much too much too little

[jazzfish]

The Importance of Being Politically Correct: "[Tolerance is] about attempting to understand people who are radically different from you, and saying to them you want their voice in the process. . . . The conservative movement has never gotten 'tolerance.' They think tolerance is something you do as a favor for someone else, that it's a slogan, that it involves appointing a showman who employs ancient slang. They don't understand. Tolerance is about warfare-- it makes your army bigger than the other guy's army."

(As a side note, every time I hear or read the phrase "politically incorrect," I mentally replace it with "being an asshole," because that's more honest. More "politically incorrect," if you will.)

The Bobblespeak Translations: Obama Press Conference, June 23, 2009:

Q: what took you so long to express your meaningless outrage about an election in a far-off country where we have a history of illegal interference?

Obama: because I'm not a total dumbass and didn't want to give the Iranian government ammunition!

Q: that's Reagan's job

Obama: exactly!

---

The problem with this whole "posting more" thing is that then I get comments, many of which are quite intelligent and thus take time to craft responses to. (Also, my sacks of gold are so heavy!) I will, however, get there. Today, even.

And we leave for Origins this afternoon. I'm less excited about Origins this year than ever before. It's kind of odd. Partly this is a disillusionment with board gaming (that's its own post: tl;dr is that it's not feeding my social needs as well as it used to), and partly it's that I've been travelling more so it's not as huge a trip. And partly that some of the people I'd been hoping to see won't be there. But, I'll see rislyn and Good Chris and J. and various Looney folk. So that'll be alright.

Comments

[jsciv.livejournal.com]

I had planned on Origins again this year after having so much fun last year, but as you know the whole "take Mom to London" thing came up and had its way with my vacation time. But I'm definitely keeping it on the radar for next year.

In the meantime have a lot of fun, say hello to anyone that I know, and play some good games. :)

(side note: I'll be interested to read your tl;dr post as I've gone through periods of the same, although right now for me it's a good time)

[jazzfish]

You know, ten (!) years ago I got an email from Andy Looney saying "so this guy we know was going to run the Fluxx tournament but he's going to London instead, you interested?" Must be something about the city. Hope to see you next year!

The tl;dr will be up sometime this week; it's third after 'origins report' and 'more on ceremony/ritual.'

[meghatronn.livejournal.com]

I agree that there are some conservative segments who don't truly get why tolerance is important. However, I don't think that every liberal segment really has the concept down either. I have often felt like the thrust has been to open and warm conservatives' minds to liberal approaches and vocabulary, but not the other way around. That tolerance of conservative ideas would be akin to moving backwards and not simply respect of a different perspective.

The unfortunate part of speaking in these generalities is that "conservative" and "liberal" means very different things to different people. I think it likely that no two people who assign themselves one of these labels ascribes to the exact same set of ideas, anyway.

[jazzfish]

I have often felt like the thrust has been to open and warm conservatives' minds to liberal approaches and vocabulary, but not the other way around.

Ah, the old "you must be tolerant of intolerance or else you're intolerant" dodge. Which, you know, no, but thanks for playing.

That tolerance of conservative ideas would be akin to moving backwards and not simply respect of a different perspective.

Show me. Seriously. Name me conservative ideas that aren't fundamentally opposed to progressive principles and that don't get a fair hearing and tolerance in the liberal marketplace of ideas. There can be no meeting of the minds between people who think that, say, the religious (conservative Xian) definition of "marriage" should be the state definition, or that a clump of cells the size of a pinhead has more rights than the woman whose body it occupies (unless said clump of cells is part of a fertility treatment, in which case throwing it out is all good). Apart from things like that, what have you got?

I think it likely that no two people who assign themselves one of these labels ascribes to the exact same set of ideas, anyway.

In the strong case, this is a tautology: of course no two people have the exact same opinions on such a wide spread of matters. In the weak case it's inaccurate, because people who believe generally the same thing and cooperate towards generally the same goals end up with generally the same labels, and are generally happy about it. Except in cases where their goals end in disaster, of course.

I'm willing to grant that the "conservative" tag is an odd duck because of the modern Republican union of the religious right and the tax-cut zealots. On the other hand, conservatism can never fail, it can only be failed.

[meghatronn.livejournal.com]

*sets back calmly and thinks*

What I am asking is not "tolerance of intolerance" because I don't believe in that either. But that equation demonstrates my very concern--that "conservative" is thought to equal "intolerance." And that's simply not true. Racism should not be tolerated and neither should homophobia, etc. While many conservatives may demonstrate these horrible mindsets, that is not what should define them as conservative. I shall have to rack my brain at another time for a solid definition and examples.

But on the notion of throwing out the "leftovers" from fertility treatments, I don't believe in any way, shape, or form that that is appropriate. I don't agree with in vitro and fertility treatments anyway when we have plenty of children in this world already born and in need of homes, but I believe that a baby made in a lab is a baby nonetheless.

I like the dialogue, Tucker, but I feel that the tone is heated and that makes it difficult for me to respond.

[jazzfish]

that equation demonstrates my very concern--that "conservative" is thought to equal "intolerance." And that's simply not true.

Fair enough. Again, what conservative ideas are not being tolerated? Give me a point where I can acknowledge that I/we haven't given you/you [stupid english] a fair hearing.

Fertility treatments: mea culpa, and yay for internal consistency.

I like the dialogue, Tucker, but I feel that the tone is heated and that makes it difficult for me to respond.

When you accuse me of not practicing what I'm preaching, I'm likely to get upset. Invoking the Tone Argument is a convenient way for you to not have to back those accusations up. After all, if I were just nicer about being called a hypocrite, we could calmly discuss all the ways in which my hypocrisy makes it difficult for me to understand that [liberalism is bad / conservatives are the real put-upon minority / tolerance is just so much crap].

[meghatronn.livejournal.com]

If you thought that I was referring to you personally when I said "every liberal segment" and therefore implying that you were a hypocrite, that's not what I meant in the least. I was responding to the quote from your cited article, as it reminded me of that very theme that I have discussed in my journal a couple of times in the last few years. So if the impression was that I thought that was your opinion and I was beating you down for it, I apologize for perhaps not being as clear as I could have been. The point I was trying to make is that I disagree when "conservative" is generalized to be negative by definition, as there are many different types--social, fiscal, etc., and it encompasses a wide range of values.

And on that note, I wasn't using Tone Argument as an excuse, I actually wanted some time to reflect to choose a good idea...I thought most of the afternoon, actually. And I do find it difficult to respond when there's heat. Which makes me wonder why I do so enjoy the debate, but that's a question for another day...

So in thinking of all of the "conservative" ideas that I value, I choose the conscience clause as applying to doctors and pharmacists. That they should definitively have the right not to perform abortions or dispense Plan B if they consider it to be morally wrong. Some people on the liberal side of the fence would consider that to be the denial of access to necessary medical services. Some conservatives would consider that right to be the exercise of their freedom of religion/morality.

But on the whole, my observation has been that the loudest conservatives and liberals (again, not referring to you) don't give "the other side" a fair hearing on really any of their ideas. That's the nature of the forum today and I would like to see that change as per President Obama's philosophy of common ground.

P.S., Stupid english=agreed. Language is so inefficient :)

[selki.livejournal.com]

the Obama press conf write-up is hilarious

[jazzfish]

I think that may be my new favorite blog. Not least because in every Meet the Press write-up the blogger manages to insert one of the guests saying to David Gregory "I'd heard you were a moron."