|
Post by William the Bloody on Feb 8, 2008 23:38:18 GMT -5
BUFFY: New semester, new classes. Whole new vistas of knowledge to be confused and intimidated by.
TARA: I think this one's gonna be kind of fun. Greek Art's gonna touch on so many things -- mythology, history, philosophy...
BUFFY: The professor spit too much when he talked. It was like being at Sea World. The first five rows will get wet.
TARA: That was just, you know, um, enthusiasm.
BUFFY: It seemed very much like saliva.
TARA: We'll sit farther back next time The more-exciting-than-usual candidate choices this election year prompted discussions over creating a place where The Rules could be relaxed in order to discuss them. Then, the idea of political discussion being allowed prompted the idea of experimenting with ALL topics being allowed. So we created this space in which to do that.
So, with that, we present to you...
The first ever Open Topic Discussion!
You are welcome to talk here about pretty much whatever you want. Religion, politics, philosophy... you name it!
But, before we go any further, here's the deal:While we have relaxed the rules about religion and politics only in this forum, we're still adhering to the "no bashing" rules. There's a little black button up above if you need a refresher on those.
Please keep any disagreements potentially created here from carrying over to the other threads. This forum may be suspended if we feel it becomes detrimental to the harmony of the S'cubies.
Technopagans do reserve the right to reprimand, apply strikes and modify/delete posts if posters don't take the rules seriously.
With that said, we'd also like to address the fact that techs will probably frequently be involved in the discourse. While they will strive to adhere to the rules themselves, it is quite possible that, at some point, the regular members may feel they have stepped out of bounds. If you feel a board admin is out of line, please report this to the other Techs and/or your CoW members. And that's pretty much it! Follow those guidelines and we should all be good. Oh, and if you don't wanna get wet, you might want to sit a bit to the back. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 12:20:19 GMT -5
Well, I've got one (you knew I would). The fact that I'm a Hilary voter (and contributer, and T-shirt wearer) will come as a shock to no one. But yesterday, this appeared on Broadsheet over at Salon.com: So...MSNBC (and especially Chris Matthews) have been, IMO, really misogynist in their coverage of Hilary, but this hits a new low (in this election year). So, discuss, if you want - is the remark really out of line? Or just a metaphor? Is Chelsea being held to an unfair double-standard (that is, if she DIDN'T campaign for Mom, what would they say about that?)?
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 9, 2008 12:42:08 GMT -5
Well, I've got one (you knew I would). The fact that I'm a Hilary voter (and contributer, and T-shirt wearer) will come as a shock to no one. But yesterday, this appeared on Broadsheet over at Salon.com: So...MSNBC (and especially Chris Matthews) have been, IMO, really misogynist in their coverage of Hilary, but this hits a new low (in this election year). So, discuss, if you want - is the remark really out of line? Or just a metaphor? Is Chelsea being held to an unfair double-standard (that is, if she DIDN'T campaign for Mom, what would they say about that?)? I find it very interesting that nobody has used this metaphor for the Romney boys, even after Romney said that his sons were serving their country by campaigning for him. This seems to be part of a pattern of general Clinton-bashing, and it's highly inappropriate, to say the least (I'm being polite here). There's worse, but I don't feel strong enough to bring it up. Suffice it to say that if someone was sliming Obama with racial slurs the way Hillary is being slimed with gender slurs, there'd be national outcries for tar and feathers... By the way, Keith Olbermann covered this story last night - he apologised, fully and properly, on behalf of his network. So somebody there got it, for whatever that's worth. I'm also rather annoyed (polite word) at the right-wing commentators who are threatening to support Hillary - Limbaugh has decided to donate money to her campaign in the hopes that if she's the nominee, Republicans will arise in their wrath and vote for someone else, and Ann Coulter has said she'll vote for Hillary if McCain is the Republican nominee. I really don't appreciate having my party, whoever the nominee is, treated like their kickball. I had something else, but Emily came along and derailed my train of thought. If I remember, and if it's worth the trouble, I'll get back to it later. Thanks, technopagans, for setting this up. Anne, assume, as always, the IMO
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 12:54:36 GMT -5
