work for me or for the way I
want my life to turn out. Also, I already have a strong sense of
community lent to me by other things I'm involved in.
As for being evil, well, how many wives did some of the Old Testament
fathers have? Even into the New Testament, there is a strong argument
that multiple marriages were not inherently bad, and may even be necessary
in some circumstances. Again, it's sometimes about upholding a community.
I can't place any judgement on that. Our primary objective is survival,
even in these somewhat less lethal times. If multiple marriages increases
the liklihood of species survival, how can it be considered evil?
Oh, geez, there's that thing about procreation again. I have a one-track
mind, it seems. ;)
> BTW, there are plenty of alternatives to American Liberalism and
> Conservatism. If you get disgusted with both you can always become an
> anarcho-syndicalist*** or libertarian or something :)
[...]
> *** I've been reading up on this lately, anarchism isn't as ridiculous
> as one might expect, it turns out. Mostly just an opposition to
> running society in a manner that's based around power structures.
It sounds Utopian, in a way. I honestly can't conceive of a society
without a power structure. You'd have to start that at the very basic
level and remove power structures from families. The removal of the
paternal/maternal heirarchy would result in a natural movement to
eradicate heirarchies elsewhere in the society. You can't just do it on a
governmental level and leave other power structures untouched.
Psychologically speaking, we're rather all or nothing creatures. We can
handle any type of society, but we can't handle more than one at a time.
The social instinct in us just doesn't seem to be wired that way.
I just don't believe that a change of that nature is beneficial to the
survival of a family, especially in this age of law. By "age of law," I
mean this time in which our every day and every decision is strongly
influenced by things such as insurance lawsuits, family protection
litigation, substance abuse crimes and resultant anti-use initiatives, and
the myriad foster/protective agencies to help children and women in need.
Those are just a few off the top of my head, but they're enough for this
example. All of those sorts of things need a person to assume the family
leadership role. It is an interesting excercise to try to imagine a world
without power structures, but it's an uncomfortable one as well. A lot of
people would fall, a lot of people would die, a lot of bad things would
happen. A lot of good may come from it, too, such as overall reduced
crime and lower suicide rates and less chemical dependency and less abuse
(if all people in the society are equal, that would mean potential abusers
as well, and abuse is generally about power, not anger or hate).
My mind is spinning on that one. I'm guilty of being comfortable enough
to not want to rock the boat. If I'd been asked my opinion five years
ago, I might have answered differently, but now I have too much at stake.
======================================================================
cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com | Please remove the obvious to reply
Homepage: http://home.austin.rr.com/chaoticsheep/crystal
Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity
>
> I have had similar feelings for, oh, I'd have to say, half my life.
> Part of the problem, too, is that the media also tends to get involved -
> and obviously, they have quite the leftist slant. So any popular media,
> be it magazines you see in the checkout stand, or radio, or television,
> you're getting the rants of the left thrown at you all the time.
Interestingly, I'd say much of the media has a right-wing bias...
perhaps we notice most the opposing viewpoints?
Some sections are mildly leftist- film, music and so on. The news
media tends to be mildly rightist on balance, I would say. Especially
TV news and tabloids. The classic example is coverage of 90%+ peaceful
internationalist protests being called anti-globalisation,
anti-capitalist riots.
Internationalist yet anti-globalisation ;) Don't get me started on the
perverted meaning our governments have given to the 'g' word...
I don't know that it matter that much though, the media's biggest
political concern is preserving the status quo, and always will be as
long as it's owned by media barons who became such under the present
system.
Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity
> Alistair Davidson wrote:
>
> > Threnody wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> I have never been much on the in-your-face moralizing of right-wing.
> >> Recently I've been noticing with more and more concern the
> >> in-your-face ANTI-morality leanings of others. Things that say, for
> >> instance, bad things about Christianity or monogamy. I can't help
> >> but ask "Why the hostility?" I suppose one could argue that
> >> Christians have been raising the banners and beating the drums for
> >> ages now and it's time they get some back, but what about all of us
> >> here in the middle, those of us who are quietly just doing our thing?
> >> We're not asking to be caught up in the war cry.
> >
> >
> > Actually, it sounds to me like those people feel guilty about their
> > socially liberal views and hence anything that challenges those is
> > wrong... or soemthing like that, I'm expressing myself poorly.
>
> I think I understand you. What is the adage about reformed drinkers and
> smokers? That they come down the hardest on the people who are still
> drinking and smoking? Something like that.
