I presume that many of you saw “Angels in America.” I saw it many times and loved it. The version I am speaking of is the film series version which played on HBO in six episodes, if I remember correctly. The Story took on a variety of difficult topics like sexual identity, AIDS, death, marriage, divorce, family strife, politics, ambition, bigotry of various stripes, ethics, and all sorts of other human drama. The topics almost certainly had something which would make one squirm at some point or another. If the thing did not make you uncomfortable at some point, you missed out. Being uncomfortable was part of the experience.
Above all, in my view, were the amazing performances by the excellent variety of actors. My personal favorite in among the cast, was the nurse played by Jeffrey Wright. He gave the sort of performance that draws your attention to a tight focus and makes time seem to stop. You get lost until the spell breaks and you realize that all around you had disappeared briefly while the actor worked his spell. That said, this morning I am remembering Amma Thompson’s portrayal of the Angel America. The thing I remember most about this character was how she referred to herself. I have always been curious about it, and never completely understood it, but it fascinates me still. Whenever she referred to herself, she started with, “I, I, I, I...” It impressed me as noteworthy because, it is a different rhythm from a more typical repetitive style which would use three I’s. Using four makes it seem exaggerated and large, like the character herself.
I place a great value in “I.” I think we all should. We all have one, and it locates and anchors our perspectives. I use mine, most specifically my name, to be accountable. I stand by what I say as myself. I was fairly well aware of my “I” as a kindergartener when some kid named Sydney told me that I was not allowed to be friends with Ryan and stay in his little circle. My 4 year old mind told me that that was bullshit, and I split that club at that moment. I have never been a joiner, ever since that moment. I don’t belong to things that require that I misrepresent myself. That is not to say that I have not belonged to things about which people have misperceptions. That’s true for everyone. What I see, and what some see, is that belonging does not determine the individual. Others see that differently. They say, you’re a cop so you think this, or you’re a man and you think that. It was never true, and it never will be true about anyone. Some get this, some don’t. But I don’t join anything which have conditions which state that you just think or feel a certain way. That goes from nationalism, to cliques, down to families. I espouse free thinking, and I respect it in others.
Racism:
This is one of the most fascinating and vexing aspects of closed thinking I have ever considered. Racism has some very interesting unique characteristics. One of the things I have observed about it is that virtually no one admits to being a racist. I can’t remember the last time anyone claimed it unilaterally without saying that, “everyone is to some degree.” (A simplistic notion that I reject.) Among the nearly universal claimants to not be racist, I consider myself to be one, non- racist. This brings another question. Are racists blind to their own racism by necessity? This is something that everyone should consider. I certainly have.
Here is where I come down on it. First, I consider My life experience. At no point in my life, from elementary, to travel to various parts of the globe, to my present life in the midwest, at no point in my life have I ever seen an essential difference in any group of people. I deny them absolutely. I deny the differences more than most. I have fielded questions by others who suggest the “evidence”of running backs, swimmers, violinists, criminals, engineers, and diamond cutters and suggest that there must be an essential genetic difference or differences which make these and myriad other streams of humanity do such different things. In my experience, it is all cultural. I do not see an essential difference. None. Some do. I do not. That is my view. Furthermore, while I am no anthropologist, as I understand it, and as I was told in my college anthropology class, there is one race of human. The “races” that are commonly referred to are a social construction. Now, there you have the two platforms upon which sits my view of race. As I have been told, science rejects separation. As I have experienced, I see no difference, and never have. If it is your view that I am a “racist”, you should explain to me how the basis upon which one would claim “race” at all even exists in order to claim superiority one way or another. I reject it. I could not be a racist if I wanted to. It has no basis whatsoever. The following contains some of my words, and some of Mark in Japan’s. This is justification for saying that I am a racist. Frankly, I do not see this as even remotely racist.
“
And yes, Arthur, he is a racist.