Well, I've got one (you knew I would). The fact that I'm a Hilary voter (and contributer, and T-shirt wearer) will come as a shock to no one. But yesterday, this appeared on Broadsheet over at Salon.com: So...MSNBC (and especially Chris Matthews) have been, IMO, really misogynist in their coverage of Hilary, but this hits a new low (in this election year). So, discuss, if you want - is the remark really out of line? Or just a metaphor? Is Chelsea being held to an unfair double-standard (that is, if she DIDN'T campaign for Mom, what would they say about that?)? I find it very interesting that nobody has used this metaphor for the Romney boys, even after Romney said that his sons were serving their country by campaigning for him. This seems to be part of a pattern of general Clinton-bashing, and it's highly inappropriate, to say the least (I'm being polite here). There's worse, but I don't feel strong enough to bring it up. Suffice it to say that if someone was sliming Obama with racial slurs the way Hillary is being slimed with gender slurs, there'd be national outcries for tar and feathers... This bit, especially, is what really pisses me off. It's still okay in this country to be publicly misogynistic, you can even use the word "cunt" on a T-shirt (or three) to describe a political candidate...you can get cafepress.com to sell a T-shirt that says "I wish Hillary had married O.J. instead"...but imagine what would happen if you used the word "nigger" to describe Obama. It's not okay to be a racist (in public, out loud), but misogyny is fine and dandy. And for the record, I LIKE Barack Obama. I'll vote for him if he's the candidate. But he's getting something of a free ride from the media, and it's not at all fair. And his campaign hasn't been the class act it pretends to be, IMO. Especially his wife saying she wouldn't want to campaign for Clinton if she gets the nomination instead of Obama. Also? Both Bush girls campaigned for Daddy, and as you said, so did the Romney boys. Why were they NOT being pimped out? Double standards and Clinton bashing. As for Ann Coulter? Hell, the woman said she prefers the word "torture", and is in favor of it. She's perhaps not entirely stable. Rush...well, what I think of Rush qualifies as bashing....
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Feb 9, 2008 12:58:23 GMT -5
Oh, and can I say how much I like Chelsea Clinton? She really IS a class act...and her parents can't be all that bad, for her to turn out so well. She never once made the papers for getting drunk and climbing out a window, and somehow her private life manages to stay private.
And she's still stable, after years of the press covering her dad's infidelities like it was the end of the world, and the press calling her homely (WTF?), and everyotherdamnedthing.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 14:39:35 GMT -5
FIRST: OH, this is sooo fun to have this thread! I hope we can manage to do OK with it, and I'm thinking we can.
SECOND: My thoughts on the stuff above:
THE CHELSEA STUFF: This is bias bashing of the worst sort. Sickening! There is nothing wrong with any grown child campaigning for his or her parent. Said child is doing it voluntarily and of their own free will. To criticize any candidate on such grounds is "reaching" and totally out of line. Chelsea is indeed a class act, and the only one I ever felt sorry for, when it came to the latest Bill Clinton sexual shenanigan story.
ANN COULTER: The woman is nuts. Anyone who lives in such a "black and white" world, seems unaware of her own fallibility, is as strident, grotesquely ego-driven, deliberately callous, offensive, and righteous (on either side of the political fence) as Ann C always strikes me as certifiable. To me, it is wrong to use your vote to "play games." It demonstrates a lack of respect for all candidates and both parties. But then "having no respect for anything but herself and her own views" is kinda what Ann is all about.
HILLARY VS BARACK: I plan to vote in the Dem primary this year, but haven't yet made up my mind on who. Hillary is more of a "match" to my political views, and I think she extremely intelligent, capable, and hard working. I love the idea of a woman in the office. But Barack is more appealing to me in other ways - he brings that sort of Kennedyesque "inspiring leader, orator" thing with him that this country hasn't seen in a long while, and after these Bush years, I thirst for a president the personifies that kind of calm dignity and intelligence.
MCCAIN: I hope he gets the Republican nomination. He's my favorite among the candidates and his nomination would mean an end of an era that needs to end. Push comes to shove, my own feeling: I'm really happy the USA has clearly moved far enough (in a blazingly short time, historically speaking) to be able to give a major party presidential nomination to a woman or minority male. I'm not 100% sure we are quite there yet, on actually electing one, though. It's not going to keep me from voting for whomever I truly want, but since I think the Republican nominee has a very good shot at winning, all I can say is: Go, John!
