Escape Artists

News:

  • Congratulations to the winners of the Podcastle flash fiction contest!

News

Congratulations to the winners of the Podcastle flash fiction contest!

Author Topic: EP148: Homecoming at the Borderlands Café  (Read 55196 times)

Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #75 on: March 17, 2008, 03:53:40 PM
I was, however, impressed with the author's willingness to criticize both the ultra-left and the ultra-right and show the intolerance and dogmatism inherent in both sides. 
I am not impressed.
There is NO willingness to criticize both sides. "Ultra-left" is crude straw-man (there are no liberals who take babies out of bible-readers [well, in some cases that might even be better alternative to be brought up in a racist family]), but "ultra-right" is something with attitudes which are anything but rare.
Okay, I'm really confused by this comment.  First you say no ultra-left person would take babies, then you say they should.  So if had a government based on your belief you would be the exact government protrayed in the story?  I'm not trying to antagonize here, just clarify.  Racism is useless and ignorant and horrible, but hiding it behind laws doesn't make it go away.  In fact it makes it harder to eliminate.

How can you say the author doesn't criticize both sides?  She paints the "right wingers" as racists and hicks.  She paints the "left wingers" as statists and baby-theives.  Both sides are pressing their beliefs on their society: the "righties" by social norms and the "lefties" by government mandate.  People are still arguing about the author's intent when she clearly described it.  The question needs to be if it was clearly conveyed, which I believe it was.  Both sides were demonized.  That's the reason the story didn't work for me.  I couldn't cheer for anyone.

I'm still questioning the author's intent.  She stated that she tried to portray both sides.(I think, don't make me go back and reread it), but she didn't tell us about the "Liberals" at all.  We only have what the "Conservatives" say about them.  That doesn't tell us squat about how they really are. 

It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #76 on: March 17, 2008, 04:19:25 PM
I'm still questioning the author's intent.  She stated that she tried to portray both sides.(I think, don't make me go back and reread it), but she didn't tell us about the "Liberals" at all.  We only have what the "Conservatives" say about them.  That doesn't tell us squat about how they really are. 

It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story
Hey, come on now. Lets not Rush in to anything here.

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #77 on: March 17, 2008, 04:21:58 PM
It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story
Hey, come on now. Lets not Rush in to anything here.

Are you implying something?



Thaurismunths

  • High Priest of TCoRN
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1421
  • Praise N-sh, for it is right and good!
Reply #78 on: March 17, 2008, 04:25:29 PM
It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story
Hey, come on now. Lets not Rush in to anything here.

Are you implying something?
Not at all. :)

How do you fight a bully that can un-make history?


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #79 on: March 17, 2008, 04:26:39 PM
I was, however, impressed with the author's willingness to criticize both the ultra-left and the ultra-right and show the intolerance and dogmatism inherent in both sides. 
I am not impressed.
There is NO willingness to criticize both sides. "Ultra-left" is crude straw-man (there are no liberals who take babies out of bible-readers [well, in some cases that might even be better alternative to be brought up in a racist family]), but "ultra-right" is something with attitudes which are anything but rare.
Okay, I'm really confused by this comment.  First you say no ultra-left person would take babies, then you say they should.  So if had a government based on your belief you would be the exact government protrayed in the story?  I'm not trying to antagonize here, just clarify.  Racism is useless and ignorant and horrible, but hiding it behind laws doesn't make it go away.  In fact it makes it harder to eliminate.

How can you say the author doesn't criticize both sides?  She paints the "right wingers" as racists and hicks.  She paints the "left wingers" as statists and baby-theives.  Both sides are pressing their beliefs on their society: the "righties" by social norms and the "lefties" by government mandate.  People are still arguing about the author's intent when she clearly described it.  The question needs to be if it was clearly conveyed, which I believe it was.  Both sides were demonized.  That's the reason the story didn't work for me.  I couldn't cheer for anyone.

I'm still questioning the author's intent.  She stated that she tried to portray both sides.(I think, don't make me go back and reread it), but she didn't tell us about the "Liberals" at all.  We only have what the "Conservatives" say about them.  That doesn't tell us squat about how they really are. 

It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story
I see your point and it is an interesting one.  However, I wouldn't call the couple at the center of the story part of the "conservatives".  They seem to be the closest thing to moderates, and are wrapped up in the whole mess between the two cultures.  I think they are about as neutral as anyone in this story can get.  I would find these claims much more suspect if they were coming from the narrator's mother.  I guess this is a perfect definition of YMMV.  I took the story at its word, which the author said was her intent. 