This paragraph in the post in question is sickening and delusional, a reflection of what goes on in the vapid mind of bill beck:
"Ok, so on to the point. I was on my middle of the night journey through mourning until morning when I came upon what appeared to be a gathering of nice people, not suspicious in any particular way. They were all white, suburban types. Educated, professional, and middle aged. They were gathered as if to have a discussion about the issues of the day with one odd twist. The man holding court, as it were, was masturbating. The other men were encouraging him, and congratulating him on his style, and one woman was present and doing so as well."
Not to mention the title of the post, itself!”
This segment list a variety of demographic description. Among them is “white.” yes, this mentions race, but is that “racist”? Hardly. This does not disparage whiteness, or these people in any particular way. This identifies them in a way that connects the theme to them. This does not say that white people do these things typically, or by necessity. If there is some other reason to address regarding this, I don’t know it.
This seems to be typical of the “racism” claims with reference to me. If I mention race, or if I attack racism, I am called “racist.” I’d love to know if those who say such things really believe this, and then explain it because, like I said at the top, one should consider these things. I just don’t see the logic of it.
Here I’ll address a few more because the discussion of them make them appear to have the importance that they really do not. There is frequent discussion of whether or not I am a good writer. I’ll have you know that I have no interest in this one at all. I do it, when I do it, because I like doing it. I don’t do it because I think I am good. I assure you of that. It is kind of like speaking. I don’t speak because I like the sound of my voice. I really don’t give it any thought. If someone finds it appealing, I appreciate that. I think we all know how gratifying that can be. If they dislike it, that is unfortunate. I find otherwise rational people frequently use the term “screed” to refer to something or someone they dislike. Their writing becomes a “screed.” That seems as unfounded as “racist”, but fully within one’s right to feel for him or herself. Once you begin to call everything a “screed” though, it starts to seem more like attitude than criticism that it purports to be.
They say that one should write for oneself. I agree. Obviously that is not exclusive, but it is primary. I never intended or agreed to leave everything I posted on OS, and I don’t see why I should. Mark in Japan makes reference to “flouncing.” If I understand it correctly, “flouncing” is making a dramatic exit for effect. I have never once announced leaving OS. I left for my reasons. Usually, the process had run its course with me. Many leave. Some return. I don’t see that as “flouncing.” OS is not my life. I have other things to do. I think that is true of every single other person. I did not join the Corps with the intention of staying to retirement. When I left, some asked, why would you leave. My answer, I wanted to. The same for the LAPD. The same for just about everything. Leaving is not “flouncing.” Flouncing is flouncing. I think we know the difference. OS has a variety of problems. I have stopped to separate myself from them. We can’t be whatever the unrestrained imaginations of our detractors say that we are. That’s just nuts. A reasonable view would refute most claims. Here is one that I find important.
Many are fond of making personal attacks. I have listed several. Here’s the point. They make these personal attacks from a pseudonym. I blog with my real name and face. I blog with my location. I am impeachable. Wild claims from anonymity. I agree that there are good reasons to remain anonymous, but personal attacks from anonymity are highly suspect, and that is even if the logic of them does connect, but wild claims that support only your personal animus, and also happen to be from anonymity are one small problem with OS.
Let’see, “homophobe?” No. “Misogynist?” No. “Mother raper”, (yes, I was called this). No. “Coward?” I sure don’t think so. “Closed minded?” Hardly. Many of these are hard to disprove, but it does not stand to reason that I would do that which draws fire for these openly.
Issues need to be discussed. Frankly, many fear doing so openly because of things like this. I don’t blame them. But they need to be discussed anyway. Many of your are liberals and benefit as much as I do from the free exchange of ideas. Doing things like making false personal attacks only further closes the window on openness. Oh, “liar” is another one. Nope. Again, if I sought to lie, or more importantly, if I wanted to hide from being impeached, I would hide my identity. The charge of “liar” (Mark, again) stems from the Assange and Manning matter. In reference to Manning I said something like “he broke the law.” The fact of the matter is, “he broke the law.” That is not a lie. You may state that it is incorrect, but it is not a lie. My view is that he broke the law, but guilt is determined by a court. They are different things. Calling someone a liar is serious. Doing so on such a tortured piece of logic is disingenuous.
