A good case of internal perception matching external presentation.
My emphasis. That’s about as intelligent a criticism as any **Reeder **thread. Why can’t people talk about their opposition to the war, the dislike of mixing religion and politics without comparing Bush to some absurd SciFi novel (not that the novel itself is absurd, but the society it posits is an absurd comparison to what Bush’s ideal gov’t might be)?
Okay, now we’re hijacking the thread, but The Handmaid’s Tale isn’t a science fiction novel. And while my statement is certainly hyperbole, I honestly do think what Bush wants is too close to this book for my personal comfort. I find it a useful summary since I didn’t want to get into a long description of why Bush’s conservative Christian agenda upsets me. It was not intended to be a deep insight since that’s really not what this thread is about - it’s about Reeder.
If you want to have a real discussion with me about my opinions on Bush’s ideal government, drop me an email. I generally prefer to avoid GD, so I don’t want to continue the discussion there.
Quick, somebody start drinking paint thinner!
Seriously… if I sound venomous, I really didn’t interact with Reeder very often. I try to avoid getting drawn into conversations with people like him because it never accomplishes anything. Which, I think, is opposed to the point of a place like this.
That’s one of the neat things about Reeder’s demise. Now that he’s now longer around to gobble up precious page-1 space in GD and the pit with his bullshit, there’s more chance for non-bullshit threads to prosper.
True. It’s a dystopia. However, distopias are often traditionally considered a subgenre of science fiction, for better or worse.
[on topic]
I never had a Pit exchange with Reeder because constant pounding on any given drum gives me a headache. But I will miss his posts in Cafe Society.
[/on topic]
Thanks. I’d love to sit on high and insult people with the power to ban them. However, I have to watch my step as insulting you may have more serious repurcussions. You and Giraffe seem to be in lock-step when it comes to coming down on me for some reason. Well, not really coming down on me in a sense of persecution, but the link was posted in a thread I hadn’t seen till today. Nice to see moderators slinging shit without the balls to at least inform someone they’re calling them out.
You both can fuck off.
Jesus, duffer, I don’t have a stake in whatever shit is going on between you and tomndebb, but his comment - with the “winky” - sure seemed like a joke to me.
Oh come off it Duffer. You’d have a case for half of this post if they insulted you as they warned you. Last I knew mods could still act as posters if they felt so inclined and I imagine that they insulted you as such.
Since they didn’t insult you in a mod capacity and one of them used a bloody smiley, your post is unwarranted and idiotic.
It’s the same genre as *1984 *or Brave New World, which (as mentioned above) is generally lumped in with SciFi even if it’s not an Isaac Asimov type novel. But you put your finger on it exactly. It wasn’t a deep insight, just as Reeder’s comparisons aren’t deep insights. I just thought it ironic that you tried to set yourself up as an anti-Reeder type liberal, yet make the outrageous claim that Bush would like to set up a gov’t like the one in Atwood’s novel. I doubt Bush has read it, but I have, and it’s simply an absurd claim.
Bush certainly wouldn’t. But I have no doubt that some in his circle have sympathies towards the Dominionists.
Actually, for a number of years, “SciFi” was disdained as the province of Star Trek, Star Wars, and Space 1999 while “serious” written fiction was supposed to be identified as “SF” with the really serious (not to say ponderous) writers maintaining that “SF” should stand for Speculative Fiction rather than Science Fiction.
All the true scottsmen wrote scientifiction.
“Predictive History.”
Value and worth are relative things.
There seems to me to be two types of posters here on the SDMB:
- The “elite” members who construct “logical” arguments and,
- Everyone else.
Often you get two dichotomous undercurrents in any given thread. You get the “logical” posts by the elites, that are filled with the same drivel that any self respecting penny-a-word hack could hammer out. The elites usually sit around sucking each other’s dicks (moderators too) in a veritable orgy of self-reinforcing poppycock. Generally, the elites are “charter members” and have several thousand posts to their credit. “Everyone else” responds in varying shades of wisdom but tend to go unnoticed by the elites.
Now there happens to be a lot of good thought on this board. The liberal point of view is well expressed (a fact helped by there being more of us) if unimaginative but I find the conservative point of view nothing more than the latest boilerplate of the Republican party. They deserve the abuse-- not for being conservative but for regurgitating the same lame hackneyed bullshit that we could get from watching Fox. However, since we want a legitimate debate, we tend to humor those conservatives who can construct semi-literate sentences. This is fine, but I am not going to detune my language for their sake and I am not going to join the mutual dicksucking society of the board elites.
So those who advance the “all you have to say is Bush Sucks” argument really do need to meditate on how much Bush really does suck. We have a legitimate beef and certainly, certainly, the most inane miscue by a liberal is pound to death by the conservatives on this board for lack of genuine fodder. So culling the board for any liberal who is believed to be sub-par by Dope standards (whatever the fuck that is) is really just an exercise in a double standard. If the conservatives leave, they leave. We’ll say of them exactly what is warranted and that is that they couldn’t take the heat. Tell me how Sam Stone and Mr. Moto aren’t banned for the exact same thing? Personally I don’t think anyone should be banned for speaking their mind ever. I think that all opinions are relevant. Those who are truly enlightened will realize this and I’m not saying that I am one these people.
Maybe I missed something but I did not find Reeder doing anything less than anyone else. Was he banned for something substantial or for something else entirely? Was he banned because he was an “everyone else?”
So I take it you didn’t read this thread, the ATMB thread, OR any of Reeder’s ‘BushCo’ posts?
I prefer the “BU$HCO” spelling of the word myself.
Nah, the correct spelling is (or darn well ought to be): I-M-P-E-A-C-H-E-D.
If we ever meet IRL, remind me to buy you a drink.
I’ll start with Collounsbury (one of the best experts we’ve ever had) and Satan.
Well, I would hope that the 2nd category is larger than the first…