>
> Anyway, yeah, at times it reeks of self-justification, like it's a
> performance put on more for their peace of mind than for my enlightenment
> or conversion to their point of view.
Yeah, that's what I meant... of course, they won't find peace of mind
until they deal with their own issues about their own behaviours.
> Isn't the whole thing just silly, though? Not only that people can't just
> back off and leave one another alone, but that I spend so much time and
> energy worrying about it? It's just that I feel perhaps I'm missing some
> larger point, like I'm so out of touch with humanity that I'm doing things
> that bring censure from society as a whole.
Are you taking positive actions that harm anyone unnecessarily? If the
answer is "no", congratulations, your actions do no deserve censure
IMHO.
Of course, I could ask about your inactions but I doubt they're
anywhere near as bad as mine ;)
> I hate being a social animal. I think I'd rather have belonged to a race
> of bears.
Tell you what, if I ever manage to get to the states we can go on a
picnic-basket-stealing trip ;)
> > Anyway, ignore them is my advice. For me, being monogamous or
> > otherwise isn't really a moral issue per se, except in so far as I
> > think that if you agree to a particular arrangement (ie, monogamy) you
> > should try and stick to it.
>
> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about it. I
> made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not only to my
> husband, but to my government, my society, and to my church.
Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
> >> Or, as I said, maybe I'm really just a fuddy-duddy. Can one be a
> >> closet convervative?
> >
> > There's a lot more to being a conservative than being annoyed by
> > people who try to push their own moral views on other in areas where
> > no harm is being done.
>
> Phew. I was about to start hunting for a cure. ;)
The first step is realising that the Democrats are a bucnh of
right-wing loonies... ;)
Actually, I had an argument with someone on ICQ the other day who
refused to believe that by European standards the Democrats are a
center-right party. I'm not sure why she wouldn't believe me, given
that I live in Europe and she's never even visited.
> > BTW, there are plenty of alternatives to American Liberalism and
> > Conservatism. If you get disgusted with both you can always become an
> > anarcho-syndicalist*** or libertarian or something :)
>
> [...]
>
> > *** I've been reading up on this lately, anarchism isn't as ridiculous
> > as one might expect, it turns out. Mostly just an opposition to
> > running society in a manner that's based around power structures.
>
> It sounds Utopian, in a way. I honestly can't conceive of a society
> without a power structure. You'd have to start that at the very basic
> level and remove power structures from families. The removal of the
> paternal/maternal heirarchy would result in a natural movement to
> eradicate heirarchies elsewhere in the society. You can't just do it on a
> governmental level and leave other power structures untouched.
> Psychologically speaking, we're rather all or nothing creatures. We can
> handle any type of society, but we can't handle more than one at a time.
> The social instinct in us just doesn't seem to be wired that way.
Hmm, my particular favoured manner of restructering things wouldn't
require destroying all power or anything...
My view is that it's necessary, sometimes, to share some of your own
personal power with others, for the good of the whole. That's what a
state is, that's what a corporation is.
However, it's also my strong belief that in that case I have a right
to an equal say in determining the overall use of that power. For
example, I am subject to laws laid down by Westminster, the Scottish
Parliament, and Glasgow City Council.
I pool my personal power with about 60 million other people through
westminster, about 5 million through the Scottish Parliament, and a
few tens of thousands through GCC (which doesn't include many of
Glasgow's suburbs).
In return, I get a 1/40millionth of a say in Westminster (a guess
rough guess of the population eligeable to vote), 1/2-3millionth in
the Scottish parliament, and 1/a few tens of thousands for the GCC.
I consider this to be acceptable, because of the alternative proposed
by Hobbes; the "state of nature" in which there is no cooperation, and
all is war.
But if all this is true of governments then I believe it must also be
true of corporations. If I share some of my personal power with 500
other people in a company, I deserve 1/500th of a say in how it is
run. Otherwise, the company has no right to tell me what to do.
I'm no revolutionary, I'm not looking to overthrow capitalism ;) I'm
in favour of employee profit-sharing through share distribution
schemes, worker-run factories, housing cooperatives, and so on.
I'm also pro-market, so what I'd like to see is more profit sharing
and workers cooperatives and so on, competing on a level playing field
with traditional corps. I think that profit-sharing companies have
already been shown to perform the best economically, and hence are
actually petty common already. Workers cooperatives I would expect to
compete best in the labour market, although negative propaganda could
break that.