CHELSEA'S UPBRINGING: As the mom of a very difficult child who listened to school authorities blame me endlessly, and as the best pal (in HS) of one of the best "kids" I ever knew (she turned out great), who I also knew was being badly abused at home, I don't subscribe to "the parents must have done something right" sort of thinking. Not that parents don't deserve some credit and blame, for "how the kids turn out," to some extent, in some way. Sure, it reflects the parenting. But figuring out just how the results are reflect the parenting? To my mind: Impossible without initimate knowledge of the all the relevant circumstances, and pretty tricky, even then.
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 9, 2008 14:45:00 GMT -5
Rachael, I just want to eetah both your posts above. I admire Chelsea Clinton no end; she's a fine role model for young women, as is her mom. Also, what is it with the right-wing attacking Hillary for not divorcing Bill after Lewinskygate? Hillary and Bill went through infidelity hell in public and kept their marriage together, and that's a bad thing because they're Democrats? Or Clintons? Whatever. Whichever of the two Democratic candidates gets the nomination, by the way, I will support him or her wholeheartedly - they're both good people and would each make a fine president. Am I allowed to say that Rush Limbaugh and Ann Coulter make me , or would that be considered bashing? Anne, as always, assume the IMVHO
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 15:03:27 GMT -5
Well, I've got one (you knew I would). The fact that I'm a Hilary voter (and contributer, and T-shirt wearer) will come as a shock to no one. But yesterday, this appeared on Broadsheet over at Salon.com: So...MSNBC (and especially Chris Matthews) have been, IMO, really misogynist in their coverage of Hilary, but this hits a new low (in this election year). So, discuss, if you want - is the remark really out of line? Or just a metaphor? Is Chelsea being held to an unfair double-standard (that is, if she DIDN'T campaign for Mom, what would they say about that?)? I am personally not a fan of Hillary Clinton, but I agree that is stepping over the bounds. She's working her mom's campaign. Personally I think all political kids should be off-limits (even as 27 YO adults) unless they are involved in something truly news-worthy. I even felt sorry for the Bush twins and hte attention they received for basically being teens/young adults. I don't appreciate most of the talking heads in the Mainstream media. And I feel even less generous to the media itself. There are plenty of negative things to be studied about a potential Hillary Clinton presidency that are valid without stooping to slander her child (or her relationship with her), especially when the only thing you can say about her is that she is working her mom's campaign and making phone calls. Sheesh! For the record, I was going to vote for Paul, but that was only if he could actually get some sort of momentum from Super Tuesday. Now, with the campaigns between Hillary and Obama virtually deadlocked (with the unthinkable happening that, even if he gets a small margin of delegates over her in the primaries and caucuses, that some group of Super Delegates, who sound pretty much like the good old boys that owe a lot to the Clintons by way of favors, may elect her anyway,) I will cast my vote for Obama. Aside from Paul, there is no Republican candidate I would have voted for, and it sure as heck isn't going to be John"100 Years War" McCain. I don't have a lot of faith in Obama, but I think he will actually get us out of Iraq within a year. I still think that economically we are screwed in this country no matter who gets in. Paul had the only solution for that, and even his was gloomy. But at least he points to the true problems. At this point, I am voting for the only topics left: no "mandated" healthcare and getting us out of Iraq sensibly, both things that I am dubious of Clinton on. She's part of the same group that is currently in charge of this country; she jsut happens to be their candidate on the other side of the aisle. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 15:03:35 GMT -5
Rachael, I just want to eetah both your posts above. I admire Chelsea Clinton no end; she's a fine role model for young women, as is her mom. Also, what is it with the right-wing attacking Hillary for not divorcing Bill after Lewinskygate? Hillary and Bill went through infidelity hell in public and kept their marriage together, and that's a bad thing because they're Democrats? Or Clintons? Whatever. She'd be getting bashed either way - if she'd divorced him, or not. Opposition looks for things to bash you about, and they bash. I have to admit, the "staying with Bill" thing is not something I admire about Hillary. But then a "perfect candidate" is not something I am looking for, mostly because I know I'm never gonna find one. Hmmm. This is a good test case. I didn't even think about the "bashing thing" when I wrote that Ann C was nuts and all that. Should I should have put it more in words that referred specifically to "her opinions and her method of sharing her opinions " rather than to her as a person, when describing the righteous stuff? I mean, all these people - Hillary, Barack, John M, Ann C, Rush L, etc . . . are public figures who put their opinions out there and dish it out and they, I think, expect to take it - Ann Coulter writes books with titles like "If Democrats Had Any Brains, They'd Be Republicans," so - to me, it's open season; it's meant to be. But if I done wrong, I will take my medicine. I will leave my post as it is, for its instructional value. Did Spring step out of line? If so, what does that mean for what we can and can't post here? If not, where are the limits? Discuss.