Amy, disagreeing with a woman does not make one a misogynist. Walter and I did not “gang up on her.” Are you aware of how some feel about how you attack people? I started receiving emails about it immediately upon disagreeing with you. When I said, “I make no notice of gender on the written page”..etc, Phyllis says...”are you obtuse” before claiming that she was being picked on. Never once did she acknowledge the possible value in the perspective. Yeah, we are of different genders. No, there is no gender advantage on a written page. No one is “beating one’s chest” or bullying. Agree or disagree, but it is not “obtuseness.” It is a perspective based upon a logic, and not an inability to discern.
I am not a racist. I never flounced. I am not a misogynist. I may very well be the worst writer ever to peck at a keyboard. I, I, I, I just wish you people could drop the personal attacks. Let’s discuss some ideas, or whatever suits your fancy, but don’t call me a liar because you disagree. That is not what lying is. There is little that I do not respect, but anonymous rock throwing is one. I, I, I, I will admit that.
Kim Gamble, come on dude. This one must get special mention. If it makes “no sense”, how is it that some understand it? Couldn’t it be that you don’t get it, and some others do? Why must we define reality to reflect ourselves? If you want to be reasonable at all, search out someone in the thread who says that I go to great length to do just the opposite of what you accuse. I know them no better than I know you. Both cant be true. The truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Signing something with my name? Come on man.
(Oh, I forgot to resolve one thing. Sydney was black. Ryan is white. I have no reason to think Sydney’s edict was racial in purpose, but neither was my choice. Racism, cliques, and all of that other stuff go counter to everything I have ever been.)
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
koshersalaami
Ben Sen
Frank Apisa
Kerry Lauerman
Boanerges1
Cap'n Parrotdead
Salon.com
Comments
It is Walter Egeaux.
I'm not sure why you mentioned me here.
I won't argue with you. I know nothing of that scene which took place between you and some of the OS women.
The fact that I was recently accused, point blank, of "reverse discrimination" towrds men simply due to the fact I wished to hold all women parties for a time has puzzled me.
How is that discriminatory? I asked in return. Were we offline, and I wanted to hold a bridal shower, any guys to my world would disappear in a a heartbeat because such parties tend to bore most men. I see nothing wrong in what I did and am yet to do. yet I stand accused of having discriminated just because I'd rather spend time with my female peeps once a week or so, and not invite any males.
I find that curious, almost nonsensical.
Most people will believe what they want to, regardless of any evidence to the contrary.
Peace, bro'.
/r.
Let me restate something. I don't think staying anonymous makes one less credible. I think attacking someone personally from anonymity is not at all credible. Feel me? I get that people may want to be anonymous for a variety of reasons, safety not the least of them. On the other hand, there is never a reason to attack a person on a personal level except for ones jollies. I mean, if someone were being outted on some issue of social importance as a public service, that's one thing. But to call someone a misogynist for no reason, etc, and to do so from anonymity, garbage. It is just taking shots without standing behind it.
Phyllis, if you think the reference to Phyllis means you, then you know full well why you were mentioned. You claimed to have been harassed or whatever, you choose the word, but you were first to be uncivil. "Obtuse" was your word. I mentioned it because it is an issue of simple fairness.
Rage: I have rarely ever been in a rage, and even less rarely written anything in a rage, if ever. The term gets used a lot to diminish one's reasoning. I am not, nor have I been raging. Like many other unfair assessments, I have been called calm and patient when I was actually not, and raging when I was as calm as can be. I get that misperceptions can be made. What I do not get is how some pass judgement as though from certainty. If I am raging I promise to say so. I rarely shy from expressing myself. In point of fact, much of the criticism is that I don't shy from expressing myself. Furthermore, I don't not see people as intelligent. I see, and become frustrated with someone not wanting to reason. They are two very different things. If I thought anyone was not intelligent enough to hear something, I would not attempt to communicate twice. No one's time is worth that.
