¤ milky moon ¤

There's a difference between a personal argument and an argument in the vein of a discussion. Fighting is "you did this on x forum" "no i didn't" "shut up you did" "i did not, prove it, i could prove it but you're not getting to" "i don't need to i remember" "shut up". Thats the distinction.
You're not getting banned, that's way off. I'd far rather reach an equilibrium where we can be enemies at our podiums and friends on the floor than have to ban anyone, and I hope that we're all mature enough to achieve that.

I protest that I can't add a moderator to my foe list.

Well, I'm sorry you feel that way.
Let me make it clear that I'm not on either side. There shouldn't be sides. I don't know who started it, and quite frankly I couldn't care less, but for the love of love, stop it, both of you. And not just both of you, but everyone else as well. Private arguments are for private messages, not for The Fray. The Fray is for public discussion of whatever you want. If you would like to make a thread specifically for the purpose of public discussion of those private arguments, go ahead, but make sure it all stays in there.
And Scherado, I won't be used as a pawn. I'm not praising your rationality, I'm criticising your conduct.

I've added him as a foe, and I tried to add you, too. I guess I will just have to rely on self-control to stay away from your posts.

I'm sorry if I've offended you in some way.

I take it back. I shouldn't have to ignore you or anyone else while I'm here. Since this forum is headed quickly in the direction of the old one, I see no more reason to stay now than I did then. Apparently moderators are not the solution. I lost the edge of my fanaticism for Joanna during that last absence, so there probably won't be anything to draw me back in again. Sorry it has to be this way, but sherado...I mean shit happens. You might want to keep the door locked next time. Goodbye.

Well, again, I'm sorry you feel that way, Polli. It doesn't have to be this way, but if you want to leave, no one can stop you. If you really want to go, you'll be missed. All the best for the future.

We will not be locking the door on anyone without a vote on it first. You're welcome to come back whenever you like.

This following piece, , was written nearly a year ago, hence before the recent American election.

It describes how American Progressives ("Liberals") are perceived by American Conservatives, but not just Conservatives. I've been trying to convey to Alex that he hasn't examined the contradictions inherent in his progressive-ism.

I haven't broached with him the possibility that lurking near the "surface" of his subconscious is a quite clear knowledge of these contradictions and which, I have said, create a cognitive dissonance that I called intellectual dissonance. I believe that emotional turmoil can be caused by not being open to the possibility that one possesses such things; This is a form of "the tail wagging the dog", when we all know the dog should be wagging it's tail. The person who possesses a high intelligence--as does Alex--is in greater danger of suffering from unexamined contradictions: this is his burden. The good news is that there is an easily accessible solution: examine the contradictions.

I've suggested previously to Alex that he ought to leave University and live his progressive-ism. I did this as a proposal to relieve his suffering caused by him living within a social system that he despises. (He approves of his country's socialism but not, I think, the rest.) This solution, of course, would be akin to treating his problem with a band-aid, but it is far better than living off the "backs of the downtrodden" while spewing contempt for those who live off the backs of the downtrodden--which is, obviously, self-contempt.

()

... To be known as a social conservative is to lose all hope of an academic career; it is to be denied any chance of those prestigious prizes, from the MacArthur to the Nobel Peace Prize, which liberals confer only on each other. For an intellectual it is to throw away the prospect of a favorable review -- or any review at all -- in the New York Times or the New York Review of Books. Only someone with a conscience could possibly wish to expose himself to the inevitable vilification that attends such an "enemy of the people." And this proves that the conservative conscience is governed not by self-interest but by a concern for the public good. Why else would anyone express it?

By contrast, as conservatives also know, the compassion displayed by the liberal is precisely that -- compassion displayed, though not necessarily felt. The liberal knows in his heart that his "compassionating zeal," as Rousseau described it, is a privilege for which he must thank the social order that sustains him. He knows that his emotion toward the victim class is (these days at least) more or less cost-free, that the few sacrifices he might have to make by way of proving his sincerity are nothing compared to the warm glow of approval by which he will be surrounded by declaring his sympathies. His compassion is a profoundly motivated state of mind, not the painful result of a conscience that will not be silenced, but the costless ticket to popular acclaim.

...

As the state takes charge of our needs, and relieves people of the burdens that should rightly be theirs -- the burdens that come from charity and neighborliness -- serious feeling retreats. In place of it comes an aggressive sentimentality that seeks to dominate the public square. I call this sentimentality "totalitarian" since -- like totalitarian government -- it seeks out opposition and carefully extinguishes it, in all the places where opposition might form. Its goal is to "solve" our social problems, by imposing burdens on responsible citizens, and lifting burdens from the "victims," who have a "right" to state support. The result is to replace old social problems, which might have been relieved by private charity, with the new and intransigent problems fostered by the state: for example, mass illegitimacy, the decline of the indigenous birthrate, and the emergence of the gang culture among the fatherless youth. We have seen this everywhere in Europe, whose situation is made worse by the pressure of mass immigration, subsidized by the state. The citizens whose taxes pay for the flood of incoming "victims" cannot protest, since the sentimentalists have succeeded in passing "hate speech" laws and in inventing crimes like "Islamophobia" which place their actions beyond discussion. This is just one example of a legislative tendency that can be observed in every area of social life: family, school, sexual relations, social initiatives, even the military -- all are being deprived of their authority and brought under the control of the "soft power" that rules from above.

This is how we should understand the award of the Nobel Peace Prize to President Obama. To his credit he has made clear that he does not deserve it -- though I assume he deserves it every bit as much as Al Gore. The prize is an endorsement from the European elite, a sigh of collective relief that America has at last taken the decisive step toward the modern consensus, by exchanging real for fake emotion, hard power for soft power, and truth for lies. What matters in Europe is the great fiction that things will stay in place forever, that peace will be permanent and society stable, just so long as everybody is "nice." Under President Bush (who was, of course, no exemplary president, and certainly not nice) America maintained its old image, of national self-confidence and belligerent assertion of the right to be successful. Bush was the voice of a property-owning democracy, in which hard work and family values still achieved a public endorsement. As a result he was hated by the European elites, and hated all the more because Europe needs America and knows that, without America, it will die. Obama is welcomed as a savior: the American president for whom the Europeans have been hoping -- the one who will rescue them from the truth.

I'm not calling you names, I'm calling the guy who wrote the article names.

And I was very angry.

No, no. Not hungover. I'm 18, my body is indestructible.

If you're asking if I was apologising, I wasn't - just clarifying. I stand by every name called.

I don't get any of these new threads with huge posts and swathes of scherado-blue. Am I missing some forum-transformation?

Yeah, Scherado came back, only now he's the Relayor of Bad Tidings. He's like Gandalf but not played by Ian McKellen or cool.

I'm just messin' wit' ya.

After going to the Orpheum show, I decided that I wasn't going to let anyone push me away from here again. It almost ruined how I feel about Joanna the last time it happened, and I almost let it happen again. So, Relayor is now on my foe list. I don't want to ever again read anything he has to say, and I don't want to even think about him being here. I also plan to avoid reading anything anyone has to say about his comments. It's all poison.