Hatrack River
Home   |   About Orson Scott Card   |   News & Reviews   |   OSC Library   |   Forums   |   Contact   |   Links
Research Area   |   Writing Lessons   |   Writers Workshops   |   OSC at SVU   |   Calendar   |   Store
E-mail this page
Hatrack River Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Hatrack River Forum » Active Forums » Books, Films, Food and Culture » old man blogs at cloud (Page 4)

  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: old man blogs at cloud
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I agree on the solid and not so solid part.

But the "act of war" line is pretty murky if we're including all sanctions. If you can count any trade law that causes another country economic harm, then we're at war with half the world.

I think Ron Paul is right that actually going to war with Russia over Ukraine is a bad idea. I think he's also right that we shouldn't be footing the massive bill necessary to bail Ukraine out. Europe needs to come up with a lot of that money. He's also right that some of it is a bank bailout...but it's also about securing Ukraine's medium-term ability to borrow to get themselves out of the hole Yanukovich left them in.

But I don't agree that sanctions are acts of war.

I'm iffy on the popular referendum thing. By many accounts, Yanukovich was never the legitimately elected leader of Ukraine. Many think he rigged enough ballot boxes to steal it.

I think his view of what's happening in Ukraine and what happened recently is awfully naive and problematic. What does he think happens to Ukraine if we had done nothing from the start? Or what happens if we do something now? For that matter, what does he think would have happened in Ukraine or Libya if we'd done nothing? Yeah, in many cases things are still a mess, but they would likely have been much more of a mess, with a higher death toll, had we done nothing.

Posts: 21436 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
to try this back to blogs at cloud territory (not that i'm necessarily upset that an absurd anti-obama rant still in some way provokes non-absurd commentary on ukraine)

osc's article literally contains this quote:

quote:
Here's the truth: Big nations always take whatever they want from small nations, unless there's a bigger nation nearby that makes it too costly to do it.
then proceeds to explain how the america-hating left hates america and has no patriotism in part because they collectively apparently don't disagree with that statement, that osc just made, that big nations are always bullies.

think about that, just really think about that

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OTHER THINGS I WISH TO PICK LIGHTHEARTED FUN AT BUT THEY'RE ACTUALLY KIND OF OUTRAGEOUS WHEN PICKED APART SO IT ISN'T FUN AND GAMES ANYMORE [Frown]

quote:
We are a nation founded on ideas, not ethnicity.
See, the idea of the three fifths compromise,

quote:
Why should Putin negotiate with us about anything? Ukraine is none of our business because we don't have the power to make it our business.
Replace Ukraine with Georgia during GWB's administration (haha oh right that happened??) and I'm sure OSC has some sort of invented caveat where it's all like "no, see, that's different, because, something something the liberals"

quote:
The America that said, about Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, "This will not stand," is now led by Barack Obama, the worst president in our entire history. In five years, he -- and the American Left -- have had their way, breaking down our strength and turning us into a former superpower.
I love hyperbole! Obama is worst president ever yes even worse than that one that bumbled us into the civil war, eh, i can't even remember his name off the top of my head but who cares there's no way obama was not worse because obama has not already insanely militarily intervened in the crimea, also something something benghazi (take a shot),

quote:
benghazi
take a shot

quote:
some other insane hyperbolic ranting
seriously what even is this
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Clearly it would be much more prudent for Obama to start a war with a nuclear power led by someone who appears to be somewhat insane. Sounds good.
Posts: 4002 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Holiday themed:

quote:
Monday, March 14th -- 10 Most Wanted Day

Albert Einstein was born today in 1879. He was very bright as an imaginative physicist, but was no mathematician. So it is puzzling that his birthday has been designated as Pi Day -- a day to celebrate pi, the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter. Oh, wait -- they chose today for Pi Day because it's the fourteenth day of the third month. In America, we note that date numerically as 3-14, and since a course approximation of the value of pi is 3.14, it makes a weird kind of sense.

In Europe, however, where dates are noted numerically in the much more sensible order of day, month, year, the way to get 3, 1, and 4 in order is to choose the 31st day of the fourth month: 31-4.

Unfortunately, because calendars were originally devised by drunk people, the fourth month, April, doesn't have thirty-one days. So I guess Europeans are not entitled to have a pi day at all.