I think something a little more interesting than the story is that left-leaning individuals who listened to it had a totally different interpretation than the right-leaning or the neutral.  I think the story says more about the people who listen to it than it does about anything else.

As far as the verbal scat spewing drug addict in question, he has just as much of a right to yell about how ignorant he is as you or I.  Since I'm for legalization of all drugs I can't honestly say I think what he did should be against the law.  It doesn't mean he isn't a raving idiot though (especially because he is).

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #80 on: March 17, 2008, 04:30:35 PM
As far as the verbal scat spewing drug addict in question, he has just as much of a right to yell about how ignorant he is as you or I.  Since I'm for legalization of all drugs I can't honestly say I think what he did should be against the law.  It doesn't mean he isn't a raving idiot though (especially because he is).
Clarification: I don't think there should be laws against drug use.  I, personally, have moral issues against drug use so I choose not to use them (aside from delicious homebrewed alcoholic beverages).  I just don't think it's right to impose my morals on anyone else.

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #81 on: March 17, 2008, 04:35:30 PM
I was, however, impressed with the author's willingness to criticize both the ultra-left and the ultra-right and show the intolerance and dogmatism inherent in both sides. 
I am not impressed.
There is NO willingness to criticize both sides. "Ultra-left" is crude straw-man (there are no liberals who take babies out of bible-readers [well, in some cases that might even be better alternative to be brought up in a racist family]), but "ultra-right" is something with attitudes which are anything but rare.
Okay, I'm really confused by this comment.  First you say no ultra-left person would take babies, then you say they should.  So if had a government based on your belief you would be the exact government protrayed in the story?  I'm not trying to antagonize here, just clarify.  Racism is useless and ignorant and horrible, but hiding it behind laws doesn't make it go away.  In fact it makes it harder to eliminate.

How can you say the author doesn't criticize both sides?  She paints the "right wingers" as racists and hicks.  She paints the "left wingers" as statists and baby-theives.  Both sides are pressing their beliefs on their society: the "righties" by social norms and the "lefties" by government mandate.  People are still arguing about the author's intent when she clearly described it.  The question needs to be if it was clearly conveyed, which I believe it was.  Both sides were demonized.  That's the reason the story didn't work for me.  I couldn't cheer for anyone.

I'm still questioning the author's intent.  She stated that she tried to portray both sides.(I think, don't make me go back and reread it), but she didn't tell us about the "Liberals" at all.  We only have what the "Conservatives" say about them.  That doesn't tell us squat about how they really are. 

It's kind of like me writing a story about a drug using hypocrite talk radio host, who says all drug users should be thrown in jail for life.  If he spends his time shouting conserva-crap and screaming about the Libreral-nazis, I'm I portraying both sides of the story?  Or am I showing one side and showing you his opinion of the other side?  Unless someone can point me to something I forgot, that's my view of this story
I see your point and it is an interesting one.  However, I wouldn't call the couple at the center of the story part of the "conservatives".  They seem to be the closest thing to moderates, and are wrapped up in the whole mess between the two cultures.  I think they are about as neutral as anyone in this story can get.  I would find these claims much more suspect if they were coming from the narrator's mother.  I guess this is a perfect definition of YMMV.  I took the story at its word, which the author said was her intent. 

I think something a little more interesting than the story is that left-leaning individuals who listened to it had a totally different interpretation than the right-leaning or the neutral.  I think the story says more about the people who listen to it than it does about anything else.

As far as the verbal scat spewing drug addict in question, he has just as much of a right to yell about how ignorant he is as you or I.  Since I'm for legalization of all drugs I can't honestly say I think what he did should be against the law.  It doesn't mean he isn't a raving idiot though (especially because he is).

Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.

I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy.  If your a druggie, don't say other druggies should go to jail unless you're ready to go.  The same goes for hookers, cheap or expensive.



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #82 on: March 17, 2008, 04:39:42 PM
Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.
Agreed.
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy.  If your a druggie, don't say other druggies should go to jail unless you're ready to go.  The same goes for hookers, cheap or expensive.
Agreed.

How bizarre is that?  I agreed with Russell twice in one post!

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #83 on: March 17, 2008, 04:41:45 PM
Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.
Agreed.
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy.  If your a druggie, don't say other druggies should go to jail unless you're ready to go.  The same goes for hookers, cheap or expensive.
Agreed.
How bizarre is that?  I agreed with Russell twice in one post!

We agreed all the time before you turned out to be a gun toting maniac. ;D



Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #84 on: March 17, 2008, 05:05:35 PM
Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.
Agreed.
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy.  If your a druggie, don't say other druggies should go to jail unless you're ready to go.  The same goes for hookers, cheap or expensive.
Agreed.
How bizarre is that?  I agreed with Russell twice in one post!