Also, non-traditional corporations will find it a lot harder to get
investment :/
> My mind is spinning on that one. I'm guilty of being comfortable enough
> to not want to rock the boat. If I'd been asked my opinion five years
> ago, I might have answered differently, but now I have too much at stake.
The sort of gradual transition I'm in favour of wouldn't lead to
deaths and bloody revolution, that sort of thing's no good. Very few
revolutionary models work the way you'd want them too.
I don't see that decentralising democracy as far as possible (heh,
didn't mention that idea above... IMHO it's hard to deal with a
commuity of more than a couple of hundred people... where possible
decisions should be taken at a community or neighbourhood level), and
a transition to companies based on stakeholder (not shareholder)
democracy, one-person one-vote, would rock the boat in a dangerous
sense.
Leo Fellmann
"Alistair Davidson" <lord...@yahoo.co.uk> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3C618EA5...@yahoo.co.uk...
> *** I've been reading up on this lately, anarchism isn't as ridiculous as
one
> might expect, it turns out. Mostly just an opposition to running society
in a
> manner that's based around power structures.
It does sort of assume everyone's going to cooperate and not create power
structures, though. That's not going to work.
Leo Fellmann
Newsbeitrag news:d9dd9203.02020...@posting.google.com...
> bc90021 <bc9...@no.bc90021.spam.net> wrote in message
news:<3C61B93B...@no.bc90021.spam.net>...
> >
> > I have had similar feelings for, oh, I'd have to say, half my life.
> > Part of the problem, too, is that the media also tends to get involved -
> > and obviously, they have quite the leftist slant. So any popular media,
> > be it magazines you see in the checkout stand, or radio, or television,
> > you're getting the rants of the left thrown at you all the time.
>
> Interestingly, I'd say much of the media has a right-wing bias...
> perhaps we notice most the opposing viewpoints?
I'd say they have a left-wing view. Of course, this is France here. I think
it's just different everywhere.
Mark Gordon
Fellmann" <l.fel...@free.fr> proceeded to utter the following:
I'm in the UK. Our Labour party would probably now count as a right
wing party in France but to me they just seem incapable of deciding
what they want to be. IMHO the Liberal party in the UK is a lot more
left wing than the Labour party.
--
Mark Gordon - To email me replace spamtrap with mark.gordon
A feature is a bug with seniority.
Curious Gene
> Threnody wrote:
>>
>> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about it. I
>> made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not only to my
>> husband, but to my government, my society, and to my church.
> Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
> Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
And then there's my parents... In June, they celebrated their 50th
anniversary, with all 13 of their children and all 13 of their
grandchildren present, with a mass and a renewal of vows in the
very same Catholic church in which they were first married.
They're obviously evil incarnate. They're (in part) also the reason
I generally shy away from any protracted arguments about Christianity
(and how much is sucks, Neo_1061, I'm looking in you general direction
( ;P )) or... well, lots of other types of things. I was raised as a
Catholic (and I still am, although not a very good one, I guess), by
very devout (and extremely monogamous (and apparently quite fertile))
parents, I was an altar boy for years and years, I was a boy scout,
etc etc... And I had what I consider to be quite a happy childhood.
I was only really miserable when I was at school, but that's because
I was a skinny, freckled geek with big glasses named "Eugene". But
what're ya gonna do? But growing up in a big Catholic family with
conservative values doesn't appear to have harmed my in any big way,
and I no longer have the inclination to try to defend that way of
life against... well, just about anything. People can say and believe
what they want. These days, if I don't agree with them (especially
when it comes to Usenet), I simply stay out of the argument, because
anybody who is really vociferous in their arguments against religion
is never going to be brought to my point of view by any means. It
worked fine for me, I hope it will work alright for my children (if
I ever have any), and that's that as far as I'm concerned. Which is
why I stayed out of the "A little buzzed, a lot cheesed off" thread.
There were some very interesting things said, some good arguments put
forward, but I just didn't have the energy to get into the discussion
because I knew it wouldn't do any good. Live and let live, man.
I'm not expressing myself very well this morning. I have a hangover.
Sorry. But we're all friends, right? I need caffeine. Where's my
Penguin mints?