Which makes me wonder -- will pi be resentful of those who don't commemorate it? Will pi become sulky and begin to oscillate in value? Will round things suddenly become elliptical, and ellipses round? Will tires need refilling with air to restore their round shape? Or will even that remedy fail? How does a geometric ratio show its appreciation or lack thereof?

Do we all need to join hands and form a circle and say, "Thank you, pi, for making us round!"? Are there special badges to wear? Should we all inscribe pi on our driveways with chalk?

Or do we just dose ourselves with banana cream, pumpkin, or apple pi?

I think you've summed up the entirety of the holiday in the last sentence. It took a while though-- did you think us scientists, mathematicians and engineers were not human?

FYI- European pi approximation day is 22/7, and the proper Pi day activity is a contest to see who can recite the most digits.

Oh, and if you live near a Safeway, the $5 pis are marked down to $3.14. Usually by this point, the selection is quite picked over, so hurry up!

Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
My laptab from Dell, whose screen flips conveniently from laptop to tablet mode, should do the job. I bought it precisely because it should have allowed me to have full access to all my Windows-dependent software, yet also get the graphics interface of a tablet.

Unfortunately, Windows 8.1 got in the way. I've already said enough about that gargoyle.

And there's another problem. To make my laptab light enough to be credible as a tablet, Dell, correctly, used a solid-state drive instead of a spinning drive.

Solid state is faster by orders of magnitude -- you boot in five seconds, bring up programs almost instantly. But solid-state drives are expensive, so we're talking 64 gigs instead of a terabyte. Good-bye to my 250 gigs of music and 150 gigs of audiobooks and Great Courses lectures.

I could work with a small subset of those if I could also plug in additional memory cards. With a single card slot I could plug in another 64 gigs, tripling my available drive space (since Windows itself chews up so much of the built-in "disk").

Fifty bucks more and my machine could do anything I needed.

But ... no card slot.

I know, I can use a USB flashdrive to get the memory I need. Only (a) it's not as fast and (b) it dangles off the tablet like a very weak handle, just begging to be jostled out of place or broken off.

If things are sticking out of it, it's not a tablet anymore. Though I am looking at the SanDisk Cruzer Fit CZ33, which has very little dangling. Maybe that will work well enough.

We're so close to a truly productive in-between machine, with my laptab.

Yeah, but larger SSDs are not that expensive. If it enhances your productivity, the $1300 version with the 256 GB SSD seems rather affordable.
Posts: 4002 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tertiaryadjunct
Member
Member # 12989

 - posted      Profile for tertiaryadjunct           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I tried to put up a Christmas tree in my living room once. I actually didn't even get as far as buying it; after a couple of calls around town looking for a tree salesman the popo kicked down my door and nabbed me for intent to distribute Christianity.

I showed them, though. Every one of those 40 hash marks on the wall of my cell, which the guards simply thought marked each week I'd been locked up, was actually a little cross.

Have faith, brothers: some day we will be the majority, and we will get OUR believers in control of this government, and we will be able to worship openly. Deep down I know it is possible.

Posts: 48 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 7625

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh dear.
Posts: 4002 | Registered: Mar 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Oh, boy. Double bubble this week. God and Fox News all in one go? I don't think I want to read the essays, but I know I will.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Destineer
Member
Member # 821

 - posted      Profile for Destineer           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
again:

quote:
Fox News, however, hovers right around the middle of the spectrum, covering stories that favor or disfavor either side, without any significant pattern of bias.
He genuinely does believe that this is where the center lies; think of the "moderate Democrat" characters from Empire.
Posts: 4511 | Registered: Mar 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
benghazi
take a shot

quote:
Then we'll see that only Fox News, of all the broadcast media, told it like it was. Just as only Winston Churchill warned the British people of the danger that Hitler posed.
finish the bottle
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yup. Godwin's law strikes again. Muy original.
Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Quick journalism ethics question: if the founder of a news organization asks someone to run for president, and also offers that the wealthy owner of said organization would bankroll said campaign, is that okay or not okay? Would you trust that organization's coverage?
Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
only if it's fox news because, uh, reasons
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
cup runneth over, the other article is basically a guy who tried to keep gays as second class citizens grousing that christians are the real victims of oppression

there is so much i can't i just cant

i can't even go through it point by point even in the most flippant sense

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Orincoro
Member
Member # 8854

 - posted      Profile for Orincoro   Email Orincoro         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC:
quote:
But that was back in the old days, when most Americans were openly Christian and we hadn't been beaten into silence by lawsuits by atheists.

