Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #301  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:09 AM
madmonk28 madmonk28 is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 10,711
Quote:
Originally Posted by ElvisL1ves View Post
Looks like Shodan just wants reassurance that these laws that favor his party are legitimately based, not partisan subversions of democracy itself. But he himself can't think of even a potentially legitimate reason, so he's asking the rest of us to do it for him. Is that about it?
I guess so. It's weird. I assumed that he's just trying to get someone to take the bait so that he could nitpick any comment and take the argument away from the core issue down a rabbit hole.
  #302  
Old 02-16-2018, 10:53 AM
Kimstu Kimstu is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 1999
Posts: 19,806
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
It wasn't hypothetical and it pulled nothing out of my ass. I posted a factual cite from freaking Snopes no less.
What actually happened is that you pulled out of your ass the speculative hypothetical that
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
[...] if some of the board's liberals were arguing against the claim that they favor socialism and then I come in with a post from Maxine Waters forthrightly in favor of it [...]
and I asked where you were getting that scenario from. And then you scurried around desperately trying to find an example of such a thing actually happening, and finally dug up a decade-old instance of a passing remark in a Congressional hearing where Waters mentioned the hypothetical possibility of socializing an industry as a last resort in the face of extortionate oligarchic profit-gouging. And now you're trying to pretend that that makes Waters "forthrightly in favor of socialism".

Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
My point (YET AGAIN) is that one's argument is not rendered moot simply because an official of that person's party said or advocated something at odds with that person's argument.
What you are now claiming to be your "point" is very different from what you actually posted originally:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist
I've long noticed on this board a tendency for my liberal brethren to point to Republican politicians as a refutation of or counterbalance to complaints made about the liberal populace at large [...]

[...] when some Republican politico's comment or position is used to broad brush mainstream conservatives [...]

It's a specious tactic [...]
That's you complaining that it's an unfair "tactic" for people to treat the positions of Republican politicians as generally representative of the positions of the Republican "population at large".

And I repeat: If you think it's unfair or misleading for people to assume that the political views of mainstream conservatives in general largely align with the political views of their elected Republican representatives, then it's on you mainstream conservatives to replace those representatives with ones who do a better job of actually representing your views.
  #303  
Old 02-16-2018, 04:23 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Sorry, but there's so much incoherence in that post I hardly know where to start. In the first place I pulled no 'speculative hypothetical' out of my ass or anywhere else. I merely reversed the behavior that I described coming from the board's left in a attempt to get across to Miller that just because someone is elected to public office it doesn't mean their words and beliefs are in complete lockstep with those of their constituency. Waters made a perfect example.

Further, I'm proudly and 100% scurry free, as I had already recalled when Waters let the cat out of the bag and subsequently sought out substantiation from a suitably left-wing prone site, Snopes, before I ever brought her up just so there'd be no denying what she said. Of course I obviously failed to count on your argument that she said it ten years ago so never mind.

And now you accuse me of 'pretending' that Waters' comments make her forthrightly in favor of socialism. Well, duh! Of course it makes her forthrightly in favor of socialism. She said in so many words that "...this 'liberal' is about socialise...uh, uh...silent pause...the government taking over, and running your companies".

How can you post this stuff with a straight face?

And now I'm done. I've wasted far too much time trying to engage you in good faith while you refuse to acknowledge facts that are right there in front of your face and perform endless verbal gymnastics in an attempt to avoid or deflect from the obvious.

Last edited by Starving Artist; 02-16-2018 at 04:27 PM.
  #304  
Old 02-17-2018, 07:58 PM
E-DUB E-DUB is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 3,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Sorry, but there's so much incoherence in that post I hardly know where to start. In the first place I pulled no 'speculative hypothetical' out of my ass or anywhere else. I merely reversed the behavior that I described coming from the board's left in a attempt to get across to Miller that just because someone is elected to public office it doesn't mean their words and beliefs are in complete lockstep with those of their constituency. Waters made a perfect example.

Further, I'm proudly and 100% scurry free, as I had already recalled when Waters let the cat out of the bag and subsequently sought out substantiation from a suitably left-wing prone site, Snopes, before I ever brought her up just so there'd be no denying what she said. Of course I obviously failed to count on your argument that she said it ten years ago so never mind.

And now you accuse me of 'pretending' that Waters' comments make her forthrightly in favor of socialism. Well, duh! Of course it makes her forthrightly in favor of socialism. She said in so many words that "...this 'liberal' is about socialise...uh, uh...silent pause...the government taking over, and running your companies".

How can you post this stuff with a straight face?