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 15:24:49 GMT -5
....what does that mean for what we can and can't post here? If not, where are the limits? Discuss. I was thinking it would be better if we don't actually do any name-calling, just for the sake of keeping potentially inflammatory stuff from, you know, really catching fire. For instance, "unstable" could be backed up with some evidence whereas "nuts" is pretty much subjective. Even if I agree with the term myself.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 15:29:40 GMT -5
....what does that mean for what we can and can't post here? If not, where are the limits? Discuss. I was thinking it would be better if we don't actually do any name-calling, just for the sake of keeping potentially inflammatory stuff from, you know, really catching fire. For instance, "unstable" could be backed up with some evidence whereas "nuts" is pretty much subjective. Even if I agree with the term myself. OK. So don't use slang terms that could be considered "name-calling," I agree "nuts" would be among those. And on the other stuff, I think I should have made it clearer that I was referring to particular opinions and methods she uses, than to every aspect of her person, etc . . . when I used the words "righteous," etc. And the part about not respecting anyone was worded in too "inflamatory" a way also. I am going to take a look at it, then reword it in the next post. I am just going to leave it all as is, though, thinking that it's justified to do so to help us all understand what's OK and what's not . . . if you TPs disagree and want to delete anything, or ask me to delete something, I will. Take a look at my next post, and let me know.
|
|
|
Post by Vlad on Feb 9, 2008 15:31:25 GMT -5
FIRST: OH, this is sooo fun to have this thread! I hope we can manage to do OK with it, and I'm thinking we can. SECOND: My thoughts on the stuff above: THE CHELSEA STUFF: This is bias bashing of the worst sort. Sickening! There is nothing wrong with any grown child campaigning for his or her parent. Said child is doing it voluntarily and of their own free will. To criticize any candidate on such grounds is "reaching" and totally out of line. Chelsea is indeed a class act, and the only one I ever felt sorry for, when it came to the latest Bill Clinton sexual shenanigan story. ANN COULTER: The woman is nuts. Anyone who lives in such a "black and white" world, seems unaware of her own fallibility, is as strident, grotesquely ego-driven, deliberately callous, offensive, and righteous (on either side of the political fence) as Ann C always strikes me as certifiable. To me, it is wrong to use your vote to "play games." It demonstrates a lack of respect for all candidates and both parties. But then "having no respect for anything but herself and her own views" is kinda what Ann is all about. HILLARY VS BARACK: I plan to vote in the Dem primary this year, but haven't yet made up my mind on who. Hillary is more of a "match" to my political views, and I think she extremely intelligent, capable, and hard working. I love the idea of a woman in the office. But Barack is more appealing to me in other ways - he brings that sort of Kennedyesque "inspiring leader, orator" thing with him that this country hasn't seen in a long while, and after these Bush years, I thirst for a president the personifies that kind of calm dignity and intelligence. MCCAIN: I hope he gets the Republican nomination. He's my favorite among the candidates and his nomination would mean an end of an era that needs to end. Push comes to shove, my own feeling: I'm really happy the USA has clearly moved far enough (in a blazingly short time, historically speaking) to be able to give a major party presidential nomination to a woman or minority male. I'm not 100% sure we are quite there yet, on actually electing one, though. It's not going to keep me from voting for whomever I truly want, but since I think the Republican nominee has a very good shot at winning, all I can say is: Go, John! CHELSEA'S UPBRINGING: As the mom of a very difficult child who listened to school authorities blame me endlessly, and as the best pal (in HS) of one of the best "kids" I ever knew (she turned out great), who I also knew was being badly abused at home, I don't subscribe to "the parents must have done something right" sort of thinking. Not that parents don't deserve some credit and blame, for "how the kids turn out," to some extent, in some way. Sure, it reflects the parenting. But figuring out just how the results are reflect the parenting? To my mind: Impossible without initimate knowledge of the all the relevant circumstances, and pretty tricky, even then. Rush and Coulter: I think they are both moderately intelligent sharks that found lucrative jobs being "rightwing" personalities. I personally detest them both. I also dismiss them both as being somewhat over and done. Sure, they may sway the very few, who follow them with fervor usually reserved for big-tent revivalist preachers, but I think (hope!) that those types of non-thinkers are in the small minority. Chelsea: I agree with you, Spring. I think we should admire Chelsea for being the person she is, possibly in spite of her