More Words, Deeper Hole

Sans context, I am going to speculate wildly that the author of said epithet is from my country.

Are you a Galtian superman? No? Then you're leftist.

From:

nelc.livejournal.com

James is Canadian and therefore a lefty, is how it may also go.

From:

No, actually, it took me a long time to get it through my granite-like skull that he's NOT an American.

From:

I find it really offensive that the USian right-of-right wingers continually attempt to designate themselves as the "middle" -- and far more offensive that they are allowed to get away with it. By the so-called "liberal media", for instance.

From:

Yes, basically if you do not agree with a right wing/libertarian position you are automatically a leftist... actually, basically you're a Marxist - and the world is basically divided into Libertarians and Marxists...

Must be a fun world to live in :)

From: (Anonymous)

I think they're fighting WWIV by now...

Bruce

From:

mmegaera.livejournal.com

Amen.

From:

dsrtao

You might recall the Witchfinder who held all Southerners in contempt, and by deduction was standing at the North Pole?

By USAn standards you is a dirty commie.

From:

don-fitch.livejournal.com

Nahh... at least by my local Californian USAn standards he's no worse than a foolishly idealistic Socialist. You know, the kind who thinks that the Canadian Socialized Medicine is better than our American Free Enterprise medical system even though Canadians may have to wait six months (or whatever) to get a knee-replacement if they need it, whereas any USAns who want one can get it within a week or so. If they can afford it. (If they can't afford it, they'll limp around, in great pain, until they die ... which, on statistical average, will be somewhat sooner than Canadians do, because of some inexplicable quirk of fate.)

(Mind you, I don't necessarily ascribe to my local USAn standards for anything, and would probably be a card-carrying member of the IWWW if all my contacts with that Socialist Union hadn't died of old age.)

From:

jhetley.livejournal.com

You would prefer "rabid leftist"? "Card-carrying communist"? Tell us the proper form, and we'll use it . . .

From:

nelc.livejournal.com

How would you describe yourself politically, in your terms and in terms a stereotypical USian might understand?

From:

lederhosen.livejournal.com

Surely "foreign" says all that needs saying there?

From:

keithmm.livejournal.com

"Sane".

From:

theweaselking.livejournal.com

Objection! A "stereotypical USian", which was the standard requested, will not understand that.

From:

Was it that weirdo whose nym reflects an apparent desire to turn the US back to the days of Jim Crow, illegal contraception, and the Federal hounding of homosexuals to suicide (all in the name of small government, of course)?

From:

http://ricketyclick.com/blog/index.php/2012/04/23/a-bucket-of-air/

And hmm, refugee50s LJ profile does in fact link there. So you're right!

*peruses*. Conspiratorial paranoia, democracy-hating (I like "Obama may suspend elections" followed by "Democracy looks like mob rule"), destroying pigs as casus belli for a Second Civil War...

But perhaps he misses other elements of the 1950s, like rapid economic growth with 70% top income tax rate and massive government investment in infrastructure?

Edited Date: 2012-04-24 04:52 pm (UTC)

From:

Really? That was just a guess, or in fact, a bait. Which he took.

From:

Thanks for the link, by the way! He's utterly hilarious.

From:

What were the odds? :) In a way it's reassuring to see so much of it concentrated in one person, rather than being more spread. But he's only the instantiation of a narrow-sliver Venn diagram overlap, for which the circle that is not "people who will comment on the politics of James Nicoll" is distressingly large.

Re "Obama may suspend elections": way back in the socialist hellhole of the 1990s, I had a rabid Clinton-hating cow orker, who said at one point "The way things are going, I wouldn't be surprised if we didn't elect a president in 2000."

Unfortunately I had lost all contact with him (he had moved to Idaho, what were the odds?) by 2000, or I would have looked him up and expressed my admiration for his precognitive abilities.

Edited Date: 2012-04-24 05:57 pm (UTC)

From:

ross-teneyck.livejournal.com

To be fair, I ran across a few liberals who were genuinely afraid that Bush Jr. would cancel the 2008 election and declare himself President-For-Life.

From:

mmcirvin.livejournal.com

I had... some worries in 2004. Not very serious ones, and they weren't about the president canceling the election, they were airport-thriller conspiracy scenarios about staged terrorist attacks. Having the Democratic Convention in your town will do that.

From:

Bush had briefly talked in 2004 about possibly having to suspend that election on account of terrorists, so I think he was the source of those worries four years later.

From:

This suspiciously smells of someone who, having not gotten enough out of trolling James' journal, took it to another website in a deliberate effort to escalate.

From:

I dunno, I find the "genuine thanks" explanation plausible.

From:

Actually, it originally referred to my avie, which I've always thought made me look like a refugee. I tried for just "refugee", but that was already taken.

As for the rest:

"Jim Crow"? Rather, a conviction that regardless of skin color, competent human beings do not need the federal government to protect them or to care for them.

"Illegal contraception"? Rather, a conviction that women are competent not only to manage their reproductive health, but even to defend themselves with deadly force. That they are free to choose caliber, not just abortion. And that in both cases, it's no business of the federal government.

"Hounding homosexuals to suicide"? Rather, that one's sexual orientation is nobody's business but their own and their partner's. Especially not the federal government's.

From:

I've never seen the word 'avie' before, but I guess you mean your icon/userpic. Which yes, could look like a refugee.