And now I'm done. I've wasted far too much time trying to engage you in good faith while you refuse to acknowledge facts that are right there in front of your face and perform endless verbal gymnastics in an attempt to avoid or deflect from the obvious.
Good thing that Waters' opinions about what I think actually means are just her opinions.
  #305  
Old 02-19-2018, 02:25 PM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Nonsense. Chivalry as practiced in modern times was a way of showing respect toward women and caring for them if appropriate (I'm thinking of walking a female co-worker to her car after dark as an example of the latter). And I can tell you without reservation that it isn't dead when I'm around. Surprisingly, it seems today's young women are unaware that it was feminists of generations past who killed it. More than once a young woman who's been the recipient of chivalry on my part has lamented the fact it's so rare these days and questioned why this is so. They're usually sorry to hear it when I point out that it was feminists of the past who are responsible and make gestures as if to say 'how silly' or 'how unfortunate'.

Manners, including chivalry, were not designed by the rich to make poor people feel bad (as I've heard claimed on this board and you seem to think). Manners, courtesy and chivalry are a way of greasing society's wheels and making life more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone involved. Go hang out sometime where wealthy people and those who aren't so wealthy congregate and you'll see wealthy people performing acts of politeness and manners and even chivalry all the time. I'll guarantee you the aforementioned president of Shell Oil would be as quick to hold the door for a secretary or office worker he's never seen before as he would for a woman equally as wealthy as he. Rich people (et least of the old money kind with nothing to prove) are often the most charming, likable and chivalrous (when the occasion calls for it) people you'll see anywhere, and It's regrettable that people around here seem to have so little experience with them.
I respectfully disagree. A few points:
1) Chivalry, as a construct, is all about 'appropriate roles' for the ruling and aspirational class. It was not extended to the servants. in what is now a great equalizing of society, people are having a hard time extending those same manners as you call them, to people they consider below them. As a black woman sometime how well she feels served by chivalry.

2) I don't blame your female peers for wanting a return to the 'good old days' because they don't see the trade-off women of previous generations had to make.

3) I appreciate your distinction of 'old money' manners, and tend to agree. It should be noted that we have new money in the White House.

4) I've had to listen to entirely too many white males tell me they are sick of 'identity politics' and that we need to stick to 'real issues.' There's a disconnect there. If your issue is with these new entrants into the political world not having manners, then step 1 considering your casual dismissal of what are life and death issues for them might make them a bit testy.
  #306  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:05 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by E-DUB View Post
Good thing that Waters' opinions about what I think actually means are just her opinions.
That was pretty much my entire point.
  #307  
Old 02-19-2018, 03:13 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonebow View Post
I respectfully disagree. A few points:
1) Chivalry, as a construct, is all about 'appropriate roles' for the ruling and aspirational class. It was not extended to the servants. in what is now a great equalizing of society, people are having a hard time extending those same manners as you call them, to people they consider below them. As a black woman sometime how well she feels served by chivalry.

2) I don't blame your female peers for wanting a return to the 'good old days' because they don't see the trade-off women of previous generations had to make.
Well, all I can say there is that my Facebook account is full of women my age who detest what life in this country has become. I haven't sought them out either, some are family while others are friends I've known since those days or friends I've picked up from other friends. I never in my life heard a women even gripe about her role in society prior to when the baby boom crowd hit college late in the counterculture revolution where they got radicalized by their professors and feminist literature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonebow View Post
3) I appreciate your distinction of 'old money' manners, and tend to agree. It should be noted that we have new money in the White House.
Agreed.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Stonebow View Post
4) I've had to listen to entirely too many white males tell me they are sick of 'identity politics' and that we need to stick to 'real issues.' There's a disconnect there. If your issue is with these new entrants into the political world not having manners, then step 1 considering your casual dismissal of what are life and death issues for them might make them a bit testy.
My issue is with many of the societal changes (and/or the way they were or have been brought about) since the mid-sixties. Even the things I'm in favor of, such as women's rights and an end to racism have been pursued in ways I find harmful and often ridiculous.
  #308  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:05 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Nonsense. Chivalry as practiced in modern times was a way of showing respect toward women and caring for them if appropriate (I'm thinking of walking a female co-worker to her car after dark as an example of the latter). And I can tell you without reservation that it isn't dead when I'm around. Surprisingly, it seems today's young women are unaware that it was feminists of generations past who killed it. More than once a young woman who's been the recipient of chivalry on my part has lamented the fact it's so rare these days and questioned why this is so. They're usually sorry to hear it when I point out that it was feminists of the past who are responsible and make gestures as if to say 'how silly' or 'how unfortunate'.