parents. I don't doubt they love their daughter. And I am impressed that they managed to keep her completely out of bounds politically during her formative years. But, I think Chelsea deserves the credit for being quiet, staying out of trouble and leading her own life. McCain: I give the man his props for serving our country and for staying and being tortured when he could have gotten a free pass home from Vietnam. But, I don't want him as president. I don't think we should have been in Iraq and I can't support a man that not only wants to stay there and clean it up since we made the mess (a laudable enough idea) but was for going in the first place. His repeated use of the buzz word "radical islamofascists" jsut gives me the shivers. His being a Maverick during 2000 got me thinking he might be the first Republican I would have voted for changed when after he lost that election he came back to the party fold. Politics, in this case, have made what was once perhaps a very good man into nothing more than another politician, willing to do whatever it takes to win. Maybe with the idea that "at the top, I can actually get something done" but I don't like what he wants to get done. Also, he supports Real ID. That, in of itself, is a real no-go for me. Vlad
|
|
|
Post by Anne, Old S'cubie Cat on Feb 9, 2008 15:33:49 GMT -5
....what does that mean for what we can and can't post here? If not, where are the limits? Discuss. I was thinking it would be better if we don't actually do any name-calling, just for the sake of keeping potentially inflammatory stuff from, you know, really catching fire. For instance, "unstable" could be backed up with some evidence whereas "nuts" is pretty much subjective. Even if I agree with the term myself. Is it acceptable to state my reaction to someone (ie, I admire them, or I don't agree with them, or they make me want to throw something at the TV, etc), as opposed to just calling them nuts? My opinion of Ann Coulter, by the way, is that she's very smart and very good at manipulating people, and that she calculates exactly what to say to get the most reaction/attention/outrage at any given time. Crazy like a fox, in other words, and not the sort of person I admire.
|
|
|
Post by SpringSummers on Feb 9, 2008 15:39:12 GMT -5
OK. I originally wrote:
ANN COULTER: The woman is nuts. Anyone who lives in such a "black and white" world, seems unaware of her own fallibility, is as strident, grotesquely ego-driven, deliberately callous, offensive, and righteous (on either side of the political fence) as Ann C always strikes me as certifiable. To me, it is wrong to use your vote to "play games." It demonstrates a lack of respect for all candidates and both parties. But then "having no respect for anything but herself and her own views" is kinda what Ann is all about.
I am thinking I should have written:
ANN COULTER: There are things about her opinions, and ways of expressing them, that do suggest some mental instability to me. That kind of strident, self-righteous style (on either side of the political fence) seems to suggest that the speaker lives in very a "black and white" world and is unaware of his or her own fallibility. To me, it is wrong to use your vote to "play games." Doing that, or suggesting that others do that, demonstrates a lack of respect for all candidates and both parties. But then, "disrespectful of any opinion but my own" is another attribute of that uber-strident style some talking heads indulge in.
Better? More than that - is it OK? It avoids "name-calling" type words, and attributes my negative opinions straight to particular things about Ann C, rather than to her generally, as a person, and makes it clear that I realize this style is not limited to those of her political persuasion (so I'm clearly NOT saying that anyone who shares her opinion is also "strident" or "self-righteous," etc .).
|
|
|
Post by Shan on Feb 9, 2008 15:41:19 GMT -5
I was thinking it would be better if we don't actually do any name-calling, just for the sake of keeping potentially inflammatory stuff from, you know, really catching fire. For instance, "unstable" could be backed up with some evidence whereas "nuts" is pretty much subjective. Even if I agree with the term myself. OK. So don't use slang terms that could be considered "name-calling," I agree "nuts" would be among those. And on the other stuff, I think I should have made it clearer that I was referring to particular opinions and methods she uses, than to every aspect of her person, etc . . . when I used the words "righteous," etc. And the part about not respecting anyone was worded in too "inflamatory" a way also. I am going to take a look at it, then reword it in the next post. I am just going to leave it all as is, though, thinking that it's justified to do so to help us all understand what's OK and what's not . . . if you TPs disagree and want to delete anything, or ask me to delete something, I will. Take a look at my next post, and let me know. This TP very much prefers not to delete/modify posts so maybe your idea of leaving things "as is" for an example for future posts is a good idea. That way we don't have to splainey loads of times. It's a work in progress, this place.
|
|