All the rest comes from your name's implication that you're a refugee from the 1950s and miss the features of that time.

And BTW, ending Jim Crow took the intervention of the federal government, to end the force of tyrannical state governments.

From:

Yes, my avatar.

"ending Jim Crow took the intervention of the federal government"

But the Feds then went far, far beyond that.

From:

avram

Rather, a conviction that regardless of skin color, competent human beings do not need the federal government to protect them or to care for them.

So you'd shut down the entire federal military?

From:

"So you'd shut down the entire federal military?"

To the degree that the military is being used to control the intimate details of citizens' lives in the name of Their Own Damn Good, Whether They Want It Or Not, yes, down to the last cartridge, the last pitchfork, the last stick and rock.

Fortunately, they're pretty much sticking to defending our national sovereignty against our foreign enemies. (I'm not pleased with some of the things their Commanders-in-Chief have ordered, but so far, it's mostly outside our borders.)

From:

avram

But when they're "defending our national sovereignty against our foreign enemies", isn't that a form of protection or care, which is exactly what you said competent human beings didn't need the federal gov't to do?

From:

Rather, a conviction that regardless of skin color, competent human beings do not need the federal government to protect them or to care for them.

Really? You HONESTLY, hand on heart and all that, believe this statement to be true?

I like to think of myself as a fairly competent human being but one of the things I REALLY like about living in a Western Democracy is the whole rule of law thing and the fact that people with guns are probably not going to arrive on the back of a truck and take my stuff(*)... which has happened to friends of my wife's where they lived.

Likewise, I'm well educated, I run a business and yet there are whole books written on the subjects I don't know enough about.

(*) - No, taxes are not the same thing, sorry.

From:

Fair point.

The military protects us from threats outside our borders. I have no problem with that, as long as they do not engage in "law enforcement" inside our borders. I'll also note that I'm not best pleased with the military being used for so-called "nation-building", but that's a hugely complex problem outside the scope of this conversation.

I like having police and courts and jails, as long as they're limited to actual crimes that directly injure specific victims, things like fraud, theft, robbery, assault and battery, rape, and murder. Yes, yes, traffic laws, fine, so that we all know what to expect from our fellow drivers, but that's about it for mala prohibita.

In particular, I'm not willing to give up my right and responsibility to protect myself and mine. See the Principles of Policing attributed to Bobby Peel, especially number seven, which I'll summarize as, "The police are the people and the people are the police, the police being only members of the public who are paid to give full-time attention to duties which are incumbent upon every citizen."

Let me say it again: "duties which are incumbent upon every citizen." When the people do not pursue those duties themselves, a deadly contempt arises between the keepers and the kept.

What I am mostly objecting to, though, is a "nanny state" that tries to protect us or care for us like children, that assumes we cannot manage on our own, at all, that tries to make everything perfectly fair and safe.

I strongly object to the government directing how we should live in every tiniest detail "for our own good", especially when the lawmakers and those who enforce the laws act as if the laws don't apply to them, or interfere in matters they know nothing of, and that do not affect them directly.

I know, we can argue about the implementation details forever, but again, I think this thread is not the place for that.

I hope this makes my position clearer.

From:

I'm not willing to give up my right and responsibility to protect myself and mine

I'm not aware that you have.

And this is the crux of the issue for me. When I hear somebody on the right, and it's usually the right, mutter 'nanny state' or 'right to protect myself' I usually see somebody who doesn't understand the law or places property (things) above people.

The later leads to cases like this (http://www.ajc.com/news/couple-held-at-gunpoint-1423138.html)...

The reason Bobbie Peel came up with those rules is because to operate a city of a million people you needed to empower some of the citizens differently to the rest otherwise things would fall apart.

If only we had a process by which we could change and review the powers of the government and government agencies... say every four or five years eh?

Except you don't much like that either do you, because it gets laws passed that you don't understand or like. To which I will reply. Just because something doesn't apply to you, it doesn't mean it isn't needed.

Health and Safety and Environmental laws don't exist because a bunch of commies in government passed them. Laws like the Clean Air Act of 1953 (UK) was passed by Winston Churchill because people were literally dying in the streets of London from Carbon Monoxide poisoning...

From:

The thing about people defending themselves and protecting their own interests is that they're biased in their own favor. The ideal is Tit For Tat; the reality is two feuding parties who both believe they're in the right because they remember facts differently, and the result in a 'state of nature' is really high violence rates, like double digits of the men dying of violence. One thing even a basic state does is provide a disinterested third-party judge, less likely to get things wrong. Of course sometimes there's systematic bias there, as with nobility vs. commoners, but on the whole states provide a lot more peace than do-it-yourself justice.

From:

nihilistic-kid.livejournal.com

You believe that in certain cases the municipalization of garbage collection is a good thing, and thus also the Gulag and stacking the skulls of your enemies into pyramids as part of your worship of the Almighty state. Duh.

From:

tandw.livejournal.com

The two fit together so logically--those pyramids of skulls don't clean themselves up, after all. Just don't unearth any quotes from James wherein he notes a preference for trains that run on time, or he'll be "fascist leftist SF critic James Nicoll."

From:

Nicoll makes the skulls clean on time.

From:

jaylake.livejournal.com

If they aren't clean on time, he shoots the executioner.