Manners, including chivalry, were not designed by the rich to make poor people feel bad (as I've heard claimed on this board and you seem to think). Manners, courtesy and chivalry are a way of greasing society's wheels and making life more pleasant and enjoyable for everyone involved. Go hang out sometime where wealthy people and those who aren't so wealthy congregate and you'll see wealthy people performing acts of politeness and manners and even chivalry all the time. I'll guarantee you the aforementioned president of Shell Oil would be as quick to hold the door for a secretary or office worker he's never seen before as he would for a woman equally as wealthy as he. Rich people (et least of the old money kind with nothing to prove) are often the most charming, likable and chivalrous (when the occasion calls for it) people you'll see anywhere, and It's regrettable that people around here seem to have so little experience with them.
My fellow counterculture hippies and I have very good manners. The men respect women and are protective of them, without being overreaching or patronizing. When I was young and we would go to late night counterculture hippie parties as a group, the guys would make sure every woman was escorted home, all the way her door. And since we all used mass transit, somrimes these guys were going an hour or more out their way, and spending extra fare money. My friends and I are moral and decent people. We just don’t like uncomfortable restrictive clothing ( and attitudes)

But we can’t compare to your Trump, the man that’s going to restore decency and manners to America.

When Donald Trump insulted Carly Fiorina after one of his first debates I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous ! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks later, when he alleviated the nations concern of the size and strength of his penis, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks after that, when he enlightened the nation about how disgusting it was that Hillary Clinton went to the bathroom, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children!

When I learned Trump had dodged military service by claiming to have “bone spurs”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he , in reference to Senator John McCain’s war service and time spent as a POW, said “ I like people that weren’t captured”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When during his presidential debate, he tried to put his opponents’ husbands’ mistresses in the front row I thought I thought,
“ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he was caught on tape educating the world about how if you worked hard and became rich and famous, women would let you grab their pussies without permission, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When Trump tweeted about his former friend Mika Brzezinski’s facelift, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When, after trying to blackmail Mika and her fiancé by offering to suppress a National Enquirer hit piece, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When the piece ran the same week Mika’s father died, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he made a blanket statement calling every woman that had ever accused him of anything a liar, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he insulted the widow of a fallen soldier on Twitter, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he defended the wife beater on his staff by calling his ex-wives liars, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women was important. What a fine role model for our children !

I can’t post the last paragraph I wrote, because it would be a lapse of decency and good manners. Besides, I remembered I’m not in the Pit.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-19-2018 at 04:07 PM.
  #309  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:24 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
My fellow counterculture hippies and I have very good manners. The men respect women and are protective of them, without being overreaching or patronizing. When I was young and we would go to late night counterculture hippie parties as a group, the guys would make sure every woman was escorted home, all the way her door. And since we all used mass transit, somrimes these guys were going an hour or more out their way, and spending extra fare money. My friends and I are moral and decent people. We just don’t like uncomfortable restrictive clothing ( and attitudes)

But we can’t compare to your Trump, the man that’s going to restore decency and manners to America.

When Donald Trump insulted Carly Fiorina after one of his first debates I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous ! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks later, when he alleviated the nations concern of the size and strength of his penis, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks after that, when he enlightened the nation about how disgusting it was that Hillary Clinton went to the bathroom, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children!

When I learned Trump had dodged military service by claiming to have “bone spurs”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he , in reference to Senator John McCain’s war service and time spent as a POW, said “ I like people that weren’t captured”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When during his presidential debate, he tried to put his opponents’ husbands’ mistresses in the front row I thought I thought,
“ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he was caught on tape educating the world about how if you worked hard and became rich and famous, women would let you grab their pussies without permission, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When Trump tweeted about his former friend Mika Brzezinski’s facelift, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When, after trying to blackmail Mika and her fiancé by offering to suppress a National Enquirer hit piece, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When the piece ran the same week Mika’s father died, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he made a blanket statement calling every woman that had ever accused him of anything a liar, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he insulted the widow of a fallen soldier on Twitter, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he defended the wife beater on his staff by calling his ex-wives liars, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women was important. What a fine role model for our children !

I can’t post the last paragraph I wrote, because it would be a lapse of decency and good manners. Besides, I remembered I’m not in the Pit.
If it were allowed, I would deed my name to you-I am not worthy.
  #310  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:33 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
My fellow counterculture hippies and I have very good manners. The men respect women and are protective of them, without being overreaching or patronizing. When I was young and we would go to late night counterculture hippie parties as a group, the guys would make sure every woman was escorted home, all the way her door. And since we all used mass transit, somrimes these guys were going an hour or more out their way, and spending extra fare money. My friends and I are moral and decent people. We just don’t like uncomfortable restrictive clothing ( and attitudes)

But we can’t compare to your Trump, the man that’s going to restore decency and manners to America.

When Donald Trump insulted Carly Fiorina after one of his first debates I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous ! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks later, when he alleviated the nations concern of the size and strength of his penis, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

A few weeks after that, when he enlightened the nation about how disgusting it was that Hillary Clinton went to the bathroom, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children!