--
Gene Sullivan | System Operator | ge...@xlrn.ucsb.edu
Who mouths inanity disorders thought for all who listen. There must
be some minimum allowable dose of inanity beyond which the mind cannot
remain reasonable. -The Underground Grammarian
Joel Crum
> Joel Crum wrote:
>
> > "Threnody" <cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote in message
> > news:Xns91AD5420FDD01cr...@216.166.71.233...
> >>
> >> I don't know why I can ignore the right-wing shouting easier than I
> >> can the left-wing shouting.
> > <....>
> > Sounds to me like you've had more practice and are closer to the right
> > wing anyway. Plus a traditional marriage (lifestyle?) has worked for
> > you so it doesn't tend to bother you when people advocate it.
>
> I suspect you are correct. For some reason this bothers me almost as much
> as my original complaint about hostility from the left.
>
always been a moderate when someone starts talking about some idea they had
that no one else ever has, or how something that's thousands of years old
can be "fixed". I tend to wonder why the other X billion brains that have
considered it missed this.
> >> I'd like to do that still, but the left-wingers are really starting
> >> to unnerve me. In the past year I've been told...
> >
> > I find the key to ignoring people is to acknowledge that you don't
> > particularly like them. [...] So bring it all up to a
> > conscience level and it becomes easier to deal with.
>
> Good advice. I am doing that, and I guess this posting is a way of
> dealing with it.
WTG!
> > What with all those years of charismatic Christianity
> > under your belt you will recognize this for biblical advice*.
>
> Not to mention turning the other cheek and the directive to forgive as
> many as seventy times seven. ;)
>
Those others are good but they don't really tell you how, I like the
Proverbs verse; it's tricky. You think "YES!! I SHALL CRUSH MY ENEMIES - -
WITH NICENESS!! Bwahahahahaha." Then that seventy times seven thing gets
easier.
> > Typically they will become confused and either go away or start being
> > nice back to you.
>
> They don't, and this is why I said I was becoming unnerved.
I would be too, don't tell them were I live, OK?
> They continue
> to blow spittle in my face as they scream at me. Reasonable people do not
> do that. It's like they've all gone insane.
Where _are_ you meeting such unpleasant people?
- Joel C.
Threnody
> Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity allegedly said:
>> Threnody wrote:
>>>
>>> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about
>>> it. I made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not
>>> only to my husband, but to my government, my society, and to my
>>> church.
>
>> Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
>> Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
I *know*, isn't it scary?! I doubt many Christians would be happy to
claim me, since I say "fuck" and stuff. But there's no doubt in my mind
that's what the majority of people would classify me as. (As for saying
"fuck," consider this: Jesus hung out with sailors and prostitutes. I
imagine the language got a little blue from time to time, yet He
considered them His closest circle of friends and supporters, and later He
asked them to spread His message. God only asked that we don't swear
using His name or, to be more precise, that we don't use the name of His
most powerful form, the Holy Spirit, in anything but a respectful manner.
He never asked that we don't cuss. Knowing your Greek and Hebrew helps on
this one, since the King James and later translations of the Bible are
woefully lacking in accuracy.)
Besides, I like the word "fuck." It just sort of pops right off the lips,
like a linguistic capgun. Bang! Fuck! Pow!
> [...]
> I generally shy away from any protracted arguments about Christianity
> [...] And I had what I consider to be quite a happy childhood.
> I was only really miserable when I was at school, but that's because
> [...] But growing up in a big Catholic family with
> conservative values doesn't appear to have harmed my in any big way,
> and I no longer have the inclination to try to defend that way of
> life against... well, just about anything. People can say and believe
> what they want. These days, if I don't agree with them (especially
> when it comes to Usenet), I simply stay out of the argument, [...]
> Live and let live, man.
Yes, yes, and yes some more. My original post was a departure from my
normal manner of leaving things lie. It is seldom worth the trouble to
argue, since I'm not going to convince them of anything. They seem more
interested in hearing themselves expound on their pet themes. I dunno. I
guess it just gets to me after a while.
I don't feel I suffered any because of my upbringing. Actually, I think
it gave me a more introspective bent than most of my peers had, or have
even today. I don't just follow philosophies as I discover them, I live
*one* philosophy that hasn't changed in over fifteen years. That doesn't
mean I'm not still seeking for some answers, but it does mean that I'm a
lot more consistent than many of the people around me.
> I'm not expressing myself very well this morning. I have a hangover.
> Sorry. But we're all friends, right? I need caffeine. Where's my
> Penguin mints?