I'm shocked that he feels safe posting such a comment, considering the likelihood that he will be sued for it...

quote:
If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

quote:
If we try to rally believers in supporting legislation that affirms our values, we are shouted down for daring to suggest that our faith is a decent grounds for deciding our votes.
Yes. This is true. We live in a liberal democracy (kind of), that is decidedly irreligious. What does he want? To live in Iran?

quote:
Anybody else can demand that their faith be respected -- but not us. Call yourself a Christian, and you have removed yourself from any chance of being taken seriously.
I quote only my favorite line from Jon Stewart, ever:

quote:
“Yes, the long war on Christianity. I pray that one day we may live in an America where Christians can worship freely! In broad daylight! Openly wearing the symbols of their religion... perhaps around their necks? And maybe -- dare I dream it? -- maybe one day there can be an openly Christian President. Or, perhaps, 43 of them. Consecutively.”

Posts: 9562 | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:

quote:
If we try to celebrate our religious holidays openly, we get sued, as if ours were the one aspect of American culture that has no right to exist.
Again, what the hell? When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Ironically, OSC is against prayer in school. Or was?

http://www.hatrack.com/cgi-bin/print_friendly.cgi?page=/osc/reviews/everything/2002-11-18.shtml

Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 124

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
The real horror here is that he doesn't think Life of Brian is funny.
Posts: 36937 | Registered: May 1999  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).

I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds.
Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.

On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.

Posts: 9793 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Geraine
Member
Member # 9913

 - posted      Profile for Geraine   Email Geraine         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Bella Bee:
OSC also doesn't think The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy is funny. (Book, not movie, obviously).

I think he may consider British humor as part of the Libtard/Feminazi conspiracy to warp young American minds.
Or, he and I just have a different sense of humor. Difficult to tell, these days.

I mean, how could you not think it is funny with quotes like this?

"A towel, it says, is about the most massively useful thing an interstellar hitchhiker can have. Partly it has great practical value - you can wrap it around you for warmth as you bound across the cold moons of Jaglan Beta; you can lie on it on the brilliant marble-sanded beaches of Santraginus V, inhaling the heady sea vapours; you can sleep under it beneath the stars which shine so redly on the desert world of Kakrafoon; use it to sail a mini raft down the slow heavy river Moth; wet it for use in hand-to- hand-combat; wrap it round your head to ward off noxious fumes or to avoid the gaze of the Ravenous Bugblatter Beast of Traal (a mindboggingly stupid animal, it assumes that if you can't see it, it can't see you - daft as a bush, but very ravenous); you can wave your towel in emergencies as a distress signal, and of course dry yourself off with it if it still seems to be clean enough.

More importantly, a towel has immense psychological value. For some reason, if a strag (strag: non-hitch hiker) discovers that a hitch hiker has his towel with him, he will automatically assume that he is also in possession of a toothbrush, face flannel, soap, tin of biscuits, flask, compass, map, ball of string, gnat spray, wet weather gear, space suit etc., etc. Furthermore, the strag will then happily lend the hitch hiker any of these or a dozen other items that the hitch hiker might accidentally have "lost". What the strag will think is that any man who can hitch the length and breadth of the galaxy, rough it, slum it, struggle against terrible odds, win through, and still knows where his towel is is clearly a man to be reckoned with."

Posts: 1877 | Registered: Nov 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by dkw:
quote:
Originally posted by Orincoro:
When has this ever happened? And don't link me to every single case being a 1st amendment issue about prayers in school, because that's the *only* reason people ever sue over prayers, and it's also the only time doing so is right.

Also prayer at city council meetings and the like. But otherwise, yeah.

On one of his other points, Christian fiction that can actually hold its own is shelved with regular fiction in most bookstores I know. The stuff that's only published or purchased because of its "Christian" label is in the separate section.

Ditto for romance novels.
Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
another double parter from osc

quote:
I’m afraid I have a bit of negativity toward Quebec, but that was earned: What irks me is the double standard, where French must be placed on signs throughout Canada, but inside Quebec, English is removed from signs so that only French is visible.

The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.

