Page Summary
Active Entries
- 1: Clarke Award Finalists 1996
- 2: Federal Liberals within two seats of majority
- 3: The Twenty-One Balloons by William Sherman Pène du Bois
- 4: Wave Without a Shore by C J Cherryh
- 5: Five Books About Duplicating Human Beings
- 6: There's a new gadget at work
- 7: My interesting discovery of the 2025 election
- 8: Former banker performs wellness check on neighbour
- 9: The Dark We Know by Wen-Yi Lee
- 10: Peter Morwood (1956 - 2025)
Style Credit
- Style: Neutral Good for Practicality by
Expand Cut Tags
No cut tags
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 04:53 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 02:12 pm (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 04:59 am (UTC)*shakes head*
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:49 pm (UTC)-- Steve's wondering if anyone's tried getting a SETI grant for studying cross-list flamewars as possible failure models for interspecies communication.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 05:06 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 05:07 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 05:11 am (UTC)Possible irony
Date: 2009-01-23 03:21 pm (UTC)readskimmed the former title when it was made available on Tor's web site. The sprinkling of historical events reminded me a bit of what I've been told of Forrest Gump and what I saw when I watched The Curious Case of Benjamin Button; the novel featured a magical negro or few.no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 06:09 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 05:29 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-01-25 01:26 am (UTC) - Expandno subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:26 pm (UTC)For at least ten years, people have been disagreeing with you about this topic. Smart people. People who have studied this topic at least as much as you have.
And, mainly, they've all had similar, or at least, consistent, arguments. Hundreds upon hundreds of smart, well-educated people who have studied these issues have presented you with dozens of interlocking arguments which form a consistent and solid framework of evidence which demonstrate the strength of their position.
On the other hand, there is you. One person who's studied these arguments.
Which is more likely? That hundreds of people have researched this topic and all independently reached the same erroneous conclusions, or that you've reached an erroneous conclusion? Which is more likely? That you are wrong, or that hundreds of other people, all equally as smart as you, are all independently wrong?
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:TEN YEARS???
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:OMFG, the threaded interfaces are not oppressing you.
From:Your subject line IS SUCH WIN.
From:Re: Your subject line IS SUCH WIN.
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 07:55 am (UTC)They say Patrick, that racist, is a coward for disengaging from the discussion, and then they ban me because I won't.
False dichotomy. You're not distinguishing between engaging in a *productive* manner and engaging in an unproductive, distracting, denialist, bullying manner.
People aren't banning you because you won't stop engaging in the discussion. They're banning you because you've proven over and over again that you're incapable of engaging on this topic in a productive manner.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From: (Anonymous) - Date: 2009-01-24 12:24 am (UTC) - Expand(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:OMG WORST SUPERPOWER EVER
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 08:08 am (UTC)I, as an anti-racist, do not actually call Patrick a coward. I think that, if he either thought discussion wasn't getting anywhere, or if he thought he wanted to calm down, or if he thought that he wanted OTHER people to cool down, or if he was hurt, or any number of other options, well, those are valid reasons to withdraw/disengage.
You've basically demonstrated that you don't change your opinions no matter what anyone does, so therefore, people figure there's no good reason to engage.
Also, since you bring it up, I distinguish between societal racism (of the 'you're soaking in it!' variety) and specific racist actions.
I think several of the people you name possibly had a few racist actions, but I also don't think that makes them (or you) irredeemably evil. So g'bye with that canard.
(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 09:00 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 09:11 am (UTC)(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 02:20 pm (UTC)*If Mr. Shetterly is allowed to bring his fantasy world into your comments, James, so am I.
(no subject)
From:(no subject)
From:no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 01:24 pm (UTC)Live and learn, I guess.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 04:52 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-01-24 05:16 am (UTC)If Obama's own white grandmother could and would say racist things about strangers even as she raised her own, much beloved biracial grandchild, I think it's pretty clear that there is nothing a white person can do to completely throw out one's white privilege and its effects not just on other people's interactions with one but on how one perceives the world.
no subject
Date: 2009-01-23 07:14 pm (UTC)No, really, that's all I have to say. I'm glad this is landing in your inbox and not mine, sir. I hope you're off having coffee and playing Immovable Comfy Lap to one or more of your kitties.