From:

icecreamempress.livejournal.com

Grim meathooks for some, miniature Canadian flags for others!

From:

jeriendhal.livejournal.com

Canadian flags in the meathook factory?

Ha! That's it! James suppports the Canadian takeover of the US cattle industry!

From:

Finally! It's about time you reckless loons down there had the same level of quality control over your meat supply that we up here in Proud Soviet Canuckistan can boast!.... oh.... wait... never mind.

From:

montedavis.livejournal.com

Oh, the meathooks for me, no question -- at least I'll die American!

From:

Please. Even in Canada, you're left of centre. Lord knows how far red-shifted USAmericans think you are.

From:

Wouldn't that be blue-shifted?

From:

I guess it depends what you think of as "left". Red == Commie == Left-most position in ROYGBIV. Admittedly, not very scientific.

From:

Yes, it's just all somehow been turned around, apparently by use of colors on Election Day maps.

From:

If you press them hard enough [1], most Republicans will eventually admit to being secretly communist; see, for example, their endless faith that the Soviets would conquer the world or the telling manner in which so many of them are unfamilar with the basic principles of the religions they claim to belong to.

1: I recommend using lots of small paving stones so you don't put your back out piling them up.

From:

1: I recommend using lots of small paving
stones so you don't put your back out
piling them up.

A large tub and a hose would be more ergonomically correct, don't you think? Of course, one would need to have made plans in advance for re-storing the water or making use of it locally in some environmentally appropriate manner.

/straight face

From:

Had that explained to me in 1982 by a (terrific) high school history teacher, who was fond of beard-stroking ironic pauses: "In the 1950s, we were all required to sign oaths that we would not mention ... communism. This was, so I understand, because communism was considered so superior to capitalism that if you were, in any way at all, exposed to it, you would instantly and forevermore reject your American values and become ... communists."

I think he rather enjoyed that lesson. But I would not, of course, allege that he enjoyed it that much.

From:

rachel-swirsky.livejournal.com

This is also the sometimes-revealing attitude toward homosexuality. "Well, of course everyone *wants* to have gay sex, better not tell them it's a possibility--much less a non-stigmatized one!--or they'll all romp off and do it, because who wants to deal with the icky opposite sex if they have a choice?"

From:

In my less-intersectionally-aware moments, I am halfway convinced that every single person who says "homosexuality is a choice" is bisexual. How otherwise could they believe it?

From:

They may desperately want to believe it because to think otherwise might have (to them) completely monstrous implications. I'm not sure that's the same as them being bisexual.

From:

rachel-swirsky.livejournal.com

Yeah, it's obviously not true of everyone.

But I've definitely met people--usually female?--who are clearly bi, or probably even gay, and who are very policing of their daughters consequently because they think it's normal.

It stands out to me because as a kid I was normally a parent-pleaser, but these people were very wary of me, even tho I was nominally straight.

From:

lederhosen.livejournal.com

A few days back I read a bio of Bob Brown (Australian politician who's just resigned leadership of the Australian Greens). It mentioned that he'd spent years going through electroshock 'therapy' trying to cure himself of homosexuality, and several times considered suicide before a counsellor finally told him that maybe he'd be better coming to terms with it.

Then yesterday I saw somebody commenting that he wasn't fit to represent people because his "lifestyle choices" meant he'd never know what it's like to have a family.

...I am not a violent man - and nor is Brown - but comments like that make me want to talk to these people about their "choice to be punched in the face".

From:

Isn't that the only logical conclusion? After all, if you only have one option, there's no choice...

From:

metahacker.livejournal.com

Depends on whether you parse red-shifted as an adjective or a past participle.

From:

:-)

From:

nathan helfinstine (from livejournal.com)

Oooh, +10 points for a grammar joke.

From:

Yes, I realized that after having written the comment. And then worried about whether I should rephrase to avoid mis-placing the modifier. And then decided that that kind of grammar nitpickiness wouldn't really bother anyone. I mean, come on, it's the internet, who's gonna care? 8)

Edited Date: 2012-04-24 05:55 pm (UTC)

From:

sahdwholurks.livejournal.com

Second all the 'foreign = leftist' comments. Heck, just claiming that going to the doctor in Canada doesn't require you to pass a Utility to the State Test marks you as a Communist to plenty of (willfully clueless) Americans.

From:

I said it up thread, but it was kinda buried, so I'll say it again:

In fact, it took me quite awhile to get it in my head that James was not an American.

There are too many leftists/socialists/communists/etc here in the USA, and too many rightist/small-r-republican/libertarians/etc elsewhere, for that generalization to be useful.

From:

sahdwholurks.livejournal.com

But plenty of people do think that way.

I see from the comments here that you are ricketyclick, but I am still not sure why James is so lefty that that is as important to your blog post as the 'sf critic' part, but you are offended by my guess.

Which is fine and probably just as well.

From:

"Plenty of people think that way."
I don't, though, and to my amazement, this thread is about...me.

"I am still not sure why James is so lefty that that is as important to your blog post as the 'sf critic' part"
Because I wanted to acknowledge that someone with whom I tend to disagree politically pointed to something I really liked. That despite the left/right labeling, which makes me as uneasy as it makes James, there is still common ground.

"you are offended by my guess"
Not at all. I just wanted to clear up the misunderstanding.

By the way, the reason I did not link to the article myself is that James didn't. I was just following his lead on his home ground.