We agreed all the time before you turned out to be a gun toting maniac. ;D
Like my avatar didn't give that away!  I'll remind you of that comment when either:
a) the King of England tries to take back the colonies and I have to fight the Redcoats off (not like you'll care though, being in the land of the Huns)
b) the zombie apocalypse comes and you're begging "please, Chodon!  Shoot the zombies trying to eat my brains!"

In both situations I won't hold it against you though... ;)

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


CGFxColONeill

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Reply #85 on: March 17, 2008, 05:07:11 PM
That's the reason the story didn't work for me.  I couldn't cheer for anyone.
I said the exact same thing to myself at work last night

Overconfidence - Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you could survive the odds beating you.

I am not sure if Life is passing me by or running me over


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #86 on: March 17, 2008, 05:58:25 PM
Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.
Agreed.
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy.  If your a druggie, don't say other druggies should go to jail unless you're ready to go.  The same goes for hookers, cheap or expensive.
Agreed.
How bizarre is that?  I agreed with Russell twice in one post!

We agreed all the time before you turned out to be a gun toting maniac. ;D
Like my avatar didn't give that away!  I'll remind you of that comment when either:
a) the King of England tries to take back the colonies and I have to fight the Redcoats off (not like you'll care though, being in the land of the Huns)
b) the zombie apocalypse comes and you're begging "please, Chodon!  Shoot the zombies trying to eat my brains!"

In both situations I won't hold it against you though... ;)

The King will have to take back his own Parliament first.  The Huns are well south of me and they have discovered money.  You get more through trade than you do through war.  That's all the EU is really.  A big no war/free trade zone.



Listener

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3187
  • I place things in locations which later elude me.
    • Various and Sundry Items of Interest
Reply #87 on: March 17, 2008, 07:24:13 PM
Like you said, the closest the story gets to describing Columbia is second hand.  We have no idea how accurate it is.

Someone call Gregory Maguire.  As I read the last quarter of "Wicked", and watched Elphaba's descent from what she was into what we know from the original Oz book and film, I really felt as though Maguire's portrayal was more accurate.

I wonder if the author has any plans for flash or other short fiction about Columbia, maybe an origin story for Brad and Jody.

I think a truly great author can write from the other side and make it seem completely believable and biased in the opposite direction (for example, if I, as a conservative, were to write a liberal character, I would have to consult my liberal friends to make sure I characterized her properly).  I -- and apparently most of the rest of the folks on here -- want to learn more about Columbia, probably from the POV of a Columbian.  Mike, after all, was a Confederate, and he told the story from the Confederate side.  One wonders if the Columbian would have similar opinions and attitudes.

One thing I will say is that, after reading all the debate in this forum (and trying to remember all the points I made back on page one), Ms McDonald's story seems very believable to me in that I'm sure many of the more-extreme individuals out there (ie: the ones who are incapable of rationally discussing the topic, and I am not talking about ANYONE on the forums, but instead the more foaming-at-the-mouth types we all know and vilify regardless of our personal opinions) would take one look at this story and say "wow, this seems like a good idea, and something we can aspire to."  Not the activities Mike talked about in the story, but the fact that the US could be split into two (or more) viable nations.

Stories like these remind me of a great quote I read back in the 90s:

"The metaphor of [America as] the melting pot is unfortunate and misleading.  A more accurate analogy would be a salad bowl, for, though the salad is an entity, the lettuce can still be distinguished from the chicory, the tomatoes from the cabbage." -Carl Degler, "Out of Our Past"

"Farts are a hug you can smell." -Wil Wheaton

Blog || Quote Blog ||  Written and Audio Work || Twitter: @listener42


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #88 on: March 18, 2008, 10:29:34 AM

"The metaphor of [America as] the melting pot is unfortunate and misleading.  A more accurate analogy would be a salad bowl, for, though the salad is an entity, the lettuce can still be distinguished from the chicory, the tomatoes from the cabbage." -Carl Degler, "Out of Our Past"

That's an interesting analogy I never met 'afore... you could take it to many fascinating places, I think.  For example, growing up I only knew iceberg; as I got older, and really got to know some romaine and a few tomatoes, I began to appreciate what they added to the mix.  I keep hearing how horrible cabbage is, how it's bitter, and won't ever belong... but I think those folks are taking one or two bad leaves and judging the whole head.   (Yeah, I'm stopping.  Sorry.)