Maybe 20 years ago, when I was first online and involved in discussions of stuff, I had people generally assuming that I was white because of how I wrote or whatever. I started hearing those private communications that are theorized to occur when no black person was present. I got a certain slanted perspective that presumed that I agreed with it on all sorts of issues. Eventually I thought, let me put my race in my profile so that people will not assume otherwise, and be fooled, and then a picture. Needless to say, things changed, but I prefer that someone know than to assume otherwise and assume that I am as revolted by affirmative action, say, as they are, only telling me in the confidence assuming that I have decided based upon my ethnicity. This is not to say AA is right or wrong, but only to say that where it matters to people, I would rather be known than not. Personal choice. Not racism.
Take the standard disagreement on OS as an example. I see some of the most carefully thought out arguments made from one point of view or another going head to head with another carefully thought out argument from an opposing POV. The arguments, from either side, can reflect well on the arguers and yet if the POV are not altered in any way by the eloquence or sheer rational force of an opposing argument, what has been accomplished besides perhaps a dazzling display of verbal martial artistry? Which is not to say such dazzling displays are not worthwhile in and of themselves. I learn a lot as a spectator, same as I learned from my lawyer father that a good debater can be equally persuasive taking either side of an argument. So then does it all come down to the powers of persuasion, which are related to the powers of personality, which derive more from the id than from pure logic or unaligned reason? This is why I find it depressing to know that for the most part the political campaign with the most money, which can buy the best Mad Men and bombard the poor voters with the most persuasive arguments most frequently, wins.
I should go back and read this before posting it, but my bladder has other more immediate plans for me and I'm afraid the whole damned thing might vanish by the time I get back, so please forgive any odd syntax, spelling or grammatical errors. - Id Man
You make a great point. You also told me something that I did not know, but which makes sense. Persuasion has more to do with the Id than reason.
Blog posts are not going to get any nuclear submarines turned around, or solve the Middle East crisis, but they can be a venue for dialogue and discovery. Nothing is perfect, and no one expects it to be, but lying, false representations of another, smears, all that pigeon holing nonsense just makes a decent thing into crap. "Kumbaya" gets lampooned at moments like these. No, no one expects that, nor even desires it. But calling me a "liar" because I said Bradley Manning broke the law? Come on, Mark. The man is in jail because he broke the law. He is also innocent until he is proved guilty. Innocence and arrest are not mutually exclusive. Be reasonable.
As to the I,I,I,I -- you've touched one of my nerves there. Yuppies are lampooned for their self-centeredness and rightly so. But the issue of the ego cuts to the core of American politics today. Libertarians are obviously overly interested only in the I, but they forget the collective "I'.
What I mean about the collective 'I' is this. I want good schools and strong prosperous communities. I want to live in a good and safe neighborhood. I want pure drinking water, clean air and good roads.
I think that we're currently spending too much energy on the individual ''l' and not enough on the collective 'I'. r
"President Barack Obama made stunning accusations about accused Wikileaks whistleblower PFC Bradley Manning, directly asserting that Manning “broke the law.” Apparently the President of the United States of America and a self-described Constitutional scholar does not care that Manning has yet to be tried or convicted for any crime."
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2011/04/22/obama-on-manning-he-broke-the-law-so-much-for-that-trial/
As I've said before bill never took his marine corps. oath seriously and he learned the meaning of justice at the notoriously corrupt L.A. Police Force.
First, I have not been a serviceman for about 23 years. I am not bound by the U.C.M.J. I have not been for nearly a quarter of a century. Even if the oath covered your question, which it does not, how would it apply to me now?
2. Manning is in custody after having broken the law. If he is tried in a criminal court, the Judges Advocate General officer who prosecutes him will have taken the same oath. In fact, every serviceman ever tried in a military court has been tried by a military lawyer, and presided by a higher ranking officer who also took the same oath. This is the process for military criminal justice for centuries. That being the case, wouldn't every single assertion that a defendant
broke the law" have created a Constitutional crisis? If your understanding were accurate, the answer would be yes. The reality is, your understanding of the situation is false.