I’m afraid I despise hypocrisy and discrimination masquerading as tolerance.

says the guy who literally made the claim in his article "Homosexual "Marriage" and Civilization" that he was showing homosexuals what tolerance really was and it is they who are intolerant

coo

quote:
With the weakest yet most dictatorial President in American history
coo

quote:
Republicans already start out far behind, because the news media will be uniformly against them
yes the news media including the fox news you just championed will be uniformly against them

coo

quote:
But the Republican loathing for Spanish-speaking immigrants has been so virulent that Hispanic voters have no choice but to vote for the Democrats, even though they actually dislike almost every position the Democrats take.
this is a canard that gets gish-galloped out by conservatives constantly but, golly, get ready for a shocker here, — it's not actually true at all. the notion that hispanics are 'naturally conservative' and can be picked back up with an about face (that the republican party would cannibalize itself even just trying to accomplish ever) is a mirage. hispanic voters are against republican economic policies and especially disfavor free-market talk, they have a clear majority in favor of gay marriage (which is not true of republicans), they support the expansion of welfare programs, public investment in the economy, etc.

there's been a lot of talk about this myth but we might as well not do a lot to combat it, because the republicans will sell themselves on it through opinion pieces like this one by OSC, and dive full in on some fundamental misapprehensions of real socioeconomic patterns, because that's what they do, and their strategy on this will stay pretty gigo

works for me

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The same thing irks me about feminism. It’s essential for women to have “a room of one’s own” where men cannot come, so that women can be truly themselves. But any place where men can be by themselves is ruthlessly suppressed, because any male privacy is regarded as a conspiracy against women.
What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?
Posts: 1142 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Yes, because when women protest about, say, men being the only people who are allowed to play at the best golf clubs in the world, but don't protest against women only gyms and train cars, that is just simple hypocrisy.

Women have always oppressed men and tried to stop them having any freedom or autonomy. They see men as objects which they can buy and sell, stop them from getting educations, pay them less for the work they do... It's happening all over the world, right now. But thanks to campaigners like OSC, men are finally having their voices heard. They won't stand for it any longer.

I applaud OSC's bravery in standing up to The Woman and saying 'No more!'. It is quite inspirational.

[ March 29, 2014, 08:30 AM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Dogbreath:
What? When has this ever happened? Like seriously, how does this even make sense?

well yesterday a bunch of feminists stormed into the men's locker room at my gym and declared it a conspiracy against women. and apparently this happens all the time everywhere. so osc's statement is of course representative of feminism, and not ridiculous.
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
BlackBlade
Member
Member # 8376

 - posted      Profile for BlackBlade   Email BlackBlade         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Guys. I'm trying to allow you all to have the latitude to discuss Mr. Card's writings, even critically.

Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.

I would suggest that if you don't have a clue how Mr. Card arrived at an argument he's made, that you consider asking why he feels that way. You don't actually know what his experiences are and how they've shaped his stances on things.

Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that. I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.

Posts: 14243 | Registered: Jul 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, personally I'd love it if he would explain what he's talking about. In his article, he gave no information about what he bases his opinion on, simply stated it as fact that women are being hypocritical in wanting their own space, while stopping men from having any privacy to be themselves. It seems to me that OSC expects us to know what he means already and agree with him, but I genuinely do not have the foggiest. And when something seems ridiculous, it's common to treat it with ridicule.

ETA - I feel like I should actually explain where I am coming from here - I would describe myself as a feminist, but I will and do stand up against anyone who treats men unfairly. I don't want women getting anything more than equality. I also object to people tarring all feminists with the same brush, or seeing us as some kind of homogenous mass of angry women. But I will say that places like my previously mentioned female only gyms or train cars, are very often just safe spaces where women can go and avoid men touching them or saying anything hurtful or uncomfortable to them. Whereas I do see keeping women out of my example of elite golf clubs as being a way to stop women from really excelling in what has traditionally been viewed as a male sport.

I don't know if OSC is referring to any of these things, or if he means something completely different - he has not given any information on this. I can't understand or even agree with him - believe me, I hate hypocrisy as much as anybody. I'm happy to change my opinions, based on evidence.

So I'm right here, honestly asking. No more ridicule, if ridicule is the problem here. Please tell me, Mr. Card, what you meant.