When I learned Trump had dodged military service by claiming to have “bone spurs”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he , in reference to Senator John McCain’s war service and time spent as a POW, said “ I like people that weren’t captured”, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When during his presidential debate, he tried to put his opponents’ husbands’ mistresses in the front row I thought I thought,
“ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he was caught on tape educating the world about how if you worked hard and became rich and famous, women would let you grab their pussies without permission, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When Trump tweeted about his former friend Mika Brzezinski’s facelift, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When, after trying to blackmail Mika and her fiancé by offering to suppress a National Enquirer hit piece, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When the piece ran the same week Mika’s father died, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he made a blanket statement calling every woman that had ever accused him of anything a liar, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he insulted the widow of a fallen soldier on Twitter, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women were important. What a fine role model for our children !

When he defended the wife beater on his staff by calling his ex-wives liars, I thought “ How decent ! How chivalrous! This man can certainly return us to a time when good manners and respect for women was important. What a fine role model for our children !

I can’t post the last paragraph I wrote, because it would be a lapse of decency and good manners. Besides, I remembered I’m not in the Pit.
I've been talking about changes in society-wide attitudes and behaviors over a fifty year span. You are talking about one guy who's been in office for 14 months.

One of these things is not like the other. Further reply not warranted.
  #311  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:35 PM
Chisquirrel Chisquirrel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 1,512
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Well, all I can say there is that my Facebook account is full of women my age who detest what life in this country has become.
For them, personally, or the almost satirized farce shown by Fox News?
  #312  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:39 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
From them personally, and based on what they see, hear and experience every. fucking. day.
  #313  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:43 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
From them personally, and based on what they see, hear and experience every. fucking. day.
And there's nothing more democratic and representative of the country as a whole than someone's handpicked Facebook page, right?
  #314  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:49 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And there's nothing more democratic and representative of the country as a whole than someone's handpicked Facebook page, right?
So what are your sources? Why should your view be accepted as more accurate than SA's or that of his friends? Or mine? Or anybody's? What gives you such particularly penetrating insight?
  #315  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:51 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
So what are your sources? Why should your view be accepted as more accurate than SA's or that of his friends? Or mine? Or anybody's? What gives you such particularly penetrating insight?
I have never used "Almost everybody on my Facebook page agrees with me" as a cite?
  #316  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:52 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
And there's nothing more democratic and representative of the country as a whole than someone's handpicked Facebook page, right?
For the most part they are women of my approximate age who grew up in the same era I did and who share the same disdain as I do for how fucked up this country has become.
  #317  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:53 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I have never used "Almost everybody on my Facebook page agrees with me" as a cite?
It wasn't a cite, it was an observation.
  #318  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:54 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
I have never used "Almost everybody on my Facebook page agrees with me" as a cite?
So you rely on what, instead? Bloggers? Huffpo?
  #319  
Old 02-19-2018, 04:56 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
It wasn't a cite, it was an observation.
As an observation then, I can think of no better a response than "Well, duh!"
  #320  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:01 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,837
Well, there you have it. According to people who agree with Starving Artist, he's right.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #321  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:02 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Well, there you have it. According to people who agree with Starving Artist, he's right.
How many people do you agree with that you think are wrong?
  #322  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:07 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,837
Such a reference would seem to lack objectivity.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #323  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:07 PM
Czarcasm Czarcasm is offline
Charter Member
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Beervania
Posts: 54,352
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scumpup View Post
How many people do you agree with that you think are wrong?
Could you rephrase that in English? My "Nonsense" is a bit rusty.
  #324  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:16 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
Well, there you have it. According to people who agree with Starving Artist, he's right.
I didn't refer to them in order to claim I was right, I referred to them as an illustration that the claim that women had it so bad back then is largely a myth and that many of them are just as contemptuous of present day life in this country as I am. As I said upthread, it wasn't until the late sixties/early seventies that a bunch of 18-to-20-year-old female college students with no real world experience got radicalized into believing that things like men holding the door for them was really just a way of keeping a foot on their neck. So silly, but as recent history has shown, there's no shortage of people eager to think of themselves as victims, so perpetuating the myth of has been pretty easy for the ideology of victimhood to pull off.
  #325  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:34 PM
Johnny Ace Johnny Ace is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2016
Posts: 4,496
Funny, but I've never had a woman react negatively to my holding the door for her, or picking up something she's dropped, or letting her go first...although I do any of those things for men too, depending on the situation. (Unless they were acting, but I'm usually pretty good at picking up on that kind of thing.) The old protective instinct has come out when there was a threat, too.

Walking her home isn't often an issue because at least one of us has a car, and usually both. However, it can be seen nowadays as having ulterior motives.