Off the south coast of New Zealand.
Neo_1061
<bc9...@no.bc90021.spam.net> jacked into the Matrix and the following
appeared in alt.geek:
>Obviously, that is not to say that there are no rants from the right,
>either, but typically, they don't get the free air time (getting back to
>the media point).
What about the vocal bible-thumping conservative fascist pigs in
southern states? Pat Robertson, or whatever the name was, and their
ilk. Or even Ottawa's very own Laura Schlessinger, who would
undoubtedly like the world to believe she's a Victorian porcelain doll
that doesn't pee, fart, or for God's sake menstruate...
>(No shots intended Kitz, just pointing something out - obviously, free
>speech is free speech, and I have no problems with that. Just because I
>don't necessarily agree doesn't mean that the right doesn't exist.) I
>could go on and on and on - we were the laughing stock of the rest of
>the world with Slick Willie and his little flings, but did the media
>ever report that?
Within a week I was sick to death of zippergate in the media. If
anything they overreported it to such a degree that everyone tuned it
out so thoroughly that they effectively underreported it.
>There are extremists on both sides, and have been for all time, and
>there will continue to be. Nothing will change that. And given the
>leftward slant of the media, even if the left isn't always as loud as
>they should be, it will seem like they are. Of course, when they are,
>it just magnifies the sound...
Maybe that's a good thing? Maybe it truly is a bad thing for the
government (or worse, a church with actual real political power) to be
telling people what they can do in the bedroom with consenting adults?
Maybe the WTO really is bad, and maybe Microsoft and other big greedy
corporations really are evil? Maybe the right, for the most part,
doesn't have a leg to stand on? :-)
Truth is, when you let the government dictate morality and get cozy
with religion, you get things like the brutal Taliban. And when a
bunch of peaceful anti-globalization protesters are attacked by riot
police, with the police *making the first aggressive move*, you have
there a strong clue which side wears the white hats...
No sig
Just me
Little Nemo
<l.fel...@free.fr> writes
I'd say in France and most of mainland Europe they are more leftist,
much more than Britain which seems to be in-between America and Europe,
leaning to the right these days unfortunately.
--
Little Nemo
Neo_1061
jacked into the Matrix and the following appeared in alt.geek:
>"Threnody" <cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote in message
>news:Xns91ADC6E998013cr...@216.166.71.233...
>> Joel Crum wrote:
>>
>> > "Threnody" <cr...@austin.TAKETHISOUTrr.com> wrote in message
>> > news:Xns91AD5420FDD01cr...@216.166.71.233...
>> >>
>> >> I don't know why I can ignore the right-wing shouting easier than I
>> >> can the left-wing shouting.
>> > <....>
>> > Sounds to me like you've had more practice and are closer to the right
>> > wing anyway. Plus a traditional marriage (lifestyle?) has worked for
>> > you so it doesn't tend to bother you when people advocate it.
>>
>> I suspect you are correct. For some reason this bothers me almost as much
>> as my original complaint about hostility from the left.
>>
>I'd like to say I can sympathize but I can't really. ::Smile, shrug:: I've
>always been a moderate when someone starts talking about some idea they had
>that no one else ever has, or how something that's thousands of years old
>can be "fixed". I tend to wonder why the other X billion brains that have
>considered it missed this.
What, you think all six billion of them *think*? About things like
*this*? Wrong planet. :P
>> They continue
>> to blow spittle in my face as they scream at me. Reasonable people do not
>> do that. It's like they've all gone insane.
>
>Where _are_ you meeting such unpleasant people?
Off the top of my head, my first guess would be ... usenet.
No sig
Just me
Leo Fellmann
news:EObGgXOz...@btopenworld.com...
Not unfortunately. Not at all. I'd rather have right-wing media then left.
Of course, best of all would be neither, but no-one's perfect :(
Leo Fellmann
"Neo_1061" <inv...@erehwon.invalid> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:3c634ca5....@news.primus.ca...
> Truth is, when you let the government dictate morality and get cozy
> with religion, you get things like the brutal Taliban. And when a
> bunch of peaceful anti-globalization protesters are attacked by riot
> police, with the police *making the first aggressive move*
Maybe the police are allergic to idiots? ;)
Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity
> Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity allegedly said:
> > Threnody wrote:
> >>
> >> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about it. I
> >> made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not only to my
> >> husband, but to my government, my society, and to my church.