3. Being arrested is not the same as guilt. One gets arrested for breaking the law. Then one is held in custody, or gets bonded out. Then a trial ensues where guilt or innocence is determined by conviction of acquittal respectively. This is how this has worked in this country for hundreds of years.
Where is the lie, Mark?
How much can you bench press?
Also do you smoke, drink or ingest illegal substances? (Don't worry, I won't tell.)
How's your blood pressure? Any heart problems? Dizzy spells? History of seizures? Allergies?
Your eyes okay?
I wasn't asking these questions for ANY OTHER REASON but simple friendly curiosity!
Oh yeah, great post. R.
"In a video broadcast she [Jill Stein] had this to say:
"The overall impact of the leaked information has been huge, leading indirectly to the recent withdrawal of the U.S. military from Iraq much sooner than our government intended. That’s because these revelations compelled the Maliki government in Iraq to refuse to extend criminal immunity to U.S. soldiers. It contributed to the turn of American public opinion to overwhelmingly oppose the war in Afghanistan. And it added momentum to the Arab Spring uprisings against dictatorial U.S.-backed regimes.
“The war criminals whom these Wikileaks cables exposed have suffered no consequences. The only one who is suffering consequences is Bradley Manning, the one who is accused of exposing the crimes.
“Whistleblowers are indispensable for democracy. They enable the people to defend themselves against government malfeasance and tyranny. Those U.S. cables released to Wikileaks contained more information on the wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, and other countries than all the media organizations in the world combined have been able to unearth. And they are all too filled with malfeasance, tyranny and war crimes.
snip
“Regardless of these justifications, if Bradley Manning leaked the cables, he violated the law by committing what was essentially an act of civil disobedience. For acts of civil disobedience, a measure of punishment is accepted as a matter of course. But the unconscionable violations of international law that have been exposed, and the war crimes that were revealed, all compel extreme leniency in this case.
“Bradley Manning will have spent more than two years in detention before his court martial begins. For the first 10 months, he was held in solitary confinement, restricted to his cell 23 hours a day, and subjected to degrading treatment, including being forbidden reading material or the right to exercise, and being stripped naked while under constant observation. The UN Special Rapporteur on Torture, Juan Mendez, accused the U.S. Government of cruel, inhumane, and degrading treatment in his report based on a 14-month investigation. It said that the U.S. might have violated laws against torture as well as Manning's basic right to a presumption of innocence until proven guilty in a court of law.
snip
“In fact, the President should have brought Bradley Manning under the protections of the Whistleblower Protection Act. But the President, as well as the Chair of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, have publicly stated that Manning broke the law. Those statements from the top of the chain of command constitute unlawful command influence that prejudices the proceedings of the court martial. It is one of many reasons why Bradley Manning cannot now get a fair trial in the military justice system.
snip
“If I am elected and have the opportunity to pardon Bradley Manning, I will do this as an affirmation that my country, the United States of America, strives to achieve the highest possible standards of justice, transparency, and honor.”
"How is that for honesty, courage, sanity and justice -- quite the opposite from the Democrat and Republican legacy parties who are earnest in sending Manning to long time prison time, some even demanding execution, primarily for EMBARRASSING a GUILTY of war crimes US military."
best, libby
With all due respect, this has nothing to do with Manning. This has everything with Mark calling me a lair for stating that Manning broke the law. That is a matter of fact, and not an opinion about war crimes or anything else. Several people have told outrageous lies about me. Mark's was one. Upon that he built the lie that I left OS because of him. Maniacal nonsense. This is just about whether saying that someone "broke the law" is unconstitutional before a trial. It isn't. And even if it were, that does not make one a "liar" for saying so. It is the typical out of control, childish bullshit that can run rampant on OS because people stand in anonymity and lob turds.
If the President is guilty of war crimes, do something. But this is not about that.