It isn't easy being green...
  #326  
Old 02-19-2018, 05:40 PM
Scumpup Scumpup is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 13,323
Quote:
Originally Posted by Czarcasm View Post
Could you rephrase that in English? My "Nonsense" is a bit rusty.
Tell me one thing that you believe that you know to be wrong.
  #327  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:15 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,811
My life in general includes many, many older Americans who generally think life now is significantly better than when they were children. But that's just anecdotal, and thus no more or less significant than SA's online pals.
  #328  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:16 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,837
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
I didn't refer to them in order to claim I was right, I referred to them as an illustration that the claim that women had it so bad back then is largely a myth and that many of them are just as contemptuous of present day life in this country as I am. As I said upthread, it wasn't until the late sixties/early seventies that a bunch of 18-to-20-year-old female college students with no real world experience got radicalized into believing that things like men holding the door for them was really just a way of keeping a foot on their neck. So silly, but as recent history has shown, there's no shortage of people eager to think of themselves as victims, so perpetuating the myth of has been pretty easy for the ideology of victimhood to pull off.
"Largely"? "Many"? I don't really think a Facebook bubble of people who agree with you is a good sample on which to base this conclusion because the people who don't agree with you aren't in it.

Anyone ever tell you you couldn't pursue your dream of becoming an archaeologist or a pilot or an underwater diver because men don't do that? I'm glad the 18-20 year old women of the time said "Hell no!" As for the door, it was 45 years ago and that's a long time to hold a grudge. I started university the year after Marc Lepine shot a classroom full of women as well as some dumb tasteless incident during Engineering Week upset a number of girls on campus, so I was called a pig and found my name as well as that of every other guy in engineering on a list of "potential rapists" posted around campus to make some point or other. I got over it, so can you.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #329  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:31 PM
Ann Hedonia Ann Hedonia is online now
Guest
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Posts: 2,296
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
I've been talking about changes in society-wide attitudes and behaviors over a fifty year span. You are talking about one guy who's been in office for 14 months.

One of these things is not like the other. Further reply not warranted.

I’ll reply whenever I want to whatever I want, thank you very much.

“We hold these truths to be sacred and undeniable; that all men are created equal and independent, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent and inalienable, among which are the preservation of life liberty and the pursuit of happiness.”

Those were some radical sentiments for their time. The founders of our country came out of a time where it was believed that your place in society and the world was the divine manifestation of God’s will and plan and it was not your place to try and change it. It was believed that your husband, your king, the lord of your manor was inherently better than you and that this hierarchy needed to be accepted. The idea of pursuit of happiness was also radical - the prevailing idea was that your life was the property of your king and your God. Personal happiness had no place in the equation.

The Declaration of Independence is more aspiration than declaration. It took us ,as a country, time to implement this ideas. And it’s a continuing process.

But the countercultural revolution that you show so much disdain for was a time when great advances were made in setting forth the ideals embodied in the Declaration of Independence.

We changed the country’s attitude towards war. We fought against the mass slaughter of unwilling soldiers in Vietnam. We still have war, but this country no longer has tolerance for the kind of casualties we saw in Vietnam. And all military service is now elective. Draft lotteries are one part of the “good old days” that I would hope nobody misses.

We also took part in eliminating the legalized racism that ran directly counter to the Declaration of Independence and hampered so many of our citizens in their pursuit of happiness.

And we no longer felt constrained by societal roles that impaired our pursuit of happiness and our status as equal citizens. We still aren’t there yet. And there are still political forces that are pushing back on those ideals embraced by the Declaration of Independence.

Because it’s hard to embrace an ideal of equality when you are coming from a previous position of superiority.
And it’s easy to be dishonest about it. And impolite. And to care so much about keeping things unequal that you will throw all values and morals out the window in order to WIN. You might even go as far as colluding with a foreign power. Or at least trying to. Which is not very decent or chivalrous.

Donald Trump is more than one guy that’s been in office 14 months, he’s the culmination of the pushback against these core American ideals. And hordes of tight-assed old men that are tired of being equals with women and minorities have embraced him as their circus master. While glossing over the fact that he’s a crude foul-mouthed womanizer, a genuinely horrible person, and less of a Christian than Buddha. The cognitive dissonance is astounding.

But I will grant that there were good things about the late 1950’s. We had robust investment in infrastructure. We invested in science and our space program was the embodiment of American Exceptionalism. A family of 5 could live comfortably on a single middle manager salary. Employers cared about their employees and reinvested in their businesses.

All of this was made possible by the top marginal tax rate of 91%. As well as financing the making of a great America, this disincentivized greed. And even in the era of McCarthy, no one screamed socialism. The idea was that if you were one of the winners in the free market system, you acknowledged that the system was responsible and gave back accordingly.

I really do wish we were a more moral country in that regard, and I wish we saw more of that societal morality in businesses and wealthy individuals.

But that’s far cry from bemoaning the downfall of society because women don’t wear high hells and aprons while they’re vacuuming.

Further reply is not warranted.

Last edited by Ann Hedonia; 02-19-2018 at 06:32 PM.
  #330  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:44 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Pioneering women in archeology.

Amelia Earhart.