From:

How, sir, would you describe yourself?

From:

A pragmatist.

From:

And what does that mean, in terms of principles?

Or if not principles, policies?

From:

It means he thinks the ends justifies the means. A remarkably right-wing attitude, really. 8)

From:

Right wing? Really? Isn't that more a "whoever is in power" thing?

I am curious to know how you define "right wing" so as to make that a characteristic sentiment. (http://socialistworker.org/2012/04/06/do-the-ends-justify-the-means)

From:

While I've promised myself not to feed this person, I must take just a moment to admire how an ideologue, when confronted with the word "pragmatism", immediately discomprehends to the extent of asking what ideology is implied by 'pragmatism'.

From:

The same effect can be seen more nakedly when discussing the religious views of atheists. You've got to have a religion, dude!

Or, as the Irishman was said to ask the atheist, "Now, which God is it yer not believin' in, the Protestant or the Catholic?"

From:

I'll note that your commenters are pretty free with labels like "Republican", "right of right wingers", and so forth.

From:

It's a real shame how badly those brands are damaged; and how quickly their replacement brand names are damaged. It makes you wonder if there's something very wrong with the underlying item.

From:

icecreamempress.livejournal.com

I think they hit on it pretty well with the "Know-Nothing Party" brand.

From:

"It's a real shame how badly those brands are damaged"

That happens because they're not based on underlying principles, but rather, irrelevant historical accident and random assemblages of policies. That makes them endlessly mutable.

From:

Oh, look at this output from refugee'50s little pen:

No, you commie shit nozzle, I will not shut up. I will not go quietly. I will not do as I’m told.

It is the work of the Twenty First Century to clean up the socialist mess once and for all. You will not win, because your win is slavery and death. [...]

But if you want it spilled here, on American soil — and it’s clear you do — remember, we kept our guns, despite your best efforts, and we will shoot back.

I had a mental profile of this guy: heavy basement dwelling compulsive masturbator etc. His blog confirms pretty much everything except the intense use of hand lotion, although looking at his posts on feminism, I bet he posts at Instapundit's wife's crazy blog complaining about the wimmin.

From:

Oh my God he quotes Steven den Beste on politics *and* anime! I thought den Beste was in jail for trying to look up a 10-year-old Hmong girl's skirt or something.

This is awesome.

From:

Breitbart is all of that. More, Breitbart knew how to inspire, in a way that Beck does not.

I am not Breitbart, no. But I wish I was, and I strive to be.

Oh this is incredible. I am literally laughing out loud.

From:

joenotcharles.livejournal.com

Wow. I disagree with refugee50s' politics, but I never assumed he was a bad person because of that. But, man. What a colossal jackass.

From:

Oh, from the very moment I first heard that that he feels extremely uncomfortable, to the point of believing himself enslaved, whenever he is not secretly carrying the means to murder all of the people around him at any moment he feels it would be convenient, I was absolutely certain of his posterior equinanity.

From:

At some point this should be expanded into a short essay in favor of open carry.

From:

It wasn't so much that he was in favor of guns - which, hey, some guys like guns, whatever. It was the way in which he expressed the need for them -- that, in context, the only way a human being can be free is if he undetectably carries the means to kill other people. Sole criterion.

The equating of freedom with murder was the unsettling bit.

From:

While I don't agree with him, your "equating freedom with murder" is unhelpful hyperbole, unless you think killing someone who is actively trying to kill you is murder. He'd see it as equating freedom with a right to self-defense, which is rather different from murder for most people.

Of course, it's funny how the Western country with the most weapon rights is also one of the ones least free with regard to drugs or prostitution...

From:

The self defense applications can only be improved by a substantial percentage of the population wearing their weapons openly, right? And the ones who don't, well, maybe they're packing concealed weapons and maybe not. The uncertainty of the potential offender benefits the society as a whole, right?

From:

Oh, and he's finally decided to become a "Christian" after a lifetime of skepticism. If it has improved his morals, I can't see it.

No, being baptized doesn’t give you a license to judge others. Christ gives you a standard by which to judge yourself.

I wonder who gave him the license to judge others, then? Was it at the bottom of a Kleenex box?

I see his blog roll there has noted holy man Vox Day. So his spiritual company is still, shall we say, a little unsettled.

Will refugee50s' new-found faith grow like a mustard seed within his heart? or will it just confirm the same things that make him so profoundly unhappy and angry at the world that he fantasizes about shooting and shooting and shooting and shooting leftists and feminists and all that sort until they are dead and waterboarded [*] in acid and fucked up the ass with a wood rasp?

Only time will tell. What an oddly specific fetish, incidentally.

[*] I thought waterboarding wasn't torture? well, we all know better now don't we.

From:

Ooh, civility from refugee50s:

To those on the left losing faith:

Fuck you. Tie you down to a sparse bed of nails, waterboard you with acid, and fuck you up the ass with a red hot wood rasp until the shit boils out of your nose.

[update, 11 Jan 2011]
And now, in the wake of Loughner, I scroll back through my blog and find I’ve written this. I can do two things: erase it and hope nobody notices, or own up.

I’ll own up. I am not happy to have written that, but I am tired of being polite in the face of venomous rage spitting from the mouths of those who presume to be my betters, and for a moment there, I let it boil over.