But if it makes anyone feel any better, I think the likelihood of the U.S. breaking up into smaller pieces is small... mainly because we are already broken up into 50 smaller pieces that have learned that they can't really live without each other.  There might be a couple of places that could survive on their own... California, maybe... but it would create far more problems than it would solve.  And I think most people either know that already... or are too busy watching Idol to mount a separatist movement.

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


The_Witt

  • Extern
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • Forgotten Realms of the Mind
Reply #89 on: March 18, 2008, 11:47:54 AM
My first Thought was...EH not too much there.
However, it reminded me of the time i spent in Alabama with the Marine Reserves way back in...HMM I think the late 80'sThis was at a one of those yearly Deals where you spend 2 weeks on active duty at some place far away from your home base. Any Way, being from Ohio we really ddn't see much blant Racism or the like (we still had it though). The first thing our Commander told us as we left for our first Weekend of leave, was if you had Afircan american friands, they should not be your friends this weekend in the town bars that were close to the base. Well, being Marines ( the Term Jarhead stems from others things like being thickheaded) we did not listen to our commander, we could take care of ourselves. WEll, you guessed it, we got a first had look at what racism can really be like. Now, I am not saying that the treatment we got was in any way a characterization of the Great state of Alabama. But, this story brought back those memories, and how we, as a country have grown throught the years, AND what could have happened had things took a different turn back there in the Civil War.
T

~ Wisdom Unknown is Wisdom Unsought ~


CGFxColONeill

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Reply #90 on: March 18, 2008, 03:07:37 PM
AND what could have happened had things took a different turn back there in the Civil War.
T
have you ever read guns of the south?

Overconfidence - Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you could survive the odds beating you.

I am not sure if Life is passing me by or running me over


stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #91 on: March 20, 2008, 12:59:47 PM
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


stePH

  • Actually has enough cowbell.
  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 3906
  • Cool story, bro!
    • Thetatr0n on SoundCloud
Reply #92 on: March 20, 2008, 01:02:18 PM
AND what could have happened had things took a different turn back there in the Civil War.
T
have you ever read guns of the south?

I've read How Few Remain by the same author.

"Nerdcore is like playing Halo while getting a blow-job from Hello Kitty."
-- some guy interviewed in Nerdcore Rising


CGFxColONeill

  • Matross
  • ****
  • Posts: 241
Reply #93 on: March 20, 2008, 06:11:25 PM
I ended up reading most of the cross time series he wrote
and enjoyed most of them

Overconfidence - Before you attempt to beat the odds, be sure you could survive the odds beating you.

I am not sure if Life is passing me by or running me over


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #94 on: March 20, 2008, 06:53:14 PM
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)

It wasn't a spelling error.  I can spell quite well.  I just can't type worth a shit.



Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #95 on: March 22, 2008, 07:00:54 PM
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)

It would be ruled by the Doctor with the biggest needle.  ;)

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Windup

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1226
Reply #96 on: March 24, 2008, 04:47:24 AM

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)

It would be ruled by the Doctor with the biggest needle.  ;)


No, I think it would cleary be ruled by the most proficient hypnotist. ("Relax, this won't hurt a bit...")

"My whole job is in the space between 'should be' and 'is.' It's a big space."


Chodon

  • Lochage
  • *****
  • Posts: 519
  • Molon Labe
Reply #97 on: March 24, 2008, 11:32:52 AM
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)
Actually, it sounds like a pretty good form of government.  "Hypo" means beneath or under or less than, so it would be a government below something or less than something.  Less government is good!  I want to vote for the Hypocratic party in 2008!

Those who would sacrifice liberty for safety deserve neither.


Tango Alpha Delta

  • Hipparch
  • ******
  • Posts: 1778
    • Tad's Happy Funtime
Reply #98 on: March 25, 2008, 01:53:38 AM
I never said the hypocrite didn't have a right to rant.  I said a story about him ranting wouldn't portray both sides of the story.  The drug example was to illustrate the hypocracy. 

I always enjoy this particular spelling error.  I know it hasn't anything to do with the story under discussion, but what form of government would a "hypocracy" be?  ;)
Actually, it sounds like a pretty good form of government.  "Hypo" means beneath or under or less than, so it would be a government below something or less than something.  Less government is good!  I want to vote for the Hypocratic party in 2008!

Silly fool!  Don't you know that third parties can't win because no one will vote for them, because they can't win...because no one...  urgh... I'm getting that Perot dizziness again... Help!

This Wiki Won't Wrangle Itself!

I finally published my book - Tad's Happy Funtime is on Amazon!


Russell Nash

  • Guest
Reply #99 on: May 02, 2008, 09:00:51 AM
The discussion on political devisiveness and terminology got its own set of legs and ran here.