Until a trial is held that is the extent that ANYONE can go, most definitely including YOU, bill.
I have not explored your past commentaries nor the comment threads so I am at a loss to venture farther than to say I am so sorry about these stressful altercations going on and their apparent scope for everyone's sake.
"Principles above personalities" was always heavily stressed in my 12-step history, though easier said than done. Pitching our political stances can be an emotionally slippery slope at times. I have slid down them myself and am not proud.
I just want to re-echo some of my Manning thoughts if you will indulge me.
I was putting my two cents in for Manning whose plight is so on my mind. My last blog was on Jill Stein and she made a noble defense for him. If he committed the crime as an act of disobedience she admits it deserves to be processed and a punishment levied as such actors for civil disobedience are willing to risk. But Stein sees his circumstances as so extenuating in the important revelations the wikileaks disclosures have brought forth of war crimes that she would pardon him if elected President because of it being an act of conscience and defying a military system guilty of criminality itself that deserved to be exposed to the citizenry.
She also stresses how unconscionable it was, that is a good word I think, for Obama and others to call out Manning as as having broken the law before trial so bluntly and damningly, especially with Obama's education in the law, as "UNLAWFUL COMMAND INFLUENCE" because it unduly prejudices court martial proceedings. Manning's getting a fair trial now in the military court is doubtful because of this profound messaging from the top patriarchs of the system. Stein also takes issue with the torturous treatment Manning was extended including forced nudity and sustained solitary confinement.
I take huge issue with Obama on this, among so many other things.
best, libby
Whether one uses the term "alleged" before "broke the law" or not is not the difference between a Constitutional crisis or not. Also, not using the term does not make me a "liar" which is your assertion.
Now you have taken your childish behavior to another level by using the term "shuck and jive." in relation to me. It's funny/ironic since you had previously referred to me as a racist. I'm not sure if you know what the term means, just like you once tried to use an economist from the Austrian school to criticize Obama, not knowing that the Austrian school espouses theory that opposes your position. Just like I'm not sure that you you don't know that to interfere with one's Constitutional rights, one must be acting on behalf of government. And that "shucking and jiving is a term which originated in slavery and involves a subordinate black person dancing and joking to avoid penalty from a white person. Gee, Mark, if I knew you felt tis way, I would not have layer out the facts to have you concede them. "Shuck and jive" huh?
And the truth shall set you free!
That alone is virtually a directed verdict. It’s unlawful command influence on the subordinate officers, who will be carrying out both this decision, and later in the trial. The court martial should be out for that reason alone."
http://www.ellsberg.net/
Has bill not done EXACTLY the same thing?
When a regular trial goes to regular criminal court, a statement such as the President's runs the risk of making a jury aware of things that may or may not be allowed in a trial. In a court marshal such as this, first of all, there is no jury. There is a board of three officers. There are 3 types of court marshal. Summary, Special, and General court marshal. There is no jury. The chance that the three member panel would not know about the defendant is virtually nil. The events are not in question. There is no question as to whether the events occurred. As for "civil disobedience", that doesn't even have special dispensation in civilian law. Liking the law or the defendant or whatever is not the issue, nor should it be.
Keep in mind, the entire issue of me being called a "liar" by Antebellum Mark is that the word "alleged" is not used. This has nothing to do with how long he has been in jail, or whatever.
And Libby, I don't know you. So far you have been decent. But how would you expect a military to function if it allowed any individual service person to act in what you call "civil disobedience" and still exist? Military discipline would unravel in hours. Lawful orders would mean nothing. There would effectively be no military structure left. I don't know if that is your goal or not, but if it were, that would not be the way to go about it, to say nothing of the efficacy of such a step. Since Vietnam the military has made a distinction between lawful and unlawful orders. A person may refuse an unlawful order. What Manning did does not fall under that category. Copying information from a computer and distributing it is not the same as refusing to act on an unlawful order. It is taking an affirmative step in defeating the aims of the structure from within. There is a huge difference there. How would you maintain a military where any individual could take such a step unilaterally for his or her own reasons without accountability? You just couldn't. You might as well disband the entire military first.
http://open.salon.com/blog/bill_beck/2012/06/15/privilege_and_the_epidemic_of_masturbation_and_voyeurism
Racist, prurient, and perverted.
you've been busted so many times on OS that who you are is evident to most.
you have deleted your blog to hide the numerous times you dug your own hole and succeeded not in being able to get out.