In words. On a blog hardly anybody reads. I don’t know what I’ll do if somebody ever actually does what I wrote there, but I will not be pleased with myself. Heck, I’m not pleased with myself for that now.

Utterly horrible. The initial vitriol is par for the jackass course, but what a powerless person you must see yourself to be, how much you must hate and resent the modern world, to recognize yourself in Jared Loughner.

At least you know you're worthless.

From:

rachel-swirsky.livejournal.com

Disagree. I think a lot of people realized then that the use of violent rhetoric had the potential to contribute to the actions of violent people. I appreciate that refugee noted that and realized it was a problem, that he was willing to see himself as part of a context which includes Jared Loughner.

From:

Agreed. While a lot of the views are IMO pretty ugly, I'll give him credit for backing off such language and not just wiping it.

And Carlos's mockery is getting pretty unseemly too. But hey, it's Carlos.

From:

Well, refugee50s made his comment, "remember, we kept our guns, despite your best efforts, and we will shoot back," nearly a year and half after his "I feel bad because I sound like Jared Loughner" cri du coeur. Last Sunday, in fact.

Guess what? HE STILL SOUNDS LIKE JARED LOUGHNER.

From:

Your comment here seems more polite to the "fuck you up the ass with a red hot wood rasp" guy than the person mocking him. What the hell?

I'm glad Carlos is posting this. I thought refugee50s was just a run-of-the-mill right-wing USian who got occasionally snippy on James' journal. Now thanks to Carlos' comments here, I know the kind of thing he posts, retraction or no, and I am genuinely freaked out to a moderate degree right now. Knowing that this guy I've interacted with for years on James' journal is capable of writing "fuck you up the ass with a red hot wood rasp" and "we will shoot back" -- and is more than willing to escalate his trolling of James' journal by posting trollbait on his own blog -- is upsetting.

Politely ignoring what refugee50s has said is dangerous. Mockery and exposure is necessary.

From:

More polite to the guy who backed off the violent language than to the guy saying "you're a basement dwelling masturbator" right now, yes. Drawing attention to public posts is one thing. Gratuitous insults and asshole behavior are another. Compare to Doug M., who often makes the same points in discussion without being an aggressive asshole throwing personal insults aroun.

But *you've* probably never been accused of being a troglodyte living in your parent's basement while you were visiting and helping your parent who was dying of cancer. For me Carlos isn't just someone who happens to other people.

And you seem to be leaping to conclusions with the 'trollbait'.

From:

Empathy is hard, isn't it? But a lack of empathy is inhuman. You see someone being picked on, and so your heart goes out to them; I see someone being cruel to strangers, and so I mirror it back to them.

I'm terribly sorry for your loss.

From:

"I see someone being cruel to strangers, and so I mirror it back to them."

Has it ever worked? To make them less cruel?

RPG.net has a bunch of ex-conservatives, or conservatives who've become friendlier to gay and trans rights and universal health care. But they seem to have become that way by polite discussion and getting to know people, not by direct frontal assault, which in my experience just makes people defensive and closed. Being victimized doesn't make better people most of the time, just victims and often more victimizers.

But beating on people self-righteously sure feels good!

From:

Yes, actually.

Haven't you ever made yourself better because you failed to live up to a standard? But maybe you're a special flower for whom such tactics fail to work. Coasting, feeling self-righteous because someone dared pick on you, never living up to your potential as a human being while fantasizing about the Singularity.

From:

And you seem to be leaping to conclusions with the 'trollbait'.

Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I'm inherently wrong.

refugee50s didn't back off the violent language, he's still doing it, as Carlos has already pointed out.

I gather you have a history with Carlos and hate him. That's your thing and you're welcome to it. But don't you dare pull the "I've had it worse than you" card -- not on me, not on anyone you don't know. You rail about Carlos being personally insulting while never realizing that, perhaps, if you pull the "I've had it worse than you" on someone who doesn't deserve it, you're personally insulting them.

It's not just you who has had it bad. It's never just you.

Since we're oversharing anyway: Several years ago a lady on alt.religion.kibology named Darla got me an invite to Kingdom of Loathing. When I stopped playing it because I was taking care of my terminally ill mother, Darla attacked me by saying I had "betrayed" her, repeatedly stating that she was more important than my mother and inventing a host of lies to bolster her claim that I was mentally ill and had irreparably hurt her. All because I didn't log into KoL much anymore. This went on from 2004 until 2009, and may still be going on for all I know. I understand your anger more than you assume.

Yet if Darla was here mocking refugee50s, I would still agree with her. I would not automatically defend refugee50s because of some skewed "enemy of my enemy" ideal. I don't say this as automatic gainsaying. I say this because it's how I try to live my life.

How you deal with past hurts and injustices is your business and none of my concern. What is my concern is when someone immediately pulls the "you haven't had it rough like me" gambit, which is disrespectful and diminishes my entire life. What is my concern is when someone tries to diminish extreme violent rhetoric, racist screeds, and anti-woman hate by telling people who complain about it to shut up. If you want to be nice and give the benefit of the doubt, fine, but trying to silence others is way out of line.

From:

But I never told you to shut up about complaining about violent rhetoric etc. There's a difference between complaining about bad or hateful ideas and endorsing the use of low personal insults.

From:

I've thought about it and decided to delete my response. I genuinely apologize for responding this time. You probably get replies in email and I've wasted your time, which wasn't my intent.