>
> > Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
> > Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
>
> And then there's my parents... In June, they celebrated their 50th
> anniversary, with all 13 of their children and all 13 of their
> grandchildren present, with a mass and a renewal of vows in the
> very same Catholic church in which they were first married.
That's so sweet :)
Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity
> Curious Gene wrote:
>
> > Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity allegedly said:
> >> Threnody wrote:
> >>>
> >>> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about
> >>> it. I made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not
> >>> only to my husband, but to my government, my society, and to my
> >>> church.
>
> >> Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
> >> Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
>
> I *know*, isn't it scary?! I doubt many Christians would be happy to
> claim me, since I say "fuck" and stuff. But there's no doubt in my mind
> that's what the majority of people would classify me as. (As for saying
> "fuck," consider this: Jesus hung out with sailors and prostitutes. I
> imagine the language got a little blue from time to time, yet He
> considered them His closest circle of friends and supporters, and later He
> asked them to spread His message. God only asked that we don't swear
> using His name or, to be more precise, that we don't use the name of His
> most powerful form, the Holy Spirit, in anything but a respectful manner.
> He never asked that we don't cuss. Knowing your Greek and Hebrew helps on
> this one, since the King James and later translations of the Bible are
> woefully lacking in accuracy.)
>
> Besides, I like the word "fuck." It just sort of pops right off the lips,
> like a linguistic capgun. Bang! Fuck! Pow!
I believe that St Paul had bad things to say about swearing, but I
personally don't like Paul. Jesus was a pretty great philosopher IMHO,
while Paul always seems pretty facistic to me.
Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity
No, it doesn't assume that at all. The original old-skool Anarchism
actually assumes (incorrectly I feel) that people will always
cooperate. IMHO we're not egoists, but we do act selfishly quite a bit
of the time.
I should perhaps clarify the power-structures statement further. The
attack is on top-down power. So you can cooperate, but in a
democractic manner. A non-democractic entity is mopst certainly *not*
assured of defeating a democratic one.
Curious Gene
> Curious Gene wrote:
>> Lord Alistair Davidson, part-time deity allegedly said:
>>> Threnody wrote:
>>>>
>>>> That is part of my argument for my marriage, when confronted about
>>>> it. I made a promise and I'm sticking by it. I promised it not
>>>> only to my husband, but to my government, my society, and to my
>>>> church.
>>
>>> Not only are you a monogamist and a mother, but you're a
>>> Christian!!??!? EEEVIL! ;p~~~
> I *know*, isn't it scary?! I doubt many Christians would be happy to
> claim me, since I say "fuck" and stuff. But there's no doubt in my mind
> that's what the majority of people would classify me as. (As for saying
> "fuck," consider this: Jesus hung out with sailors and prostitutes. I
> imagine the language got a little blue from time to time, yet He
> considered them His closest circle of friends and supporters, and later He
> asked them to spread His message. God only asked that we don't swear
> using His name or, to be more precise, that we don't use the name of His
> most powerful form, the Holy Spirit, in anything but a respectful manner.
> He never asked that we don't cuss. Knowing your Greek and Hebrew helps on
> this one, since the King James and later translations of the Bible are
> woefully lacking in accuracy.)
A translation of a translation of a translation... I still find it amusing,
in a sad sort of way, when people talk about reading the Bible in the
"original Latin". I keep getting flashes of Captain Chang quoting from
Shakespear "in the original Klingon".
> Besides, I like the word "fuck." It just sort of pops right off the lips,
> like a linguistic capgun. Bang! Fuck! Pow!
Did anybody else just think of the fight scenes from the original Batman
TV show right then? Just imagine the possibilities in the (ObCrossThread)
pr0n market. "Batman enters the cheerleader's locker room... Bang! Fuck!"
Anyway, 'fuck' really is a great word. It is incredibly versatile, and
can function as just about any part of speech. Vocal popcorn. Fuck!
>> [...]
>> I generally shy away from any protracted arguments about Christianity
>> [...] And I had what I consider to be quite a happy childhood.
>> I was only really miserable when I was at school, but that's because
>> [...] But growing up in a big Catholic family with
>> conservative values doesn't appear to have harmed my in any big way,
>> and I no longer have the inclination to try to defend that way of
>> life against... well, just about anything. People can say and believe
>> what they want. These days, if I don't agree with them (especially
>> when it comes to Usenet), I simply stay out of the argument, [...]
>> Live and let live, man.