[ March 29, 2014, 02:39 PM: Message edited by: Bella Bee ]

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Nobody has really mis-stepped from a rules stand point, but I feel like were heading there.
how about as a general rule then we never act more sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of osc's positions as osc is often sarcastic, sneering, disdainful, dismissive, or contemptuously mocking of people like liberals, gay activists, scientists who collectively publish things he disagrees are real, various politicians including Obama, feminists, etc

having then allowed him to set the standard for decorum in voicing one's opinion of another person or a set of people and their opinions, and what tones are on the table for having an opinion on them and wishing to voice it, he can then decide whether to leave the myriad questions his articles raise exactly as they are and proffer no public explanation, or he can respond in any way he chooses

i feel this is a better approach than in some direct or indirect way setting a standard that the onus is on others to beseech clarification politely on the subject of his anger and contempt for other people, groups, or ideas. it would suggest an imbalance between the great realms of Dishing and Taking, that generally implicates someone in a not insignificant degree of hypocrisy.

to note also there are more than a number of people who simply have just that — questions, without ridicule. he can respond to them and ignore the ~haters krew~ if he wants, or he can decide that any quantum of haters in the general pile of voiced responses is something he will use to decide not to respond to anything in the general pile. all are valid options imo.

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Who knows? Maybe if you ask sincerely he may actually answer the question, where as if you mockingly question, there's no chance of that.
Actually, my question is completely sincere. I really honestly have no idea how he arrived at that viewpoint, and am genuinely curious how he came to that conclusion. I read it over several times, and there is absolutely nothing rude or mocking in my question whatsoever.

That being said, even if I were to, for example, say something like; "Yeah, I can completely understand this. Like, last week when we were having our secret football team practice and a bunch of feminists found out and came by with clubs and Molotov cocktails to 'ruthlessly suppress' us. At least most of us didn't get raped this time. I'm glad someone is addressing this problem!" it would not be out of a desire to mock Mr. Card. It would be me using sarcasm to juxtapose his views with reality, and to illustrate how large of a gap I believe there is between the two.

The only time I've ever personally mocked him or made fun of him, it was again not for the purpose of belittling or insulting him, but to try and point out how far he falls from his own expectations of my generation, and from his idealization of his own, yet despite that he's still a very successful and influential person. If those statements actually hurt his feelings, I would immediately apologize and try and phrase it in a kinder way. But you can't necessarily expect people not to use certain rhetorical devices because they may be too direct or confrontational.

Posts: 1142 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Bella Bee
Member
Member # 7027

 - posted      Profile for Bella Bee   Email Bella Bee         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I do agree that OSC certainly uses a full range of rhetorical devices to get his point across, and I don't really see why we should not.

Indeed, I stand by my previous snark. But I also think BB is right that in this case, we are more likely to get an answer being civil. While I'm not deleting my earlier sarcasm, I would honestly love a real answer and a more full explanation, and very much hope that Mr. Card will eventually provide us with one. My second comment here was from the heart. I'm certainly not upset that Mr. Card does not agree with my views (he is absolutely entitled to believe what he likes, as thankfully are we all) but do feel like I need clarification on this issue not to make a misjudgement on his views.

Posts: 1522 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tertiaryadjunct
Member
Member # 12989

 - posted      Profile for tertiaryadjunct           Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As long as we're going mildly overboard...

quote:
Originally posted by OSC, edited for brevity:
So this week, The Produce Box tossed in pea shoots. The idea is to add them to salads for a bit of extra flavor. A hint of pea-ness in the greens. (Try to avoid reading that aloud.) Whole leaves, though small, just don’t work. Here was the real disappointment: We could barely taste them. If I want to have the flavor of peas in my salad, I’ll add peas.

I’m betting someone else must have thought they were wonderful. Just because I don’t like a thing doesn’t mean it isn’t good.

Well, OK, that’s exactly what it means, but I don’t think less of you for liking something I find unlikeable.

OSC finally declares he thinks you're ok if you like to put pea-ness somewhere that he doesn't!

(Hey, he made the joke first.)

Posts: 48 | Registered: Apr 2013  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
ahaha, gold star, taking us back to our nonserious roots
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Aside from the shots at the Quebecois, Feminists and Obama, the most recent World Watch wasn't as out there as some of the other essays.

Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.

However, (and perhaps I am biased as someone who does not share these so-called values) I do not think that the Republican party should be buckling down on the regulation of people's private lives, especially if it wants to retain its market share going forward. For one, doing so is deeply counter to the principles of limited government the party claims to espouse. Secondly, young people, even many who call themselves conservatives, and vote Republican, do not share the moral outrage over these same issues. It's also a very large group. There are very few, if any, moderate Republicans in Congress right now. xkcd had a chart a few years back.

So yes, the Republican party does need to rethink a few planks. I just think they are very different ones.

Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Given the Catholic (clergy)'s hardline on birth control, abortion and gay issues, and that the Hispanic population is largely Catholic, it makes a lot of sense for the "values voters" to have a less hostile stance toward immigration to not alienate people who would otherwise join their crusade.
i will best as i can try to describe the sociological shortcomings of that notion, and it is best summed up with "hispanic conservatism is not white conservatism"

it's a whole crazy kettle of fish but here's the simple part of it:

republican policy designers and strategists are struggling to avoid coming demographic changes that will lead the party into collapse. they have equated and sold the notion kind of seen here where it's presumed that hispanics are in some way 'naturally conservative' and it usually — usually — is a simplistic line item analysis.

and that is pretty much that "hispanics are very catholic" = "hispanics are conservative"

and then they turn "hispanics are conservative" into "hispanics would be ardent Republican voters if not for Republican antagonizing of their kind through the immigration issues"

it's basically an article of faith that greater hispanic religiousness translates into greater Republicanism. but much as how conservatism around the rest of the world hardly resembles what america considers conservatism, the values, both religious and irreligious, of even first generation catholic hispanics does not resemble what it generally does for white american catholics.

GSS data essentially confirms the failure of the idea to match up — hispanics don’t seem to be any more socially conservative than whites; when conservatives presume it because of crossover on elements like religiosity, while ignoring that hispanics greatly do not cross over on Republican cornerstones like homosexual oppression, free markets, reduction of welfare benefits, and big ol' wars in the middle east — they're dropping themselves into a trap of hopeful but extremely cherrypicked beliefs.

i should also note that hispanic populations are doing the same exact identical thing that white populations are doing when you get to the second generation hispanic residents and young hispanics — like every other ethnic group, young hispanics pretty much hate the GOP. young hispanics actually a not insignificant amount more because, well, conservatives are the people that loudly and proudly have people like Joe Arpaio in their fold, passing hideously racist laws that target and malign them in practice.

so sure let's assume the GOP does a full about face and somehow magically manages to cut deep into its own flesh to excise its deeply immigrant-phobic, hostile-to-hispanic tendencies, like a tumor that has metastasized most prominently in places like arizona to the point where it seems just .. blatant. let's assume it just flat out does it soon (it won't). they will be winning back a .. possibly decent majority of old, typically first generation, devoutly catholic hispanics, at the cost of alienating the many conservatives who vote conservative because to them the republicans are the party that has any real interest in beating back the brown hordes. meanwhile young hispanics won't be changing their tune, so .. Pyrrhic victory achievement unlocked?

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dear god, that GSS link was awful. Do the numbers represent an absolute number of people who agree or disagree (my guess it's "agree" based on the way people with college educations in both groups are more comfortable with women working outside the home), but IT NEVER ACTUALLY SAYS what the numbers mean. Do they represent a percentage? Some questions appear to be groups that DO add to 100, the questions that were mutliple choice should be separated out. How many people were surveyed? I realize their are four variables here, but has the author considered making a graph for this sort of thing? It doesn't lend itself to being a table. What the heck is the GSS, are there any sampling biases in this group? Like they missed old people who can't use the interwebs, or the survey was in English? The author says "So I decided to query non-Hispanic white and Hispanic attitudes to a range of “hot-button” social issues in the GSS." Did he query four or five of his best friends or 500?
Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
dkw
Member
Member # 3264

 - posted      Profile for dkw   Email dkw         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Social_Survey

He queried a database of sociological information, not any number of his friends.

Posts: 9793 | Registered: Apr 2002  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Yozhik
Member
Member # 89

 - posted      Profile for Yozhik   Email Yozhik         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I presume you guys want to understand, not just find occasions to points out how far removed his opinions are from yours and how ridiculous that is.
Now why on earth would you presume that? This forum was taken over years ago by a bunch of trolls who despise OSC and any opinions he has. It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock. (What I honestly don't understand is why he continues to give them a platform to do it from . They're basically his antifans.)
Posts: 1505 | Registered: A Long Time Ago!  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
It's fairly obvious that they have no desire to do anything BUT mock
it's true, the 99% of my posts which have literally nothing to do with orson scott card whatsoever and are instead of all manner of social, political, cultural discussion, entertainment experience, personal experience, or even just the swapping of funny pictures of cats sensing an earthquake are actually all used as an elaborate cover to flimsily cover the fact that I am absolutely one hundred percent solely and singlemindedly here for the sole purpose of mocking orson scott card. i have no idea why i — WE, even — went to the great difficulty of spending the literal almost all but a percentage of a percentage point of our posts on not OSC when it would be so obviously transparent that we were all here, united, with the all-encompassing desire to be trolls to OSC. In fact, we even bothered trying to cover up our trolling by "raising legitimate points" man I really thought that would provide at least some cover.

