The explosion from EP148: Homecoming at the Borderlands Café

[birdless]

But the fact of the matter is that the people you imply are part of some monolithic movement bent on taking away your liberties and freedoms tend to actually be individuals who are trying to do what they think is the right thing. 

Again, you are exactly right, TAD. The same thing needs to be said for both "sides." Both are trying to do what they think is the right thing. I think a big part of the problem of invective and divisiveness comes when it's accompanied by the self-righteous indignation that some parties on both side feel. None of us have a right to self-righteous indignation.

So, when people start sneering at "free thinkers", I object as strongly as I can.

I agree. I think free-thinking is a good thing. I guess it depends on how you define "free thinking." I would define it as making your choices, decisions, beliefs, etc. based on your own critical thinking and not just going with what you've always been told to think, believe, etc.

If everyone does what they want without infringing on anyone else's rights then everyone is happy.  End of story.

If only it were that easy.

[DKT]

I'm not entirely happy with this thread being attributed to me; I sort of see why my post was moved, but I wish it didn't put my name on the entire thread just because I happen to be chronologically first.

Oh well.

I can totally understand your frustration.  Actually, I'm a bit disappointed that a lot of these posts got moved because I thought the discussion was interesting.  I understand when things completely stray from the stories, but when they do double-time, it's kind of a bummer.  That's part of the fun for me reading these threads, though: seeing where these discussions take us.

EDIT: That said, if you want to move the last post I made over there, I completely understand.

[Chodon]

If everyone does what they want without infringing on anyone else's rights then everyone is happy.  End of story.

If only it were that easy.

It is that easy.  If instead of saying "Oh, won't someone please think of the children?" a'la Maude Flanders people would ask themselves "would doing something about this whittle away someone's freedom?" we would be in a better place.  I don't see it as anyone's job but a child's parents to ensure they are properly raised.  And "properly" is defined by the parents.  Both the "lefties" and the "righties" in the story were trying to impose their views of "right" and "wrong" on others.  Everyone IS entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it needs to be pushed on everyone else.  Racism, ecoterrorism, religious intolerance, gun control, and drug control all remove people's freedoms to do as they wish, and they come from liberals and conservatives alike.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think TOK's point is simply that he was suprised to hear something that was so balanced on EP.  In general, this is a more liberal group of people so hearing a story that was not slanted either left or right was unexpected.

[birdless]

It is that easy.  If instead of saying "Oh, won't someone please think of the children?" a'la Maude Flanders people would ask themselves "would doing something about this whittle away someone's freedom?" we would be in a better place.  I don't see it as anyone's job but a child's parents to ensure they are properly raised.  And "properly" is defined by the parents.  Both the "lefties" and the "righties" in the story were trying to impose their views of "right" and "wrong" on others.  Everyone IS entitled to an opinion, but that doesn't mean it needs to be pushed on everyone else.  Racism, ecoterrorism, religious intolerance, gun control, and drug control all remove people's freedoms to do as they wish, and they come from liberals and conservatives alike.

All the examples I can think of off hand are extreme, but I would submit that sometimes, not whittling away someone else's freedom mutually excludes not whittling away your own.

[DKT]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think TOK's point is simply that he was suprised to hear something that was so balanced on EP.  In general, this is a more liberal group of people so hearing a story that was not slanted either left or right was unexpected.

Is this directed at me?  If so, that's not what I got from his post.  (If not, apologies -- I'm going to take a run at it anyway. )  I think what you said above is a valid viewpoint, and (as I said before) I think it's cool that Steve picked the story mostly because you're right, we tend to get stories from a more liberal POV than a conservative POV.  (Note: I'm talking about the story's POV, not necessarily the author's.) 

But that's not at all how the post came across to me, although it did start that way.  But talking about Christians being shown the light by gay robots and everyone cheering...well, for the most part I've found this discussion board being generally very civil, even when we don't agree.  I don't see people being jerks.  That's part of why I enjoy being here. 

[CammoBlammo]

It is that easy.  If instead of saying "Oh, won't someone please think of the children?" a'la Maude Flanders people would ask themselves "would doing something about this whittle away someone's freedom?"

Don't want to derail the derailment, but wasn't that Helen Lovejoy's question?

[Talia]

I just want to make sure I'm reading you right, Talia, because I don't think I am. Tweedy thinks you draw a dichotomy, but I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But here is the way what you wrote reads to me:

You feel Christians and, apparently, conservatives aren't particularly concerned with discrimination. And that's not really a fair statement. I think I know what you are basing this on, but, well, to define it so broadly isn't a very accurate view of the truth.

Not ALL. A certain, probably small, portion of those groups. Who just seem to be very vocal. Sorry for not being clear.

And you think that liberals got an unfair shake in this story... That you would think that conservatives as a whole would be happy to segregate our nation and think that's more realistic than liberals confiscating babies is...

I thought I said I thought it lampooned both sides. I know that most people, of any political persuasion, are rational, reasonable people.
Again, sorrry if that was not clear.

You mention the religious people who want to force their beliefs on everyone else. Well, you left out the non-religious people who do the same thing. It's not as black and white as you make it out to be, or as it seems to me you make it out to be. But, like I said, I think I'm misreading you.

I suppose it depends how one defines forcing ones beliefs on others.. rather, its a tricky subject to pin down, and something you have to consider on a case by case basis.



Anyway, I'm sorry to anyone I offended, obviously I didnt make it clear i was referring to a vocal minority.

[Chodon]

It is that easy.  If instead of saying "Oh, won't someone please think of the children?" a'la Maude Flanders people would ask themselves "would doing something about this whittle away someone's freedom?"

Don't want to derail the derailment, but wasn't that Helen Lovejoy's question?

Now that I think about it, you are correct.  Dang.  I hate when I mess up my Simpson's references! 

Won't someone think of Chodon?

Is this directed at me?  If so, that's not what I got from his post.  (If not, apologies -- I'm going to take a run at it anyway. )  I think what you said above is a valid viewpoint, and (as I said before) I think it's cool that Steve picked the story mostly because you're right, we tend to get stories from a more liberal POV than a conservative POV.  (Note: I'm talking about the story's POV, not necessarily the author's.) 

But that's not at all how the post came across to me, although it did start that way.  But talking about Christians being shown the light by gay robots and everyone cheering...well, for the most part I've found this discussion board being generally very civil, even when we don't agree.  I don't see people being jerks.  That's part of why I enjoy being here. 

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.  TOK is my brother.  He called me at work after listening to the story saying I had to listen.  He was amazed there was a story that didn't show liberals as the heroes on EP and suggested I listen to it immediately.  He is more conservative than I, so he was a little more excited than I was.  My take on the story was "meh, there aren't any heroes in this story".  The story was just about a bunch of jerks as far as I was concerned.

I think the part that got people riled up was when he brough up gay robots.  Everyone likes gay robots with their pink, gloss paint jobs.  Mmm...so shiny.

All the examples I can think of off hand are extreme, but I would submit that sometimes, not whittling away someone else's freedom mutually excludes not whittling away your own.

I'm interested in hearing an example even if it is extreme.  I can't think of one.

[DigitalVG]

So I guess this really IS FOX News now days.  I note my criticism of the story and it's sickening use of spin is shunted off to someplace else where no one else will see it and be contaminated with my double plus ungood wrong thoughts. 

I'm SO sorry that the truth is such a bitter pill to swallow.

I think this marks the end of my donations to EscapePod.

You may now complete the transaction be shaking your head about how angry atheists are and file the withdraw of support under 'oppression'. 

[Talia]

So I guess this really IS FOX News now days.  I note my criticism of the story and it's sickening use of spin is shunted off to someplace else where no one else will see it and be contaminated with my double plus ungood wrong thoughts. 

I'm SO sorry that the truth is such a bitter pill to swallow.

I think this marks the end of my donations to EscapePod.

You may now complete the transaction be shaking your head about how angry atheists are and file the withdraw of support under 'oppression'. 

Hey man, the moderator's actions werent politically motivated. If you've noticed, any time a discussion shifts away from the primary topic.. the story.. moderators splinter it off into it's own thread, to keep the main thread on topic. A particularly important action in regards to inflammatory subject matter such as this.

[Anarkey]

So I guess this really IS FOX News now days.  I note my criticism of the story and it's sickening use of spin is shunted off to someplace else where no one else will see it and be contaminated with my double plus ungood wrong thoughts. 

I'm SO sorry that the truth is such a bitter pill to swallow.

I think this marks the end of my donations to EscapePod.

You may now complete the transaction be shaking your head about how angry atheists are and file the withdraw of support under 'oppression'. 

Maybe I (and the 81 other views this thread has thus far had since it got 'shunted off') merely serve as exceptions that prove the rule, but dude, calling censorship?  Saying you've been silenced and no one will ever see your words?  Bit overwrought, as I see it.

You can donate or not donate as you see fit, but I find it weird to connect monetary support for the podcast to ANYTHING going on in the forums.  The place is full of jackasses because hello, internet.  So I can't conceive of being pissed off at the podcast because of something happening on the forums unless Steve himself came into a thread and bitchslapped me.  Which, you know, would be a whole other level of astonishment.  And even if he did come on and rile me up but good with a batch of insults, the stories would still be there, and I'd still love the ones I love, and wait eagerly every week for new ones.  So I'd still donate (though I might not come to the forums anymore).  Your mileage on donation criteria is varying in a way I find rather perplexing and less than fully logical.

At any rate, I (and probably many other readers) follow threads by clicking 'show unread' and thus will read any thread that has recent activity regardless of which ghetto of the forum it appears in. (I lie.  Sometimes I click mark read.  But generally, as a rule, I read all unread!  And I'm sure I'm not alone here)  If this was a plot to segregate your thoughts were they wouldn't be seen, it was not a particularly effective one, which makes me wonder if you think the people running the forums are not only censors, but stupid as well. 

[DigitalVG]

And you think that liberals got an unfair shake in this story... That you would think that conservatives as a whole would be happy to segregate our nation and think that's more realistic than liberals confiscating babies

No.  Conservatives would on the whole be much happier if they could make everyone think just like them.  They'd greatly prefer that to succession.  That's what blue laws are all about.  Some businesses can't be open on Sunday.  Bans on liquor, various drugs, and gambling.  Laws requiring women to be properly 'covered' in public.  Laws that make homosexuality between consenting adults a felony, etc.

Speaking of which, let's talk briefly about who steals the children of whom?  You know, right up to the 1930s, it was regular practice for the catholic church to take the children of 'heathens' and 'jews' and 're-educate' them to be Christians.    In the 'modern' world, it NEVER happens...  Unless you count all those missionaries who will offer aid to 3rd world countries contingent on the people adopting their faith.  Become a christian or starve and watch your baby die of a disease.  How nice.

Or shall we speak of gay couples in the US.  In the 80s during the height of the AIDs epidemic MANY gay families were torn apart by 'good christians'.  Partners of 20 years were not allowed to hold the hand of their loved one while he died in the hospital.  The extended families raided their possessions and took away memories, heirlooms, and frequently children as well.  Lesbians have not been exempt from this sort of persecution either.  There are HUNDREDS of cases where a couple's child has been taken away because gays are 'unfit' as parents and the child 'might suffer discrimination for having gay parents'.  I could dig up a few dozen stories of women who've had their child taken and custody given to an alcoholic grandparent or a biological father with a prison record for armed robbery and assault.  This is the REAL world we live in, not a hypothetical one.

Before that you wail that I'm biased against Christians, consider something else for just a moment:  In some Islamic countries (Iran as an example)  All the same things could potentially hold true for 'christians' as well as 'gays'.   That's the real problem with religious conservatism.  In the end, there's always going to be someone who disagrees with your doctrine and in order to appease your god, you're going to punish them.  It's FAR better to have a system built on humanistic values which say that men, women, and children, regardless of race or sexual preferences should be treated as equals.

[DigitalVG]

I'm not entirely happy with this thread being attributed to me; I sort of see why my post was moved, but I wish it didn't put my name on the entire thread just because I happen to be chronologically first.

Oh well.

Just consider yourself first against the wall when the revolution came.  Your name will be sung by the resistance  when all others have been forgotten.

[jrderego]

Just consider yourself first against the wall when the revolution came.  Your name will be sung by the resistance  when all others have been forgotten.

I'm trying to write the first revolution protest song now, but the only rhyme I get for Eytanz is "Fry Pans"... or maybe "My Pants"...



This may take a while.

[Talia]

The revolutionary power of pants is not to be taken lightly.

[DigitalVG]

So I guess this really IS FOX News now days.  I note my criticism of the story and it's sickening use of spin is shunted off to someplace else where no one else will see it and be contaminated with my double plus ungood wrong thoughts. 

I'm SO sorry that the truth is such a bitter pill to swallow.

I think this marks the end of my donations to EscapePod.

You may now complete the transaction be shaking your head about how angry atheists are and file the withdraw of support under 'oppression'. 

Hey man, the moderator's actions werent politically motivated. If you've noticed, any time a discussion shifts away from the primary topic.. the story.. moderators splinter it off into it's own thread, to keep the main thread on topic. A particularly important action in regards to inflammatory subject matter such as this.

My first post (the second item in this list) is entirely on-topic about the story.  I questioned the use of terminology in the story and made note of the excessive spin required to paint the liberals as being as bad as the conservatives in this delusion.   That's what I object to having been moved.  The rest is fluff.

[DigitalVG]

Just consider yourself first against the wall when the revolution came.  Your name will be sung by the resistance  when all others have been forgotten.

I'm trying to write the first revolution protest song now, but the only rhyme I get for Eytanz is "Fry Pans"... or maybe "My Pants"...



This may take a while.

You have to do it like a real revolution song and blow it completely out of proportion (the event, not his pants)

Eytanz the man who saved my pants.
He donned his helmet and took up mighty lance.
Eytanz, I chants. 
A hero of great romance.

Bounced from the board
for being bored by fearsome lord.

Eytanz, Eytanz
Though tortured, never recants.
Eytanz, Eytanz
With eye upon your pants.

 

[DKT]

Is this directed at me?  If so, that's not what I got from his post.  (If not, apologies -- I'm going to take a run at it anyway. )  I think what you said above is a valid viewpoint, and (as I said before) I think it's cool that Steve picked the story mostly because you're right, we tend to get stories from a more liberal POV than a conservative POV.  (Note: I'm talking about the story's POV, not necessarily the author's.) 

But that's not at all how the post came across to me, although it did start that way.  But talking about Christians being shown the light by gay robots and everyone cheering...well, for the most part I've found this discussion board being generally very civil, even when we don't agree.  I don't see people being jerks.  That's part of why I enjoy being here. 

I'm pretty sure that's what he meant.  TOK is my brother.  He called me at work after listening to the story saying I had to listen.  He was amazed there was a story that didn't show liberals as the heroes on EP and suggested I listen to it immediately.  He is more conservative than I, so he was a little more excited than I was.  My take on the story was "meh, there aren't any heroes in this story".  The story was just about a bunch of jerks as far as I was concerned.

I think the part that got people riled up was when he brough up gay robots.  Everyone likes gay robots with their pink, gloss paint jobs.  Mmm...so shiny.

Well, you know him better than I do, obviously, so I'll defer to you as to what he intended.  As far as the post came across, though, I stand by what I said.  And it's not so much the gay robot remark that annoyed me, as it was the comment about how liberals would automatically cheer for any reason to see Christians shown up.  As a Christian and a liberal (no, the terms are not mutually exclusive), I find it a bit off.

Although, seeing as I have now been commissioned to write said Christian gay robot story, I will endeavor to make people cheer (or at least smile), including you and your brother.  Can't we all just get along laugh?

[Chodon]

...The place is full of jackasses because hello, internet....

Hey!  I resemble that remark.

I mean resent...yeah.  Resent.

[birdless]

No.  Conservatives would on the whole be much happier if they could make everyone think just like them.  They'd greatly prefer that to succession.  That's what blue laws are all about.  Some businesses can't be open on Sunday.  Bans on liquor, various drugs, and gambling.  Laws requiring women to be properly 'covered' in public.  Laws that make homosexuality between consenting adults a felony, etc.

I'm not sure why this rant was a reply to my statement, but c’est la vie. You seem really indignant, though, and I'm not looking to get into some sort of battle with you. With that said, I do want to reply to a few of your statements:

Speaking of which, let's talk briefly about who steals the children of whom?  You know, right up to the 1930s, it was regular practice for the catholic church to take the children of 'heathens' and 'jews' and 're-educate' them to be Christians.    In the 'modern' world, it NEVER happens...  Unless you count all those missionaries who will offer aid to 3rd world countries contingent on the people adopting their faith.  Become a christian or starve and watch your baby die of a disease.  How nice.

What the hell kinda missionaries have you come into contact with that would withhold food and medicine from the people they feel led to devote their lives to? That's not to say that there haven't been some misguided ones who have done that, but I would strongly suggest that's the exception rather than the rule.

Pointing to the exceptions rather than the rules merely feeds the propaganda on both sides.

Or shall we speak of gay couples in the US.  In the 80s during the height of the AIDs epidemic MANY gay families were torn apart by 'good christians'. 

As misled as they were/are, some of them think they are doing what's best, they just can't see past their self-righteous indignation to realize how horrible that is. But self-righteous indignation isn't exclusive to Christians.

Before that you wail that I'm biased against Christians, consider something else for just a moment:  In some Islamic countries (Iran as an example)  All the same things could potentially hold true for 'christians' as well as 'gays'.   That's the real problem with religious conservatism.  In the end, there's always going to be someone who disagrees with your doctrine and in order to appease your god, you're going to punish them.

You call that religious conservatism? I would call that religious extremism.

[birdless]

Anyway, I'm sorry to anyone I offended, obviously I didnt make it clear i was referring to a vocal minority.

I wasn't offended, for the record. I just thought you may want an opportunity to clarify some of your statements. Forgive me if I overstepped my bounds.
 

[birdless]

All the examples I can think of off hand are extreme, but I would submit that sometimes, not whittling away someone else's freedom mutually excludes not whittling away your own.

I'm interested in hearing an example even if it is extreme.  I can't think of one.

Well, let me try to frame a perspective for you and see if that helps. Think of our freedom the Constitution granted us to pursue happiness. What may make me happy may make you unhappy, so by not pursuing what makes me happy because it makes you unhappy, my right has been taken away. Now, I'm not getting into, you know, voluntarily giving up my right to live in peace with my fellow man. I'm just trying to provide a framework in which sometimes the two are mutually exclusive. Does that make sense?

[Swamp]

So I guess this really IS FOX News now days.  I note my criticism of the story and it's sickening use of spin is shunted off to someplace else where no one else will see it and be contaminated with my double plus ungood wrong thoughts. 

I'm SO sorry that the truth is such a bitter pill to swallow.

I think this marks the end of my donations to EscapePod.

You may now complete the transaction be shaking your head about how angry atheists are and file the withdraw of support under 'oppression'. 

You're right, Dig! (can I call you Dig?)  It's time that we expose this moderator for the tight-sphinctered conservative fundie that he is.  I mean since I've been on these forums all he has done is say how great Intelligent Desgn is and how the Bible ought to be manditory in all schools.  He has never tolerated any dicussion of liberal ideas on any thread.  He abuses his moderating power to misdirect, confuse, and conceal anything that might be considered left of Sean Hannity.   All I've ever heard from him is "Praise W."  It's time we lead the charge to run Russel Nash out of town, that facist pig....

....wait a minute, we're talking about Russell...oh...disregard that first paragraph...

I think Russell was simply following the EP tradition of keeping the story thread posts focussed on talking about the stories, and branching off other topics to other threads so they can be debated and hashed out ad nausium without detracting from the story itself.  Thanks, Russell, for doing that.

Sorry that offends you, Dig.  I mean Russell gave you a dedicated forum to expound your well thought-out wisdom and you see it as "the Man" trying to bring you down.  BTW, if anyone has been a mouthpiece for liberal ideas (some of which I don't share), it has been Russell, so be aware of who you are talking about before you spew.

[FamilyGuy]

If Russell were trying to bury the thread, would there be a link to this one? 

[The Outlaw Kyle]

I really liked this story.  I was at first taken aback that it was even on escape pod, and I think it shows some considerable sand for Mr. Eley to present it.  He must have know it was going to rattle some cages, but did it anyway.  Stylistically, I think it was a good middle of the road "what if?" story.  But what really got me, what really cinched it for me, was that the "Union" (Columbia, what have you) was NOT portrayed as bastion of freedom, tolerance, love and rainbows.  The simple fact that so many people on here are shocked, SHOCKED, that anyone thinks "liberals" aren't the higher beings of love/tolerance shows how powerful this story was.  I'm sure many of you "free thinkers" would cheer if it was another story about how closed minded Christians are, and in the end they get shown up for the monsters they are by a gay robot.  But let someone imply that lefties aren't always on the side of right, and you cry foul.  Good SF is the SF that challenges your world view, no matter what that world view is.

I suppose everything is easier to put into a box if you draw a big circle around yourself and declare "I am right, and anything outside of my point of view is wrong" -- or to use the popular codeword: "left" -- but the fact is that people don't divide into any two categories like that.  This is also the point of the story.  We established early on in the thread that this story seemed to provoke some level of outrage from people across the political spectrum, no matter what point of view they start from; and the author even came in to declare that this was her intention.

But I want to address your comments, because I keep hearing a similar theme from your quadrant of the big Graph o' Political Spectra.  It seems disingenuous to me to take so much joy in shouting the "liberals aren't as nice as they say they are" position, while apparently ignoring the fact that "conservatives" are often every bit as mean-spirited and bigoted as they want to be.  A lot of work has gone into identifying "conservative" with "normal, blue-collar, common sense Christian values" since Rush Limbaugh and his clones took to the airwaves.  Ann Coulter loves to paint "liberals" as "godless" and "evil", apparently ignoring the Christian roots of the abolitionist movement, the Christian principles behind the creation of some of our welfare programs, and the simple Christian command to "love your neighbor as yourself."  But the fact of the matter is that the people you imply are part of some monolithic movement bent on taking away your liberties and freedoms tend to actually be individuals who are trying to do what they think is the right thing. 

I guess at the end of the day, I'm not disagreeing with the idea that people with liberal ideals sometimes need a sanity check; I'm just saying that when you come out and try to make everyone outside of your little circle look like an intolerant idiot, you just reinforce the image of those inside your circle as intolerant idiots.  I consider myself to be something of a free thinker, in that I don't base my opinions on a pre-programmed set of doctrines, and I try to stay allergic to obvious propaganda.  So, when people start sneering at "free thinkers", I object as strongly as I can.

Ok.  I never said I was right with some mighty authority.  Also, sure there are some people that are conservatives that are mean ol' jerks that would love nothing more then to kill blacks and gays.  Happy? That's not me.  But that does not mean there aren't some down right statist , fascist liberals who would love nothing more then to lock up all Christians and people who don't love the state.  What I should have said in my post, but didn't is this: The problem here (or in the story) is government.  If I was a horrible monster of a racist, I alone can't do much to people.  It's when I have the support of the gov't that things get really bad.  Why were things so awful in the Jim Crow south?  Because people hated blacks?  Well, some people still do.  Things were bad because the actions those individuals took had either the tacit or explicit support of the local and state governments, and even the feds at some levels.  Even when blacks rightfully tried to defend themselves against aggression they were further attacked by the gov't. (re: Dr. Ossian Sweet, admittedly in the North).  Had these people been allowed to defend themselves, there would have been no need for the later excesses in the Civil Rights Acts.  By excesses I mean the denying of private property rights to owners.  As awful and racist as excluding a certain race of people from a store is, it should not be a crime.  People should have the right to do what they like with their property.  So something that seemed good and just, "letting" people shop and eat where they want, turned to tyranny when forced. 

"Conservatives would on the whole be much happier if they could make everyone think just like them."

Sure.  All conservatives bad, all liberals good.  You've got the propaganda down pat.  Well done.