From:

Just FYI, Damien is right: I'm not a terribly nice person. I'm harsh, I set traps, I treat people who don't measure up with contempt. If I see people being willfully stupid or cruel, I'll go out of my way to treat them like an object, a grievous sin if you follow Pratchett morality. And I rarely forget.

I think what really disturbs people, though, is that I seem to enjoy the process entirely too much. A higher-up from one of the chan-related groups once called me a Dexter. I think he meant it as a compliment. Not sure how to take that.

From:

Yeah, I know all that. The SF/F community is full of self-proclaimed assholes, some beloved, some loathed. I don't pretend to understand it. Ultimately, though, I was explaining that I don't form opinions based on who says what but rather on what is being said. If past bad actions affects the context of what's being said, sure, take it into consideration. But I see nothing here that would make me think you being a "not terribly nice person" somehow affects calling out refugee50s for his own words.

Lately, as someone who is routinely attacked merely for existing as female, liberal, etc., I've become very, very tired of seeing all this "you should be raped and shot" crap lobbed at people like me, and even more tired of people telling me I'm an asshole for calling it out.

You have no idea how difficult it was for me to not begin my response with, "We're not so different, you and I..."

From:

We're on the same page. I just wanted to make sure.

From:

A lot of people with addictive behaviors will admit they have a problem. They'll talk your ear off of about it, and then ask you for a twenty. It's a step, but it's not a big step.

Since the modern world is not going to change to accommodate refugee50s -- nor should it, since it would mean a radical diminishment of millions of peoples' lives, and for what? just so he can feel like a real man? -- he has to change himself to accommodate to the world. But his resentment forms so much of his self-identity, he has based his entire worldview around it.

It's not a real change. He doesn't have the empathy for it; he probably thinks empathy is a dirty word, since that's become a partisan shibboleth.

Can he learn? Can he change? Can he grow? I would truly like to think so. But as it is, he's pretty low. And so he'll probably die unhappy, but blame everyone else first in the process.

From:

Calls it as we sees it and all that.

I'm pretty free with Libertarians are a bit dim labels too myself.

From:

"Calls it as we sees it and all that."

Exactly my point; so do I call it as I see it.

So here I am, someone people describe, no, decry as being on the right, while ascribing views to me that I do not remotely hold. And yet, when I refer to them as being on the left, relative to me, that's offensive.

[scratches head]

Weird.

From:

Except that's not what you did is it?

You described James as being leftist, not 'leftist as far as I'm concerned' but 'leftist' - I don't particularly think he is myself btw.

OTOH having looked at the junk you write on your blog, I'd peg you as some kind of Objectivist Libertarian type who is most certainly on the political right of almost every issue.

If you're not, then MAN, you need to really re-think your writing style... and you certainly shouldn't invoke Breibart.

From:

Isn't something like "in my opinion" or "as far as I'm concerned" generally understood to be invisibly appended to statements like that?

From:

Not convinced it was in this case...

From:

Or to be more accurate, I took it less as an opinion and more as an 'all else is therefore suspect' rider...

From:

OK, I'll try one more time:

My point is that if I am labeled as being on the right of someone, then almost by definition, that person is to my left. So, not leftist as far as I'm concerned, but leftist relative to me. Remember: continuum, not binary.

I'd be very interested to read your definitions of right and left, in the political sense, and where you think James falls on that spectrum relative to me.

From:

Given what I read on your blog, then almost everybody is left of you including Margaret Thatcher(*), Ronald Reagan and George HW Bush... so I'm not sure that helps any of us.

James, I am sure, falls to the left of you. OTOH, I suspect, I fall somewhere to the right of James... hard to say, I don't really think it matters. I'm fairly centrist in my political positions, but I'm still a leftist compared to you which makes your use of the term a bit silly really when, in fact, by any reasonably definition of the term 'leftist' it ain't me.

(*) - I'm assuming you disagree with socialized healthcare and removing mortgage interest tax credits?

From:

avram

But the word "leftist" does not describe a relative position on a continuum. You're committing the same kind of error as a Floridian who calls a denizen of Ohio "Canadian", and then justifies it by saying "Well, he lives closer to Canada than I do."

From:

Would "leftward" do? "Leftish"?

Come on. "Canada" or "U.S." is a binary choice with a well defined boundary. "Leftish" or "rightish" is not. Not only is there a spectrum, but the labels refer to clusters of principles and policies that rarely receive unanimous approval from one's neighbors in the opinion space.

I'm pretty certain I agree with James on many specifics, although possibly for different reasons. But for the issues he brings up here, he's pretty clearly on the left, and I'm on the right.

[weary sigh] No, no, being on the right doesn't mean I'm right on everything, as in correct. How can I be, when I keep finding my opinions changing with new information? I often don't even agree with myself. One of me is wrong.

From:

Is that a bad thing?

From:

I see considerable space to either side of me. I'll admit to being an outlier in may ways but not along that axis (I don't think the gun registry was an effective investment of public funds; there are more effective ways to spend the same money to improve QoL in Canada. At same time I will grant most gun nuts would happily sell the country down the river as long they are promised their bang-sticks).

From:

To me, the very fact that you evaluate a public funds expenditure on the merits of whether it improves Quality Of Life in Canada (and thus, by implication on a wide social scale) seems to signal that you're left of centre, Comrade Nicoll (although the "Comrade" bit is glib, perhaps not that left of centre).