But, heck, the jig's up, you saw through our ruse, our pathetically transparent ruse, you even found out we literally despise any opinions he has without question. Our deception of agreeing with him sometimes did nothing to conceal that.

Everyone, take off your masks and reveal your scabulous green hides. Yozhik busted us. Damn.

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
http://i.imgur.com/JuLszwT.gif

lol look at this catte lol. JOKES ON YOU THIS POST IS ACTUALLY THAT I THINK OSC IS COMPLETELY TERRIBLE (like every post)

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kmbboots
Member
Member # 8576

 - posted      Profile for kmbboots   Email kmbboots         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Yozhik:
They're basically his antifans.

And when there are two of us mocking at once we are antifanal.
Posts: 10613 | Registered: Sep 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
antifanopodes

a murder of antifans?

Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I'll say two things, one in OSC's favor (sort of), and other against.

1. I can't see him being literally serious...but I do see how he could think male spaces are being pushed back by feminist splash damage. I got into a very long (much longer than it should have been) argument with a friend last weekend over the Bechdel Test. She thinks EVERY movie needs to pass it, and any movie that doesn't is anti-women. I pointed out plenty of excellent movies that failed it and she said they might be good, but they are also misogynistic. Now, I don't think she represents all feminists, or, God willing, even a majority, but she's also not a lone voice. But I think it's stuff like this, and there's a lot of it out there, that make men like OSC feel like they're a bit under attack.

I think a lot of that is just perceived aggression, because he and others are SO rooted in patriarchal normativity that any threat to the status quo is a threat to masculinity. But maybe also a small part of it is overreaching by some feminists to go beyond equality, or to enforce equality to an unnecessary and damaging degree (as in, the Bechdel Test). I think masculine space comes under assault probably much more than it should in our society, in part because male roles are changing more right now than they ever have, and men aren't really well-equipped to deal with that the way women are, because women have feminism, they have a language and system to talk about changes in gender roles. Men do not. And that's partly their own fault, but it's why you see a lot of the angry backlash to feminism.

2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.

Posts: 21436 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Dogbreath
Member
Member # 11879

 - posted      Profile for Dogbreath   Email Dogbreath         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Excellent post Lyrhawn. I too find myself frustrated by some of the kneejerk reactions whenever I discuss some of the changing gender norms/ social expectations that have negatively affected men. The response is usually either "it's not nearly as big an issue as x/y/z problem faced by women, so why are you complaining?" (which is true, but just because it's not as much of a problem doesn't mean it's not a problem), or to immediately lump me in with the rather odious MRA/red pill types and dismiss me out of hand without actually bothering to hear the argument. I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.

[ April 08, 2014, 08:42 PM: Message edited by: Dogbreath ]

Posts: 1142 | Registered: Dec 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Brian J. Hill
Member
Member # 5346

 - posted      Profile for Brian J. Hill   Email Brian J. Hill         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language
Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.

Also, I happen to agree (mostly) with Yozhik. I've been mostly lurking on this board for years. I lack the rhetorical skills, patience, and time to write well-worded posts that would contribute to the discussion. I sometimes get the nagging feeling that my failure to actively defend the "conservative" side means that I tacitly agree with the points made here, but to engage in a written rhetorical battle would mean a loss of time to do other things that I, frankly, value more. It frustrates me that so many posters on this board, which is paid for by OSC, seem to relish attacking his viewpoints. There is no attempt to seek understanding, no attempt at conciliation, only desire to take down the other guy. Hmm...that last sentence describes the current state of American politics as well. While I won't go so far as to characterize others as "antifans," I have been reading Hatrack long enough to mourn the loss of the moderate viewpoint.

ETA: Dogbreath does make an excellent point with this:
quote:
I feel OSC making statements like he did just makes it that much harder for any meaningful dialogue to take place.
I think that can be applied to most of Card's rhetoric. Sometimes I think he assumes the persona of Demosthenes in his writing, when in real life he's much more like Valentine.
Posts: 782 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Dogbreath -

The exact two responses you just stated are what I always get hit with too.