Couldn't find anything on female divers of the 40s or 50s, but my own experiences with relatives who were female and in businesses of their own, plus the accomplishments of the women linked to above lead me to believe that if some woman wanted badly enough to be a diver, she would have been. There aren't that many men who engage in it either.

Look, there's no question that women have more opportunities now than they did then. And there's no question that that's a good thing. But they didn't have it bad back then either and many of them felt that, if anything, they had the advantage.

The biggest problem with the women's movement and with many of the issues the left decides to get het up about is that it's enemy-centric. The men of the past didn't deliberately set out to mistreat women in any way. Most of the circumstances that existed in the 50s and 60s where women were concerned were simply those that had grown into being over the centuries, where women tended the house and kids and the men labored to support them. But never was there a general or agreed upon animus toward women or desire to enslave them or consider them as children, as the feminists of the time would have us believe and some of us still do.

But every good Trotskyite knows that the way to foment revolution is to get people mad, and the best way to get them mad is to villainize who or whatever it is you want them to revolt against. Thus we wound up with men being villainized, which resulted in, among other things, women calling us pigs and would-be rapists and glaring at us when we held the door for them.
  #331  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:51 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ann Hedonia View Post
I’ll reply whenever I want to whatever I want, thank you very much.
Hahahaha! Thanks, but what I meant was that I'd addressed the salient part of your post, and that nothing else about it warranted comment from me.

Last edited by Starving Artist; 02-19-2018 at 06:52 PM.
  #332  
Old 02-19-2018, 06:56 PM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,837
Spat on me when I held the door open, actually. Just the once. I told her "Fuck you, then." I got over it. It's not like they're doing it now.

At least, not to me.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #333  
Old 02-19-2018, 07:13 PM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
That would be Mrs. Putnam, TYVM.
  #334  
Old 02-19-2018, 07:51 PM
iiandyiiii iiandyiiii is online now
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Arlington, VA
Posts: 27,811
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Pioneering women in archeology.

Amelia Earhart.

Couldn't find anything on female divers of the 40s or 50s, but my own experiences with relatives who were female and in businesses of their own, plus the accomplishments of the women linked to above lead me to believe that if some woman wanted badly enough to be a diver, she would have been. There aren't that many men who engage in it either.

Look, there's no question that women have more opportunities now than they did then. And there's no question that that's a good thing. But they didn't have it bad back then either and many of them felt that, if anything, they had the advantage.

The biggest problem with the women's movement and with many of the issues the left decides to get het up about is that it's enemy-centric. The men of the past didn't deliberately set out to mistreat women in any way. Most of the circumstances that existed in the 50s and 60s where women were concerned were simply those that had grown into being over the centuries, where women tended the house and kids and the men labored to support them. But never was there a general or agreed upon animus toward women or desire to enslave them or consider them as children, as the feminists of the time would have us believe and some of us still do.

But every good Trotskyite knows that the way to foment revolution is to get people mad, and the best way to get them mad is to villainize who or whatever it is you want them to revolt against. Thus we wound up with men being villainized, which resulted in, among other things, women calling us pigs and would-be rapists and glaring at us when we held the door for them.
This is still just a difference of opinion. Okay, according to you and your acquaintances, America was generally better in the 50s. According to most folks I've spoken to who were around back then, America is a lot better now.

Your opinion isn't more special or more worthy than theirs.
  #335  
Old 02-19-2018, 08:39 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
I never in my life heard a women even gripe about her role in society prior to when the baby boom crowd hit college late in the counterculture revolution where they got radicalized by their professors and feminist literature.
Of course, you would never have been exposed to The Second Sex that dated from 1949 when the oldest Boomers were four years old. And while we are of similar ages, I knew several women (or girls, at that time, prior to 1965), who lamented the fact that they were prohibited from pursuing desired careers because colleges either closed the needed courses to women or put limits on the number of women who could apply because "men/boys needed the seats." I also knew a couple of women who, having been "allowed" to take specific classes, were actually denied jobs for which they had applied, explicitly because they were women. Of course, by then it was 1970 so they had simply been "radicalized" into wanting jobs for which they had prepared most of their lives. I wonder if you never encountered them because they already knew your position on those issues?
  #336  
Old 02-19-2018, 08:47 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
But every good Trotskyite knows that the way to foment revolution is to get people mad, and the best way to get them mad is to villainize who or whatever it is you want them to revolt against. Thus we wound up with men being villainized, which resulted in, among other things, women calling us pigs and would-be rapists and glaring at us when we held the door for them.
Sort of like villainizing feminists, today.

In my entire college career, I encountered ONE woman who got mad at men holding the door for her, and her roommates and classmates would roll their eyes when they talked about her as a nutcase. Were there women who shared her opinion? Sure. Just as there are still men who don't think that Harvey Weinstein or Don Trump have displayed any bad attitudes or behaviors.