Lie and hide - that's your game - I'm done with you.
I haven't been around much (perhaps I flounced without realising it), but I am vaguely aware that there has been some (more) drama. I'm not sure what it was about and I don't care enough to find out.
I just wanted to say that I like your post. This sentence in particular "we can’t be whatever the unrestrained imaginations of our detractors say that we are" really hit home with me.
I'll be thinking about it - and the entire post - for some time.
I hope all is well with you and yours.
So it's Fallacy City here at the OK Corral. I will give you a piece of advice or two or, as figures coming from me, four:
1. Don't let the fallacies affect your blood pressure. They're not worth it in this context. Really.
2. Limit your efforts to answering the specifics. Don't reach for a larger point unless you really mean to go there, and don't bother with combat unless you enjoy it. If you don't want a larger argument, keep your answers as surgical as possible.
3. Never, and I mean never, make the mistake of assuming there are multitudes behind whomever is attacking you. If two people are attacking you, they represent two people. Not three. If there's a third who really agrees, the third will either leave you alone entirely or show up and be counted, but the third will not be included among the other engaged commenters who stay out of the fray. That's not why they're staying out.
4. Don't bother getting personal. It doesn't work, it loses you respect, and it makes silly arguments take longer. People are perfectly capable of burying themselves here; let them.
You're one of the cleanest writers I know here. Most accusations about your analysis are likely to be spurious.
They (the accusations) will come in two flavors:
1. Pissed-off ranting that is strictly reactive, but without a commitment behind it. Played with enough reserve, you will sometimes get a reversal of position from these people because some people who rant are aware that they rant. Something set them off. This doesn't mean they hate your guts or even disagree with you most of the time.
2. Attacks consisting of whatever might conceivably be in reach. These attacks are meant more seriously but the argument you find yourself in is often tangential - to both of you. These attacks are the OS equivalent of Birtherism - Whatever the Hell is bothering people about Obama, and there are many things that should legitimately bother people about Obama, it is never based primarily on some half-assed theory about where he was born; birtherism is what they think they have a shot at getting him on, not Why they want to get him in the first place.
Some reactions are predictable. You won't change the way people react, particularly if they react venomously. Don't act like you can. Answer and move on.
People tend to think that I seek agreement and avoid dissent. That has never been the case. It's easy to think how one might think so, but hard to see how they ignore the evidence to the contrary. I rarely have dialogue with someone that I agree with, unless there is some nuanced angle that I think needs to be mentioned. I do find differing perspectives interesting. People always assume the opposite. Now, I am glad to have agreement, of course. I just don't cultivate it. One commenter said "you don't coddle anyone." It's true. I don't do the circle jerk about cheesecake recipes. But...
Since I seek dialogue with different perspectives, it takes talking across barriers. I see almost no one trying to do that. Rarely do I get a mature response across barriers. I'll name names because they posted these statements first. Gordon Osmond once said something about Obama's daughter's butts. You can't really discuss with a person like that. Joisey says things like "you're not qualified to speak to me about computers", or "whoop dee too"...no point in conversing with that. He doesn't even get why. MarkinJapan makes up his own false histories of how things happened. One example, he claims I left OS because of him. You were here. You know that is false. No living creature could get me to leave anything against my choice. That's not to say that I could not be lifted and removed by something stronger. What it means is, I choose. Mark is delusional, or lying, or both.