It's seemingly impossible to start a dialogue with almost ANY one about changing gender roles for men, because most women seem to not want to talk about it, whether because they don't think it affects them, don't think it's their problem, don't care, or whatever other reason. And men are either uncomfortable talking about it at all, or they slip into anti-feminist rage mode because they don't know how to deal with it.

I think women would be a lot happier and get a lot further in their own goals if they'd open up more forums about men to engage in this discussion. Women in society are an active discussion. You can find on any number of periodicals, websites, news outlets on any given day a discussion about women in the arts, women in the workplace, motherhood, moms balancing work and home life, equal pay, troubles with child care, and various legislative issues pertaining to women.

That's a conversation we're having...but we're not having it in a bubble. Every part of that conversation is a string we're pulling on, and men are on the other end of that string, and their lives will all be changed in large and small ways by this conversation...but they don't seem to make up an active, constructive, meaningful part of it. Nor are they often allowed to meaningfully speak in their own defense without the discussion being shut down by the things Dogbreath spoke of above.

Again, I'm speaking in generalities. There's a larger conversation we're not having as a society, and it affects all of us, men and women alike. And it's all our faults as well, men and women alike, that we aren't having it.

Posts: 21436 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Brian -

quote:
Minor quibble, but Card doesn't support the Republican Party. His writings, as of late, support principles traditionally considered "conservative," and thus in our absurd American 2-party dichotomy, it is assumed that he must support EVERYTHING the Republicans stand for. This column strongly contradicts that notion, as do his occasional rantings against Republican immigration policies. I haven't been able to find Card's exact position on English as a national language, but based on his other writings, I can deduce that it's highly unlikely he's in favor of such a thing.
I'm not sure I can accept that as a meaningful semantic difference. When you sign on to the Republican platform, defend the Republican platform, and demonize Republican enemies as much as OSC does, you don't get to cop out by saying "Oh, but I'm not a Republican!"

At the very least, he shouldn't be surprised when he gets pegged with GOP platform beliefs when he puts as much energy as he does into defending them and attacking liberals.

Posts: 21436 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Samprimary
Member
Member # 8561

 - posted      Profile for Samprimary   Email Samprimary         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
does card even really still use the line that he's a Democrat? when was the last time that came up?
Posts: 14152 | Registered: Aug 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
theamazeeaz
Member
Member # 6970

 - posted      Profile for theamazeeaz   Email theamazeeaz         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by Lyrhawn:

2. And as someone who is half French-Canadian, I'd have to point out that Card supports the Party that wants to make English the national language, for seemingly the expressed purpose of making life harder for immigrants. Hell, literacy tests for immigrants in the 20s and 30s weren't as hard as what Republicans want to impose. So it seems a little rich to hit Quebec (a land with longstanding separatist bent, its own culture, language, etc) as hypocritical given the people he supports.

As someone who is 1/4 French-Canadian and hasn't been to Canada in 20 years (and the trip was exclusively to visit the rural town my grandmother left), I could have sworn there were both on the stop signs... So I wikipedia'ed it. And the one or the other is a a new thing (because "stop" is a French word), but really you can find all combos everywhere.

And some stop in Canada signs say ... nagaasi.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:MiKmaqStopSign.jpg

Posts: 1356 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Lyrhawn
Member
Member # 7039

 - posted      Profile for Lyrhawn   Email Lyrhawn         Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
French stop signs say Arret. (at least in France)

I go to Canada fairly regularly, but I only make it over to the French parts every couple years for family reunions.

I confess I've never looked at the stop signs in Quebec before.

Edit to add: Apparently they have special stop signs for neighborhoods and communities that are predominantly of another language. That's remarkably considerate.

Edited again to add: So, a quick search on the history of stop signs in Canada shows that they held a language convention and decided that since Stop is a French enough word, having Stop and Arret on one sign was redundant. Since they use the predominant language of the area in which the sign is located, some will say Arret, some will say Stop (within Quebec). Some in other parts will be writtein in Mohawk, other tribal languages, or even Chinese, depending on the community. So I'd say it's fair to claim that OSC is simply misinformed on Canada's stop sign policy.

Posts: 21436 | Registered: Nov 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Hatrack River Home Page

Copyright © 2008 Hatrack River Enterprises Inc. All rights reserved.
Reproduction in whole or in part without permission is prohibited.


Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2