They are only words.

[Undertoad]

Nothing much going on, on a pre-holiday Friday night. I'm totally prepared to whomp out five paragraphs that nobody will read.

[Undertoad]

I should add, knowing full well that it embarasses me more than anybody else.

[Flint]

Yeah, I would have loved to quote the shit out of those paragraphs and make line-by-line rebuttals which would each spawn their own semantic rabbit-holes, creating an exponential vortex of misunderstandings and stubborn refusals to acknowledge even the most innocuous statements of the areas where we obviously agree--having been initiated into the sequence of confrontational debate tactics, and mutually unable to disengage from the formal dance of the amateur pundits; but on the other hand I'm tired--very tired, and I can't afford to do anything else in my life that will leave me filled with regret over the enormous amount of energy I've poured out into a pointless exercise in absolute uselessness that will benefit nobody, ever.

[Flint]

I just spent an inordinate amount of time writing, reading, editing, and posting that; then I read it again, edited the punctuation in two areas, then read the whole thing again to make sure it flows in the exact rhythm it would have if I'd said it out loud. It passed inspection on the final read-through.

Why am I like this?

[Undertoad]

[Flint]

WHO'S EMBARRASSED NOW, MOTHERFUCKER ??

[fargon]

Because perfection is it's own reward.

[Undertoad]

It was good work sir

[Flint]

Without personal judgement, I say, you seem bent on the opposite approach, focused on mining the negative.

[advertisement plays in the back of the reader's mind]
"...Do you like over-analyzing everything, ignoring self-care, and avoiding ambiguous situations to the point of total inaction?"
"...Pursue a career in IT--where your extreme, pathological risk aversion is rewarded as a positive attribute!..."

[Undertoad]

wull,

[Flint]

...

[Clodfobble]

Originally Posted by Flint

I just spent an inordinate amount of time writing, reading, editing, and posting that; then I read it again, edited the punctuation in two areas, then read the whole thing again to make sure it flows in the exact rhythm it would have if I'd said it out loud. It passed inspection on the final read-through.

Why am I like this?

Originally Posted by Flint

[advertisement plays in the back of the reader's mind]
"...Do you like over-analyzing everything, ignoring self-care, and avoiding ambiguous situations to the point of total inaction?"
"...Pursue a career in IT--where your extreme, pathological risk aversion is rewarded as a positive attribute!..."

Works even better for being a writer, where you also get to avoid interacting with people 99% of the time.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Or only go to facefuck a find a friendly echo chamber.

[Undertoad]

I say we disregard anything either one of them says about the other, unless they have a record of actually addressing that issue with equal intensity as their opponent did.
A sensible approach sir.

I thought about this. Sorry. There's a very basic problem with it so I get to write my paragraphs anyway. Sorry. I'll keep brief.

Traditionally, Conservativism stems from an instinct to preserve the status quo. Therefore actually addressing capital-P Problems is more often the Liberal instinct, and the personality types drawn to it want to Do Something.

As such, you should always find more Doing of Things from Liberals. And you and I agree* from our moral understanding, which teaches us that moving ahead is always the Right Thing To Do. Let's Fix Stuff. As such, the party that is best, is the one Doing More Things, addressing issues.

Buuuuut, Libs fail to appreciate the moral values that actually keep society together. We hate Conservatives and their preservation of the structures... that have gotten us to the level we are at today. Most societies are not doing so well, and preserving our very successful one is important, but we can't see that because it's not part of our moral fiber.

And, very often, this urge to Change will become destructive. For example, the urge to use the very latest in scientific understanding to improve our society. In the 1920s and 30s, the science in favor was Eugenics. Science agreed it was right. The science started in Britain and spread around the world, including the US. At the time, Germany was a leader of the scientific world. Germany decided that using science to improve society was the correct way, made it a cornerstone really, and proceeded ahead as fast as possible.

There is sometimes great value in NOT Doing Things. In being conservative. You and I, we don't appreciate that. Good luck to us all.



*it's true

[DanaC]

In the 1920s and 30s, the science in favor was Eugenics. Science agreed it was right.

Not quite. It was always controversial in the scientific world. It garnered more social,philosophical and political acceptance than scientific.

It's really not an equivalent of the science of climate change, about which, at least as far as some basic premises are concerned, there is a level of consensus which only exists in a few fundamental areas of science.