Now, I got called a "censoring cunt" by the anonymous Behind Blue Eyes" years ago. Mr Anonymous still has not revealed himself to me. That sort of thing will happen no matter what. Many admire that sort of thing. I have weighed the strategies of ignoring them all, and engaging them all. I engage some and ignore some. Some will always try to make points on the cheap by making wild claims and staying anonymous. That's life in this realm.
Some think that I think that people are not as smart as I am. Nothing could be further from the truth. I assume that they are all as smart as I am. I'm not lonely. I don't talk to people for companionship. I have that. I engage to satisfy curiosities. I am not curious about stupidity. I will say, however, at times people reveal their stupidity by saying things like "shuck and jive." That is the comment of a moron, or a lunatic. That closes that case. I don't seek to change people. But people do read and silently appreciate. I know. I get their emails. And believe me, I do not get personal. I refer to commenters by their names, and don't make ad hominem arguments. I do feel free to point them out because they make them publicly, those who do. Safe Bet's Amy lashes out at men for being men. That's nuts. She calls people asshole, fuctard, homophobe, hogophobe, etc., etc. She's the reigning king of personal. I said to and about her that she was obnoxious. That is evident, not an ad hominem. People I don't know say, "you think this about me..." I can;t get over how often I see that comment. I respond with, "I don't know you. How is that possible." Then they act like I burned down an orphanage. Some say I lack emotion, then they say I rage. It'd be funny if it were not so fucking hilarious. So what does it all mean? Who knows. Sometimes we engage the lunatic and silently acknowledge our friends with only a smile. There is no heaven and there is no hell. We give account of ourselves now, and then we are dust waiting for the next closest star to explode so we can start all over.
I've been pretty successful at keeping the animosity to a minimum, going both ways. Actually, when I've gotten angriest hasn't been about the personal stuff, it's been about the analytical stuff, particularly when someone says something way off base and refuses to back it up. When I screw up and I'm reasonably sure I've screwed up, I admit it; it bothers me when I see a repeated lack of integrity in an argument. The personal stuff there isn't much you can say about.
Mark says:
"bill is lost at the point of innocent until PROVEN guilty. he can shuck and jive all he wants, but the worst that can be said about Manning/Assange is that they are ALLEGED to have broken the law.
Until a trial is held that is the extent that ANYONE can go, most definitely including YOU, bill."
The last sentence is of special interest to me. Here, Mark draws a distinction between myself and that which "anyone" can do. The modifier to me is "most definitely including..." Now, this seems to imply that my outsider status as a citizen has relatively little importance in the question of power in this governmental action. MARK IS ABSOLUTELY RIGHT HERE! I have no power to deny Manning's Constitutional rights as a citizen. "Most especially" me. But later, Mark says that I have done, ""ELLSBERG: The commander-in-chief, President Obama, gave Manning ‘verdict first, trial later.’ He said Manning had broken the law, before even the prosecution case had been heard, let alone the defense case. He said he was guilty,
That alone is virtually a directed verdict. It’s unlawful command influence on the subordinate officers, who will be carrying out both this decision, and later in the trial. The court martial should be out for that reason alone."
http://www.ellsberg.net/
Has bill not done EXACTLY the same thing?"
"Exactly the same thing." In the first quote, I am most especially not able to do this thing. In the second quote, same subject, I have actually done the same thing as the President of the United States, and Commander in Chief. (Please cue the Patsy Cline song) This, ladies and gentlemen, is "Crazy."
There is something amusing and frightening about the thought that you sparked in my memory. The amusing one is that the image reminds me of one of my favorite movie moments where Luke Skywalker is in that bar out on the edge of some system of planets. The weird, grotesque stranger says to him, "my friend doesn't like you." Luke mumbles something. The the weirdo says, "I don't like you either." Luke then says, "I'll be careful", or something. Then the weirdo is even angrier and says, "you'll be dead boy!" The exchange is hilarious and ominous at the same time.
The frightening thing about recalling that is one of OS's notorious trolls is this huge Star Wars fan. He likes to lurk and engage with new identities. He loves this sort of attack, just like Antebellum Mark.