|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:19:40 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 Welcome to Part 2! I'll be copying some of the more recent posts over from the last thread so people can continue the discussion over here if they so choose.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:24:49 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!"
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:25:44 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:30:54 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around. I can see why some people who supported Clinton might decide to vote for McCain; it depends on what qualities one is looking for in a candidate. But it sounds like this vocal minority is doing it more out of spite than anything.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:36:53 GMT -5
So, I was curious as to Hillary's reaction to last night's declaration of Barack Obama as the presumptive nominee, and read the letter she posted re her upcoming announcement of throwing her support behind Obama. And then I read the comments section. Bad idea. Several posts in all caps, several people accusing Obama of arrogance, of being a "secret Muslim," hating Hillary, and doing everything in his power to destroy her. Several then proclaimed their support for McCain (arguing he'd be a "one-termer" and therefore Hillary could run again in 2012). As someone who has been an Obama supporter from the start, as well as not being in the States (and TV-less), can I ask where all this vitriol is coming from? I'm really confused. I mean, the candidate I initially back almost never gets the nomination, and I don't declare: "Well, Howard Dean is out and Kerry has the nomination! Screw him! I'm voting for Bush!" I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around. I put much of it down to the reason all sane folks have a "don't ever read the comments" philosophy virtually everywhere. Trolls! The world is full of so very very very many trolls . . . I mean, never look at the comments on YouTube, for example. Never!! You'll be watching some amuzing otter swimming about or perhaps groovin' to some rockin' ska tune and then you foolishly let your eyes drift downward and it's all "usuxx" and "thisRsoGay" and "gosee mi vid is beetter try hotgirlz3433 iz rulz" and you end up wanting to stab the entire internet with a giant spork to let the stupid run out the bottom.
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:40:52 GMT -5
I honestly have NO idea. I do know that the folks who post in comments sections on blogs are the most vitriolic people I think I've ever seen, so it's not really a representative sample. There is a vocal minority of Hilary supporters planning to vote McCain, which flummoxes me, since there's a gulf bigger than the Grand Canyon between McCain and Clinton. I don't know what's wrong with those people, but for now, I'm putting it down to sour grapes. I suspect most of them will come around. I put much of it down to the reason all sane folks have a "don't ever read the comments" philosophy virtually everywhere. Trolls! The world is full of so very very very many trolls . . . I mean, never look at the comments on YouTube, for example. Never!! You'll be watching some amuzing otter swimming about or perhaps groovin' to some rockin' ska tune and then you foolishly let your eyes drift downward and it's all "usuxx" and "thisRsoGay" and "gosee mi vid is beetter try hotgirlz3433 iz rulz" and you end up wanting to stab the entire internet with a giant spork to let the stupid run out the bottom. I adore you, Lola!
|
|
|
Post by Onjel on Jun 6, 2008 19:42:50 GMT -5
I put much of it down to the reason all sane folks have a "don't ever read the comments" philosophy virtually everywhere. Trolls! The world is full of so very very very many trolls . . . I mean, never look at the comments on YouTube, for example. Never!! You'll be watching some amuzing otter swimming about or perhaps groovin' to some rockin' ska tune and then you foolishly let your eyes drift downward and it's all "usuxx" and "thisRsoGay" and "gosee mi vid is beetter try hotgirlz3433 iz rulz" and you end up wanting to stab the entire internet with a giant spork to let the stupid run out the bottom. I adore you, Lola!
|
|
|
Post by Sara on Jun 12, 2008 18:51:04 GMT -5
Came across this extremely well-written article today (it even mentions Buffy), but I'm putting the link to it here for what will quickly become obvious reasons : The Final Battle. Now With Deflowered Virgins.Sharing a favorite bit just to give you the flavor of the piece: "Conservatism may have been a match for the most powerful communist nation on the face of the earth, but it cannot survive if students attempt to analyze artistic messages in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Conservatism could handle Stalin and Lenin, but is too fragile a thing to survive Joss Whedon."