> Yes, yes, and yes some more. My original post was a departure from my
> normal manner of leaving things lie. It is seldom worth the trouble to
> argue, since I'm not going to convince them of anything. They seem more
> interested in hearing themselves expound on their pet themes. I dunno. I
> guess it just gets to me after a while.
I know that feeling. As I watch some of the "discussions" that have
occured lately, I get the feeling that nobody is actually _reading_
anybody else's posts, they're just waiting for their turn to write
some more of whatever it is that they're writing.
> I don't feel I suffered any because of my upbringing. Actually, I think
> it gave me a more introspective bent than most of my peers had, or have
> even today. I don't just follow philosophies as I discover them, I live
> *one* philosophy that hasn't changed in over fifteen years. That doesn't
> mean I'm not still seeking for some answers, but it does mean that I'm a
> lot more consistent than many of the people around me.
My basic philosophy has remained relatively static for quite a long time,
but it does occasionally change, but only a little bit. In fact, it doesn't
so much *change* as expand a bit as small points are clarified. Or
something.
>> I'm not expressing myself very well this morning. I have a hangover.
>> Sorry. But we're all friends, right? I need caffeine. Where's my
>> Penguin mints?
> Off the south coast of New Zealand.
Ah, right. If anybody needs me, I'll be... well, actually, I've always
wanted to visit the Falklands. I'll be there. Yeah.
Little Nemo
It depends what paper. The tabloids tend to be right, with possibly the
exception of The Mirrior The Guardian is definitely left or somewhere in
the middle.
--
Little Nemo
Little Nemo
<l.fel...@free.fr> writes
>
Just like the rest of us are allergic to bacon.
--
Little Nemo
Neo_1061
Davidson, part-time deity) jacked into the Matrix and the following
appeared in alt.geek:
>I believe that St Paul had bad things to say about swearing, but I
>personally don't like Paul. Jesus was a pretty great philosopher IMHO,
>while Paul always seems pretty facistic to me.
Does calling someone a "fascist" count as a Godwin violation, or does
it have to explicitly mention Nazis or Hitler to qualify? For that
matter, if the compare-ee is about 2000 years dead, does it count? Or
maybe you should automatically *win* since the target is in no
condition to defend themselves. Or maybe it's a draw, since the target
loses nothing... hmm...
No sig
Just me
Neo_1061
jacked into the Matrix and the following appeared in alt.geek:
>A translation of a translation of a translation... I still find it amusing,
>in a sad sort of way, when people talk about reading the Bible in the
>"original Latin". I keep getting flashes of Captain Chang quoting from
>Shakespear "in the original Klingon".
Nah. His droning over an open comm channel when there was supposed to
be a space battle happening, that got old very fast. Even the actors
thought so. I distinctly heard DeForest Kelly say he'd "give good
money" if Chang would shut up...
>I know that feeling. As I watch some of the "discussions" that have
>occured lately, I get the feeling that nobody is actually _reading_
>anybody else's posts, they're just waiting for their turn to write
>some more of whatever it is that they're writing.
On Usenet they don't even have to wait their turn -- it's
asynchronous!
>My basic philosophy has remained relatively static for quite a long time,
>but it does occasionally change, but only a little bit. In fact, it doesn't
>so much *change* as expand a bit as small points are clarified. Or
>something.
No, that's just the sleep deprivation kicking in. :)
No sig
Just me
Neo_1061
jacked into the Matrix and the following appeared in alt.geek:
>
Protesting the corporatocracy having carte blanche to exploit third
world labour, trash the environment, and engage in anticompetitive
practises to crush small business isn't idiocy, even if you do get
beaten up, arrested, and otherwise harassed for it.
No sig
Just me
Leo Fellmann
@news.primus.ca:
> On 8 Feb 2002 05:38:07 -0800, lord...@yahoo.co.uk (Lord Alistair
> Davidson, part-time deity) jacked into the Matrix and the following
> appeared in alt.geek:
>
>>I believe that St Paul had bad things to say about swearing, but I
>>personally don't like Paul. Jesus was a pretty great philosopher IMHO,
>>while Paul always seems pretty facistic to me.
>
> Does calling someone a "fascist" count as a Godwin violation, or does
> it have to explicitly mention Nazis or Hitler to qualify?
Yes. Yes, it does.
For that
> matter, if the compare-ee is about 2000 years dead, does it count?
It would if it did count.
