Never Lean on the Weird

[Dildo Argentino]

The OP.

Much as I hate to admit it (which is actually surprisingly little  ), that's sheer fucking dinamite, Sir!

Permission to post on facebook and elsewhere. Awaiting instructions. Your humble servant.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

In this case, not yet, please.  I wrote it for Scrubgenius, and I'd like to post it there first.  On Wednesday, feel free to post it.

[Dildo Argentino]

In this case, not yet, please.  I wrote it for Scrubgenius, and I'd like to post it there first.  On Wednesday, feel free to post it.

Righto!

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I really need to be more vigilant about this, and not fear the wrath of the squares.

It's the worst when it's "your own kind" you're calling out.

"Worse", I'd say.  "Worst" is when you're calling out people who have rubber truncheons and jackboots.

And some people have done that exact thing.  The White Rose Society in Nazi Germany (all killed for it), Gandhi, Mohammed Ali, the list is longer than you'd think.

And if they can do THAT, then surely WE can risk a little social wrath, eh?

I actually think that both socially and materially, an individual is at their most vulnerable not when they speak up against an opposing group, but when they speak up against their own group. Treason, after all, is punishable by death.

Yes.  Like lipping off to Nazis in 1939 Nazi Germany.  Or refusing to join the military in a culture that worships war.  Or making insanely unpopular decisions (Gandhi, on the division of Pakistan and India) that result in assassination by your own people.  Malcolm X comes to mind as well.

I think we're agreeing with each other, here.

Yep, I think so.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

This all feeds into the standard American line of thinking, mind you...The false dichotomy.  "You are either WITH us, or you are AGAINST us."  Okay, if those are my choices, then I'm AGAINST you.

Example:  I am called a "phony liberal" from time to time, because I support the right of the individual to own a firearm (hell, an assault rifle, a flamethrower, or an M1A1 tank, if they can afford one), and because I don't give a shit about Israel or Palestine.

Never mind that I whole-heartedly support 99% of their agenda:  The social safety net, the presumption of innocence, prison reform, agricultural reform, etc.  None of this matters, because I didn't take the ENTIRE PACKAGE.

It's really simple.   If you agree with 60% of what I say, we're on the same team.  If you agree with 100% of what I say, get your head examined.

That last line is gold.

[Dildo Argentino]

I really hope you will not object to a little digression. I would like to look at this little bit closer:

Our way is to assume that the default position of society is "telling us what", and so we have that rock more or less glued to our hand.  The really funny part about this is that society couldn't function without us.  Unless you want to live in, say, North Korea.  But we do not live in North Korea.  No.

As someone who spent the first 18 years of his life shut into a very significantly less severe version of¹ North Korea (socialist Hungary that is, 1968-1986), I would say that in a possibly much more roundabout manner, even such strongly repressed societies need their dissidents. I don't know enough detail about North Korea right now, but I do have enough detail about the Soviet block 40 to 20 years ago to know that while they were extremely hard on their dissidents, they could have been harder and possibly could have exterminated them all, or intimidated the entire population into keeping any dissident thoughts strictly private. They seemed to stop just short of that. And I suspect it may have been because a small, constantly abused minority of the people who refuse to bow served as fodder for propaganda, i.e. the intimidation of the large majority that did bow.

This is open to discussion, though.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

I really hope you will not object to a little digression. I would like to look at this little bit closer:

Our way is to assume that the default position of society is "telling us what", and so we have that rock more or less glued to our hand.  The really funny part about this is that society couldn't function without us.  Unless you want to live in, say, North Korea.  But we do not live in North Korea.  No.

As someone who spent the first 18 years of his life shut into a very significantly less severe version of¹ North Korea (socialist Hungary that is, 1968-1986), I would say that in a possibly much more roundabout manner, even such strongly repressed societies need their dissidents. I don't know enough detail about North Korea right now, but I do have enough detail about the Soviet block 40 to 20 years ago to know that while they were extremely hard on their dissidents, they could have been harder and possibly could have exterminated them all, or intimidated the entire population into keeping any dissident thoughts strictly private. They seemed to stop just short of that. And I suspect it may have been because a small, constantly abused minority of the people who refuse to bow served as fodder for propaganda, i.e. the intimidation of the large majority that did bow.

This is open to discussion, though.

I've never been to North Korea, but my understand is that dissidents (for example, not having one of the approved haircuts) get thrown in labor camps with their entire extended family, and that's that.

[Dildo Argentino]

So I guess this may be a first:

TGRR in Hungarian:

http://blog.holist.hu/?p=1091

It is getting shared on FB as I write.

Also, an opportunity to admit to changing my mind as a result of TGRR's stuff:

I used to think, tentatively and with a great deal of caveating, that some sort of anti-hate-speech regulations may be in order. I now realise that if I want to get that hate-speech regulated, I'll have to do it myself. Thanks for the insight!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

So I guess this may be a first:

TGRR in Hungarian:

http://blog.holist.hu/?p=1091

It is getting shared on FB as I write.

Also, an opportunity to admit to changing my mind as a result of TGRR's stuff:

I used to think, tentatively and with a great deal of caveating, that some sort of anti-hate-speech regulations may be in order. I now realise that if I want to get that hate-speech regulated, I'll have to do it myself. Thanks for the insight!

Naw.  Hate speech lets you see the dumbfucks coming.

[Anna Mae Bollocks]

Indeed.

[carnival]

I like your shit OP. Would rep IRL.