Edited Date: 2012-04-24 06:35 pm (UTC)

From:

Given that James has a life in Canada, that seems a reasonable metric. (Not the only one.) I'm aware there are ideological stances which reject that measure, but it does not seem a bad thing to consider.

From:

The right-wing position in Canada, as I understand it, is not to collect the revenue into the public funds in the first place, so there's nothing to spend.

From:

I can't tell if that's better than the "spend like cocaine crazed trust fund kiddies in a whorehouse" approach used down south. Six of one, half dozen of the other, really.

From:

dd-b.livejournal.com

I have the impression that James' political views are on the left of center. And the recent project on sex balance in publishing, for example, can be viewed as leftist social engineering (however, that project isn't SF criticism, at least as I understand the term; it's not about individual stories and how and why they do or don't work. It's political activism about the SF field, which is something different.)

However, doesn't "leftist SF critic" mean more than that? To me it implies a critical apparatus significantly constructed on political principles; which is not what I find James deploying.

From:

Way back when words meant something, "leftist" meant an advocate of a socialist uprising. It meant Trotskyite.

But now - thanks to the ideologues who have stripped actual meaning from words (or, as I like to call them, pigfuckers) - it just means "not as far right as I am".

From:

That seems a very narrow thing for it to mean, given that left-wing goes back to the French Revolution.

From:

... and after all James' lj is probably the last place on earth where one can defensibly assert the purity of our language.

From:

seth ellis (from livejournal.com)

You're right, but I agree with eyelessgame. "Leftist SF critic" should mean someone using a Marxist apparatus to analyze texts, but in common usage I think it just means "critic to whose private opinions I can attach the term 'leftist' for whatever reason."

From:

dd-b.livejournal.com

For people operating at that level, the "whatever reason" is pretty simple: liberalism was completely exploded years ago, so we don't need to pay attention to a "Leftist" SF critic.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/krin_o_o_/

I would say that the simple majority of James' post on matters social, political, and economic put him in the left leaning camp.

And by USAdian standards, his posts tend to favor and support "the liberal agenda".

Which I am personally glad for. Another OSC we do not need.

From:

londonkds.livejournal.com

Yes, the fact that James considers it may be a bad thing when published writers are 100% male is proof that he is a militant man-hating feminist with a collection of Burdizzos, and therefore "leftist".

From:

anton-p-nym.livejournal.com

I take it some took offense to the "everything's worse with libertarians" tag on your LJ?

-- Steve's fighting a rising tide of Bircherism here in London (ON) that threatens to halt the ~~sapping and impurifying~~ fluoridating of municipal water. WTF, people, really; WTF?

From:

maruad.livejournal.com

They are having the same issues in Calgary. Even my sister, who has moved fairly far to the right, is appalled by the move to end fluoridation.

From:

joenotcharles.livejournal.com

Well, from what I gather one of your criticisms of the CPC is that they're not communist...

From:

theweaselking.livejournal.com

More, they changed their acronym from CRAP (no, I'm not joking) to CPC without checking first to see if there already was a CPC.

There already was a CPC - the Communist Party of Canada.

So now there are two CPCs, and there needs to be a way to distinguish between them. It would be unfair to insist that a disclaimer be added to the original CPC to distinguish them from the johnny-come-latelies who are trying to steal their acronym, so the new guys get the clarification: There is CPC for the Communist Party of Canada, and the CPC (non-communist) for the OTHER CPC who aren't communists but for some reason wanted to be associated with the letters CPC.

From:

joenotcharles.livejournal.com

That is true.

Now read my post again, pretending I already know that, and see how it reads...

From:

I am shaking my head here. What a bunch of maroons. Get the Dip.

Just like the big-R-Republicans down here: The Stupid Party.

From:

doc-lemming.livejournal.com

I like that idea.

However, in case it was not meant jovially, I offer the fact that we had and may still have the other CPC, the Communist Party of Canada, which in fact had to be distinguished from the next CPC to come along, the specifically Marxist-Leninist communist party, and which went by the initials CPC(M-L).

(I recall one of my first non-arts reporting jobs at the university paper was to interview the local CPC(M-L) candidate for municipal office. I volunteered because real reporters were interviewing the other candidates. The paper had a rather antagonistic history to the CPC(M-L).)

So when James refers to the Conservative party as the CPC(non-communist), he's merely distinguishing them from the other two parties with those initials.

Really, they should have stayed the Conservative-Reform Alliance Party: CRAP was, at least, unique.

EDIT: Ah, it was sardonic. Well, I'll leave it up; perhaps others might be educated by my and theweaselking's postings.

Edited Date: 2012-04-24 07:43 pm (UTC)

From:

Half a dozen words got this many responses?

From:

I'm shocked (shocked!) to find that gambling is going on in this establishment!

From:

burger-eater.livejournal.com

+1

From:

movingfinger.livejournal.com

"Round up the usual suspects!"

From:

jhetley.livejournal.com

It fulfills your clandestine leftist purpose, which is to stimulate blog traffic.

From:

http://users.livejournal.com/krin_o_o_/

A few drops of gasoline, what could it hurt?

From:

I'm sorry, I can't see how much gasoline he's dropped on the floor; can you pass me that box of matches so I can shed some light on our predicament?

