I could explain why I am not replying to Shetterly's comments

[james_davis_nicoll]

But frankly coffeeandink did it better than I could.

sparkymonster's contribution is also of note

Comments

[avram]

Patrick himself seems to think so. Or so he said, in one of the comments in a thread that's been either locked or deleted.

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

If this is the version of history you are telling him, I can see how good a friend to him you are.

[annafdd.livejournal.com]

That's ok.

[marydell.livejournal.com]

I'm an antiracist. I'm also a racist. I took issue (publicly) with one of Patrick's statements in the recent throwdown, which probably hurt him and made him angry with me. And I'm absolutely Patrick's friend.

People are more complex than you think they are, and many of the things you cast as opposites are not actually in conflict.

[(Anonymous)]

People are more complex than you think they are, and many of the things you cast as opposites are not actually in conflict.

Moreover, even when they are in conflict, they coexist in myriad ways for miscellaneous values of coexist: we live in a paradoxical universe, and are multifaceted, and changing constantly (including both progress, and backsliding). One can be of two minds about something, else what is cognitive dissonance for?

For example, trivial exercises in research will turn up racist things said by Lincoln. Which "proves" Lincoln was as racist as his times, nothing more -- but if you have an axe to grind, it is easily misrepresented ...

And so on.

So, yeah -- what you said.

TSM_in_Toronto

[liviapenn.livejournal.com]

Did you read my comment? It has nothing to do with Patrick and everything to do with people deciding they can't engage with you, because it never leads anywhere.