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jun 13, 2008 19:39:27 GMT -5
*sigh* Okay, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I'm not a fan of George W. Bush. And this hasn't changed. WTF is up with putting his hands on Angela Merkel? The woman is Chancellor of Germany - and now TWICE I've seen him with his hands on her neck/back. This time was even more egregious than last, IMO - partly because he has to know it made waves last time, and partly because of the particular body language he was using. The "arm about the shoulders to direct you where to walk" is a way of demonstrating dominance, and is especially used by men with women they consider subordinates. Someone let me know - am I being overly touchy - does he do that with male heads of state, too? Or just the women? I have angry eyebrows right now.
|
|
|
Post by Julia, wrought iron-y on Jun 13, 2008 19:58:15 GMT -5
John Scalzi, on the "baby mama" Fox pas: Michelle Malkin will continue to make excuses for Fox News’ dog-whistling racism that expose the fact that she’s about as familiar with logical thinking as a rainbow trout is with knittingThe whole rant is here and is a nice break from this week's lunacy. Julia, wondering how loing it will be before Fox breaks down and uses the "n" word on air.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 14, 2008 12:22:36 GMT -5
*sigh* Okay, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I'm not a fan of George W. Bush. And this hasn't changed. WTF is up with putting his hands on Angela Merkel? The woman is Chancellor of Germany - and now TWICE I've seen him with his hands on her neck/back. This time was even more egregious than last, IMO - partly because he has to know it made waves last time, and partly because of the particular body language he was using. The "arm about the shoulders to direct you where to walk" is a way of demonstrating dominance, and is especially used by men with women they consider subordinates. Someone let me know - am I being overly touchy - does he do that with male heads of state, too? Or just the women? I have angry eyebrows right now. This is news to me. Can you provide any links or articles or pictures about this?
|
|
|
Post by Rachael on Jun 14, 2008 13:31:36 GMT -5
*sigh* Okay, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I'm not a fan of George W. Bush. And this hasn't changed. WTF is up with putting his hands on Angela Merkel? The woman is Chancellor of Germany - and now TWICE I've seen him with his hands on her neck/back. This time was even more egregious than last, IMO - partly because he has to know it made waves last time, and partly because of the particular body language he was using. The "arm about the shoulders to direct you where to walk" is a way of demonstrating dominance, and is especially used by men with women they consider subordinates. Someone let me know - am I being overly touchy - does he do that with male heads of state, too? Or just the women? I have angry eyebrows right now. This is news to me. Can you provide any links or articles or pictures about this? I'd look at the Daily Show footage - that's where I first saw it.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 16, 2008 7:25:52 GMT -5
This is news to me. Can you provide any links or articles or pictures about this? I'd look at the Daily Show footage - that's where I first saw it. I just saw the clip from The Daily Show- WTF? That kind of gesture would only be acceptable amongst family and close friends, and possibly not even then, depending on how touchy the particular group is and how comfortable people are with others touching their neck and shoulders. Like, my dad does that sort of thing to me occasionally, out of affection, and I understand and accept it as such. But James doesn’t like it when my dad does it because he doesn’t like people touching his neck and he has a different relationship with my dad. But… okay. These are public figures, on camera, clearly not close in any way, and Merkel obviously was uncomfortable (to put it mildly; shocked, horrified, or disgusted is probably closer to the truth) with the gesture. There is no way on Earth that that was appropriate. What’s worst of all is that Bush comes across as the kind of person who either doesn’t understand or doesn’t care when he makes others feel uncomfortable or worse. I am so embarrassed.
|
|
|
Post by Spaced Out Looney on Jun 16, 2008 8:03:05 GMT -5
Came across this extremely well-written article today (it even mentions Buffy), but I'm putting the link to it here for what will quickly become obvious reasons : The Final Battle. Now With Deflowered Virgins.Sharing a favorite bit just to give you the flavor of the piece: "Conservatism may have been a match for the most powerful communist nation on the face of the earth, but it cannot survive if students attempt to analyze artistic messages in Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Conservatism could handle Stalin and Lenin, but is too fragile a thing to survive Joss Whedon." Very interesting and had a lot of good points. Just wanted to mention that not all conservatives are crazy like the way she describes though.
|
|
|
Post by Queen E on Jun 16, 2008 8:09:56 GMT -5
*sigh* Okay, it will come as no surprise to anyone that I'm not a fan of George W. Bush. And this hasn't changed. WTF is up with putting his hands on Angela Merkel? The woman is Chancellor of Germany - and now TWICE I've seen him with his hands on her neck/back. This time was even more egregious than last, IMO - partly because he has to know it made waves last time, and partly because of the particular body language he was using. The "arm about the shoulders to direct you where to walk" is a way of demonstrating dominance, and is especially used by men with women they consider subordinates. Someone let me know - am I being overly touchy - does he do that with male heads of state, too? Or just the women? I have angry eyebrows right now. You know what it reminds me of? Buster Bluth on Arrested Development, always trying to give people shoulder rubs. Yeah, it's creepy.
|
|