From:

julesjones

Incidentally, did you in the end apply for that job where the primary qualification required appeared to be skill in generating high grade eyeball traffic?

From:

Perhaps he's busy building his portfolio? 8)

From:

khavrinen.livejournal.com

And, for a James Nicoll comment thread, surprisingly little mention of cats.

From:

winterknight.livejournal.com

Though plenty of cattiness. :)

From:

The funny thing for me is that I was expressing my gratitude to someone whose political views I often disagree with.

So let me say it again: Thanks, James, for re-introducing me to that story. It was a forgotten favorite which means far more to me now than it did when I first read it.

As to the replies here: "Just trying to get a dialog started." Mission accomplished, I guess.

From:

It's not you, it's your troll.

From:

dbdatvic.livejournal.com

You pay them extra.

--Dave, you should see 'em come round him of a Saturday night

From:

debgeisler.livejournal.com

Well, based on the previous entry on the blog of the person who referred to you that way, you could have been called a "commie shit nozzle." I'd personally prefer "leftist SF critic."

From:

I called Van Jones a "commie shit nozzle" because he thought he should be able to tell people he doesn't agree with, people like me, to "sit down and shut up."

James has never done that. I have in the past invited him to ask me to go away if he found my presence too disruptive. He's never done even that.

James actually did me a kindness, once, referring me to an online edition of Andre Norton's Moon of Three Rings I wanted to quote for a memorial post on a feline friend I had to put down (http://ricketyclick.com/blog/index.php/2009/02/18/tex-the-white-road/). Although I strongly disagree with many of his views, he is not remotely a shit nozzle of any variety.

I don't even think he's a Communist. There's a spectrum here, people; it's not binary communist/libertarian. I often disagree with many who refer to themselves as being on the right, or conservative, or whatever, yet I recognize that in the common view, I am to the right of, well, James. That puts him to my left, although these labels are not definitive for either of us.

===

So tell me, what would you think of someone of any persuasion who thought they should have the power to make you sit down and shut up?

If they leaned rightward of your position, would you be in the least tempted to refer to them as a "Nazi"? (Even though the Nazis considered themselves socialists, if not Marxists, and I consider them as being pretty much as far to the statist left as Stalinists.) Would you agree that many on the left regard those on the right as Nazis?

If this conversation has demonstrated anything, it's my repeatedly stated claim that talking in terms of right/left, Republican/Democrat (for Americans), liberal/conservative is too muddled and loaded to be useful. All too often, as seen in many comments to this thread, "right" and "left" simply mean "evil people who must be mocked, silenced or destroyed," often for views not actually held by the supposed felony thinkers.

I kinda regret calling James a "leftist" for that reason, but as I said upthread, I wanted to acknowledge that someone I disagreed with politically had steered me in the right (er, correct) direction with his link to the Lieber story.

From:

You're so very brave.

From:

Really? "Brave"? What makes you say that?

From:

Actually, I was being sarcastic. You're deeply afraid -- afraid of Van Jones! He might use make you learn manners! Sigh.

All insults aside, I respect that you've made a major change in your life, having yourself baptized. I hope that as a result, you don't feel afraid any more. I don't mean the absence of fear of a swaggering bully like Andrew Breitbart, your anti-Christian hero. I mean the absence of fear that comes from the acceptance of Christ into your heart (or so I've heard). The knowledge that dispels fear: that you still mean something in this universe; that your particular essence is cherished.

Of course, if you're really serious about this Christianity thing, there are a few other things that are strongly implied in the New Testament:

feed the hungry;
give the thirsty something to drink;
house strangers;
clothe the threadbare;
take care of the sick;
visit the imprisoned.

You do that, and you'll be an impressive man by the only standards that you claim count. Note that "anime", "video games", and "whining on the Internet" aren't on that list.

(What would impress *me*? Your guns are obviously a temptation to your hate and a crutch to your fear. If you sold them, and gave the money to a poor family for their own happiness -- no strings attached -- that would be the action of a mensch. Not a coward, not an embittered loser, not someone who's reasonably afraid he might be the next Loughner or Breivik. Don't you want to be the hero of your life? It's probably too late for you -- but it might not be.)

From:

seth ellis (from livejournal.com)

This is an excellent response.

From:

Totally off topic...

I wish that the timestamp showed on all replies when they were collapsed, like on this thread. That way I could more quickly see which ones were new replies. That would be neat.

From:

maruad.livejournal.com

One series of blogs I read highlight unread replies and allow you to skip to the next unread reply by hitting "z". It is amazingly useful, especially when the reply count gets into triple digits.

From:

martin-wisse.livejournal.com

"doomed to reinvent Usenet"....

From:

I remember reading that LJ had a feature like that once. Except, you know, that would be a convenience for the readers, so...

For that matter, an 'Expand ALL of it' button would be nice.

From:

It's a style thing. I view LJ in "my own style" and I see the timestamps on collapsed posts.

From:

le-trombone.livejournal.com

Yup, I also have timestamps on collapsed posts.

From:

May one ask what style you use?

From:

le-trombone.livejournal.com

It looks like it is called "Camo Green" (it's been a while since I changed style sheets, and I had to go searching for the entry discussing it).

I should probably go and make further changes. I've only been living with the blockquote annoyance for four years now.

From: