Life is like riding a bicycle: get cursed at by people who think you're in the way, but know that at least you look hot in tight shorts.

Warren Hern has lived under siege for 25 years, and seen eight of his colleagues assassinated.

Some [patients] treat him with contempt: usually those who have been directly involved in anti-abortion activities. They hate all abortion except for their special case. One even said they should all be killed. Only 14, she came with her mother.

"What brings you here?" Dr Hern asked.

"I have to have an abortion."

"Why?"

"I'm not old enough to have a baby."

"But you told the counsellor we should all be killed?"

"Yes, you should all be killed."

"Why?"

"Because you do abortions."

"Me too?"

"Yes, you should be killed, too."

"Do you want me killed before or after I do your abortion?"

"Before."

- John H Richardson, writing for The Guardian

The latest spate of blogger drama made it clear that some Xangans don't really understand where the line between public and private is. This is something every blogger should know, so I'm going to explain it.

I'll use examples.

Kevin Smith puts out a movie that I don't like, in which he doesn't appear. I blog about it, urge people to not see his movie, and call him fat. Is this a valid response? No, not really, because his fatness does not affect his ability to direct a movie. I would call that an unprofessional review, and most readers (I trust) would likewise pan it.

Kevin Smith puts out a movie, and dances nude in it. I call him fat, mention the nude dancing, and urge people to not see the movie. Is this a valid response? Sure; the aesthetics of a movie matter, and if I was horrified by his naked dancing, that's something that can go in a review of his movie.

"But Mori," you say, "Kevin Smith is a celeb! This doesn't apply to us!"

Some of it does. Let's try another example. John Random, a drunken college kid, decides to dance in his boxers, film it, and upload it to YouTube. He awakens the next day, sober and horrified at 500+ views of his embarrassing YouTube video and a comments section that mocks him. Should he complain about people laughing at him? Does Mr. Random have the right to demand apologies?

No.

Is he a celebrity?

No. But he made the choice to put the film into the public sphere. By doing that, he invited feedback, and feedback is inclusive of criticism.

Continue reading →

Everybody rants. That's cool.

Some people rant and expect to make a difference, in an abstract or minuscule way - maybe someone's essay on global warming will cause you to remember to turn the lights out more often, or something. That's cool too.

But most people don't have the idea that their rants are going to directly, magically fix whatever world problem has captured their attention. In fact, the only one who comes to mind that does that is DearRicky. So already we see we're in questionable territory.

Thus it was with some reservations that I read "The Fatal Flaw in Xanga Crushing." Utterly devoid of humor or irony, it posits a simplistic view of the world: women of Xanga are pure and noble souls who need to be protected from evil, bad, predatory men. The men of Xanga are incapable of sincere devotion or commitment and only ever flirt with women in order to hook and lure them away from their comfortable lives, whereupon they will be defiled and then left to rot. According to ShamelesslyRed, not only are men incapable of being exceptions to this typecasting, women are equally incapable of defending themselves or wising up to blatant insincerity.

Is this the kind of world view you want to promote? Women are some kind of sub-sentient natural resource, and men are the corporate exploiters who are ruining everything? Will it do us any good to act as if this is true? Will this promote more meaningful dialogue, or discourage those men who actually are predatory from acting in this fashion? Will it encourage the women who actually are capable of tying their own shoes and standing up for themselves to live active lives?

Putting aside the ridiculous gender bias, let's get down to the core of the issue. Between someone who locks you up for your own good and someone who lets you make your own mistakes, who really has your interests at heart?

ShamelesslyRed claims she is going to keep reposting this until all men "get it" and cease to flirt with the opposite gender. Taking her word for it, that means she's going to keep reposting it for the rest of her life. That, at least, will be entertaining.

UPDATE: See comments section for comedy gold.

"You do not live with me, or can even presume to know anything about me, therefore you can't know what I meant now can you?"

Gee, you're right. I don't know you. It would be great if someone invented some sort of family of symbols so we could get across our meaning to each other. Like, say, language.

So what's your point?
When someone feels that he has no ties to this world, nor does he have reason to behave in a calm and polite fashion.

Posted 3/2/2010 4:51 AM by dragonslayer149

Dragonslayer149 is unknown to me, but when I go to look at his site I find:

Let's just say that not all of us are in a position to intuitively grasp Stack's mindset.

There is something that I keep in mind when reading the life story of a man like Joseph Andrew Stack.

Once, in Chicago, a private eye was called to investigate the case of a very wealthy man who had gone missing. After some time, he found the man living a completely different life in California. The explanation was this: having been subjected to a random accident one day, in which he easily could have died - perhaps should have died - but did not, the only course of action he could envision in response to this was to abandon his old life and begin a new one.

So, picture Joseph Andrew Stack. He had been subjected to years of what he believed to be injustice and oppression. He could not see his own faults, and fixated on those of others. Rather than believe that he was wrong, he preferred to believe the world had gone mad.

What would his choice be? Why, to wrong the very world that wronged him.

If I were a body part, I’d be an elbow.
If I were a facial expression, I’d be wistful.
If I were a pair of shoes, I’d be a pair of warm, fuzzy slippers.

If I were an object, I’d be money.

If I were an animal, I’d be the leviathan.

If I were a scent, I’d be lavender.