I'm surprised that your arms don't fall off wielding that four foot wide brush that you always use to paint history in your own weird colors.
  #337  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:00 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Funny, for decades I've experienced women snootily gliding by with neither a word nor glance as I held the door for them. On those rare occasions where I did get a glance it was more of a glare.

However, now that I'm getting older I find that both sexes are beginning to smilingly hold the door for me.
  #338  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:32 PM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Funny, for decades I've experienced women snootily gliding by with neither a word nor glance as I held the door for them. On those rare occasions where I did get a glance it was more of a glare.
You know, I have held or opened the door for numerous people and not a one of them indicate any kind of resentment. Perhaps your appearance or manner is somehow off-putting. If one does it with grace and not the slightest hint of arrogance or obligation, it tends to be received well.
  #339  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:50 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal View Post
Quote:
Originally Posted by Starving Artist View Post
Funny, for decades I've experienced women snootily gliding by with neither a word nor glance as I held the door for them. On those rare occasions where I did get a glance it was more of a glare.
You know, I have held or opened the door for numerous people and not a one of them indicate any kind of resentment. Perhaps your appearance or manner is somehow off-putting. If one does it with grace and not the slightest hint of arrogance or obligation, it tends to be received well.
There is also the probability of confirmation bias. If one expects to be treated rudely, anything short of a huge smile is going to be perceived as "snooty" or "glaring." I, on the other hand, never look for any response from a person (male or female) simply because I held a door and I would guess that the overwhelming majority of my interactions have resulted in thanks.
  #340  
Old 02-19-2018, 09:54 PM
DSeid DSeid is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 19,928
Quote:
Originally Posted by tomndebb View Post
There is also the probability of confirmation bias. If one expects to be treated rudely, anything short of a huge smile is going to be perceived as "snooty" or "glaring." I, on the other hand, never look for any response from a person (male or female) simply because I held a door and I would guess that the overwhelming majority of my interactions have resulted in thanks.
Likewise. I have never ever had a negative reaction to holding a door (and often do it for whatever gender is coming behind me). Sometimes there is another set of doors right after the one I just held and the most typical response in that case is that the person I just held the door for then holds the next door for me! Turnabout is fair play.
  #341  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:11 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
Quote:
Originally Posted by eschereal
You know, I have held or opened the door for numerous people and not a one of them indicate any kind of resentment. Perhaps your appearance or manner is somehow off-putting. If one does it with grace and not the slightest hint of arrogance or obligation, it tends to be received well.
Unlikely, since it was invariably only young women of an age susceptible to nutjobbery who would engage in this behavior. Other young women, and virtually every middle-aged and older woman, would look me right in the eye, and, with a big smile and their own eyes twinkling, thank me graciously for holding the door for them.

Speaking of women with eyes a-twinkle, I'm reminded of a story you all might find amusing if came from anyone else.

I was in a 7-11 one day and the cashier, who'd I'd known for some time, was griping about something or other and in response I playfully said, "Well, you know what they say in France: "sest la vie" (rhymes with pie). The well-dressed, together-looking woman paying for her stuff at the next register visibly tightened up at this but she was too well-mannered to correct me. Still, her frustration grew, and as she went to leave I held the door for her. As she walked by with her eyes cast down so as not to have to look at me I whispered "I know it's 'c'est la vie' (correct pronunciation)." She immediately whirled on her heel, threw her arms around my neck, put her head on my chest and said, "Oh, thank god! I'm a school teacher and things like that just drive me crazy." Meanwhile, I look up and her husband in their car is staring daggers at my ass because all he sees is some guy hold the door for his wife, whisper in her ear as she walks by and she immediately whirls around and throws her arms around his neck. You know he had to be thinkin' "Just what kinda silver-tongued devil is this sumbitch anyway?"

Hahahaha! Loved it!

Anyway, sorry for the hijack. Please carry on with the hate talk.

Last edited by Starving Artist; 02-19-2018 at 10:12 PM.
  #342  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:25 PM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,776
I believe there has recently been another poster on here who tended to excuse his behaviors and attitudes toward women by citing how much the ones he knew all uniformly loved him. Is this purely a generational thing? I am terribly confused by it.

I also notice how the comments fixate on playing 'bitter young women' against 'sensible older girls' and totally ignore other instances discussed above about other intersections of identity and how they contribute the current dialogue, specifically racial/cultural. Do you have any cute stories about how black folk love you as well, SA?
  #343  
Old 02-19-2018, 10:42 PM
Starving Artist Starving Artist is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 16,534
No, no cute ones. I could post stories - though I won't - of black people who love me and who I love in return (just painted a picture as a gift for one of them, as a matter of fact), and another in particular who died three years ago and who I loved as much as anyone I've ever known except for a few very close relatives. One of the best people I've ever known in my life.
  #344  
Old 02-20-2018, 04:06 AM
Gyrate Gyrate is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Deepest South London
Posts: 20,448
"Why, some of my best friends are..."
__________________
"Don't delude yourself into thinking we're interested in you. We're just here for the trainwreck, man." - DooWahDiddy
  #345  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:14 AM
Stonebow Stonebow is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: The Lower 48
Posts: 1,776
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gyrate View Post
"Why, some of my best friends are..."
Exactly.
Look, I get it. When addressing a system issue, reaction to any singe incident/interaction looks like over-calibration to those who don't recognize the larger issue. If one's worldview is solely the product of their personal interactions, and they believe themselves to be the hero of their own story, then there isn't much we can do other than bide our time for a change of season.
  #346  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:27 AM
ElvisL1ves ElvisL1ves is offline
Charter Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2000
Location: The land of the mouse
Posts: 44,906
That's it. Everyone thinks they're the good guys.
  #347  
Old 02-20-2018, 09:31 AM
FreedomRider FreedomRider is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2017
Posts: 17
Quote:
Originally Posted by Euphrosyne View Post

And these tactics were born and bred in the late 60s and early 70s, and continue on to this very day.

People I've loved, and trusted, and admired, have taught me to fear these twin evils and to avoid them, to the extent that I can. Because they are the destroyers of our own hearts and minds.
The strategy of using hate and fear as a tactic to build a movement didn't begin with the 60's here in the USA. What about the Civil War? There was enough hate and rage for 620,000 people to die in that conflict. The conflicts we are seeing today, brought about by the Trump movement certainly hearken back to the Civil War divisions, but it is hard to argue that this is particularly unique in the long term view.

Agreed that hate and fear are corrosive and damaging and in one way or another will ultimately destroy those that harbor these emotions.

Last edited by FreedomRider; 02-20-2018 at 09:32 AM.
  #348  
Old 02-20-2018, 11:19 AM
The Tooth The Tooth is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: Calgary, Alberta
Posts: 3,837
There were bomb threats in the thousands and riots in the streets on a regular basis 45 years ago, no? I was neither there nor then, but I've heard rumours.
__________________
"It would never occur to me to wear pink, just as it would never occur to Michael Douglas to play a poor person." - Sarah Vowell
  #349  
Old 02-20-2018, 12:19 PM
eschereal eschereal is offline
Guest
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: Frogstar World B
Posts: 12,691
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
There were bomb threats in the thousands and riots in the streets on a regular basis 45 years ago, no? I was neither there nor then, but I've heard rumours.
In the early '70s? In the US? That is not sounding like what I remember. Though, I lived in a nice quiet corner of the country where we were not so much at each other’s throats, and we had a Republican governor in our state who would be to the left of half of today's Democratic party.
  #350  
Old 02-20-2018, 08:30 PM
tomndebb tomndebb is offline
Mod Rocker
Moderator
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: N E Ohio
Posts: 40,477
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Tooth View Post
There were bomb threats in the thousands and riots in the streets on a regular basis 45 years ago, no?
No.

There were a few idiots, (tending to be to the Left, because the Right already had the police to enforce their violence), who made bombs. Only a very few were ever actually deployed--often killing their creators.

The Wikipedia article on Terrorism in the U.S. notes quite a few bombings. Note, however, that as one goes down the list, the number of casualties is fairly low and the perpetrators were scattered among a wide range of people. There were American Leftists, of course. However, note the number of other groups involved: The Puerto Rican FALN, the Jewish Defense League, Croatians, Chileans, a few rogue idiots with no connection to any movement (such as the Unabomber of the 1980s and 1990s).

Riots? There was a flurry of race-oriented riots in the late 1960s with a couple of late arrivals in the 1970s, but aside from the summers of 1966 and 1967, they were hardly common occurrences. (And if one looks at the entire list, one will note that the U.S. has experienced several periods when riots were more or less "common.")

There were also "frequent" (depending how one defines that word) bombings in a few cities that were mob related. Those also tended to target individuals involved with the mob and did not stir up the citizenry at large.

Were there more bombings and riots then, than now. Yeah. Angry people of the time learned well from the police riots of Selma, Montgomery, and Chicago, etc. Nowadays, we tend to get our thrills from lone nuts holding rifles with large magazines. But just as few people, today, refuse to go to movies or malls in fear of a mass shooting, few people then, ordered their lives around a fear of bombings or riots.
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:20 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

Send questions for Cecil Adams to: cecil@straightdope.com

Send comments about this website to: webmaster@straightdope.com

Terms of Use / Privacy Policy

Advertise on the Straight Dope!
(Your direct line to thousands of the smartest, hippest people on the planet, plus a few total dipsticks.)

Publishers - interested in subscribing to the Straight Dope?
Write to: sdsubscriptions@chicagoreader.com.

Copyright © 2018 STM Reader, LLC.

 
Copyright © 2017