![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Yesterday Gordon had obtained a copy of Fahrenheit 9/11 and invited several folks over to watch. We showed up late, and saw maybe the last half or so. Some of it was silly, some of it obviously 'spin' but a lot of it was pretty damning. Though it was kind of a wasted effort on me, and why I never saw it in the theaters- I already knew I didn't want to vote for the guy. Also, parts of it made me cry. I hate to see people suffering.
I suppose there is a lot to be said for having specific facts to back up your conviction, but that sort of assumes I plan to go out and try to educate other people as to why they shouldn't vote for Bush. But no one has ever said "Hey, Mielikki, why do you dislike Bush so much?" The folks that dislike him assume it's for similar reasons, and the ones who don't aren't generally in the mood to debate it anyway (though my dad seems to like to send me the occasional poorly-spelled IM stating that 'Kerry isn't a wart on Bush's ass' for some fucking reason. My reply was 'that's obviously in dispute', and he pursued the topic no further). I don't care to know why people who're going to vote for Bush like him; I can guess and it's just not something I want to talk about. I suppose this is my version of the not talking about politics or religion in polite company. I'll talk about these things at length to people who are curious and open to discussion or civil disagreement, but only if they ask.
It should be a lot easier to talk about religion, because people can't really argue about it if they get the concept that most aspects of religion are based on opinion (not counting history etc., but then you'd be talking about history). Of course, plenty of people think that The Answer for them is The Answer for everyone.
I know I'm simplifying the hell out of things here. I'm rambling because I'm bored at work, so I'm thinking out loud.
I sometimes smile when I see people arguing over some fussy detail of religion. I've seen it referred to 'my invisible pink unicorn is better than your invisible pink unicorn.' Though discussions like this often have to happen because a concept or term might mean one thing to one guy, and something else to another. So definitions have to be clarified. This is what I mean when I talk about the tradition of Wicca I practice- I don't think I practice it the 'right way', I just know that it's a particular language of symbols I use, and I teach that language to my students. There are 'dialects' surely- people in Atlanta practice differently from me, but we still speak the same language.
But it's all opinion. One of the things I like is how I've heard many times my elders would say 'well, you can do that this way, but have you tried that way?' but the sense has been that if one way works for you, assuming it's not twisting the definitions of our symbolism to the breaking point, you can do it to your heart's content.
Politics is a lot more about facts. Although when it comes to the parties, you have a basis of thinking that is like a philosophy. Bush seems to favor rich people, but if you asked me for hard evidence of that I would have to pull out figures and dates and, I don't know, pie graphs and stuff and I can't- it's a general impression I have and I'll be voting accordingly. Not, as has been made very clear, that it will make a damn bit of difference in Texas, but there's other races to vote for too. I certainly don't have any reliable source for information- there seems to be 'spin' everywhere. I just know that my philosophy lines up more with the Democrats than the Republicans so they get my vote (there's the Greens- but I'm not going there, not this time). It's nice that they've made at least a grudging effort to separate themselves from the Republicans this time around. Even though both presidential candidates have lived unimaginable (to me) lives of privilege.
The spin on Bush seems to say that he's much more 'likeable' and that's what he may end up winning on. I dunno, I sure don't like him. He's petulant, he smirks, he seems really stuck-up to me, honestly. I couldn't imagine having a decent conversation with the guy.
What else can't you talk about in polite company? Abortion falls under politics, I expect. Most of the people I know believe some variant of "I wouldn't have one, but I wouldn't make it illegal for someone else" which works for me, though I obviously don't have to worry about it any longer. I also think declawing cats is wrong, spanking kids is okay in certain situations, and butter is better for you than margarine. Chocolate donuts are better than plain, and crunchy peanut butter is better than smooth. The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones, and Japanese motorcycles are better than American ones. Wow, it's really slow at work today.
I suppose there is a lot to be said for having specific facts to back up your conviction, but that sort of assumes I plan to go out and try to educate other people as to why they shouldn't vote for Bush. But no one has ever said "Hey, Mielikki, why do you dislike Bush so much?" The folks that dislike him assume it's for similar reasons, and the ones who don't aren't generally in the mood to debate it anyway (though my dad seems to like to send me the occasional poorly-spelled IM stating that 'Kerry isn't a wart on Bush's ass' for some fucking reason. My reply was 'that's obviously in dispute', and he pursued the topic no further). I don't care to know why people who're going to vote for Bush like him; I can guess and it's just not something I want to talk about. I suppose this is my version of the not talking about politics or religion in polite company. I'll talk about these things at length to people who are curious and open to discussion or civil disagreement, but only if they ask.
It should be a lot easier to talk about religion, because people can't really argue about it if they get the concept that most aspects of religion are based on opinion (not counting history etc., but then you'd be talking about history). Of course, plenty of people think that The Answer for them is The Answer for everyone.
I know I'm simplifying the hell out of things here. I'm rambling because I'm bored at work, so I'm thinking out loud.
I sometimes smile when I see people arguing over some fussy detail of religion. I've seen it referred to 'my invisible pink unicorn is better than your invisible pink unicorn.' Though discussions like this often have to happen because a concept or term might mean one thing to one guy, and something else to another. So definitions have to be clarified. This is what I mean when I talk about the tradition of Wicca I practice- I don't think I practice it the 'right way', I just know that it's a particular language of symbols I use, and I teach that language to my students. There are 'dialects' surely- people in Atlanta practice differently from me, but we still speak the same language.
But it's all opinion. One of the things I like is how I've heard many times my elders would say 'well, you can do that this way, but have you tried that way?' but the sense has been that if one way works for you, assuming it's not twisting the definitions of our symbolism to the breaking point, you can do it to your heart's content.
Politics is a lot more about facts. Although when it comes to the parties, you have a basis of thinking that is like a philosophy. Bush seems to favor rich people, but if you asked me for hard evidence of that I would have to pull out figures and dates and, I don't know, pie graphs and stuff and I can't- it's a general impression I have and I'll be voting accordingly. Not, as has been made very clear, that it will make a damn bit of difference in Texas, but there's other races to vote for too. I certainly don't have any reliable source for information- there seems to be 'spin' everywhere. I just know that my philosophy lines up more with the Democrats than the Republicans so they get my vote (there's the Greens- but I'm not going there, not this time). It's nice that they've made at least a grudging effort to separate themselves from the Republicans this time around. Even though both presidential candidates have lived unimaginable (to me) lives of privilege.
The spin on Bush seems to say that he's much more 'likeable' and that's what he may end up winning on. I dunno, I sure don't like him. He's petulant, he smirks, he seems really stuck-up to me, honestly. I couldn't imagine having a decent conversation with the guy.
What else can't you talk about in polite company? Abortion falls under politics, I expect. Most of the people I know believe some variant of "I wouldn't have one, but I wouldn't make it illegal for someone else" which works for me, though I obviously don't have to worry about it any longer. I also think declawing cats is wrong, spanking kids is okay in certain situations, and butter is better for you than margarine. Chocolate donuts are better than plain, and crunchy peanut butter is better than smooth. The Beatles are better than the Rolling Stones, and Japanese motorcycles are better than American ones. Wow, it's really slow at work today.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: Oct. 11th, 2004 02:39 pm (UTC)From:I like your opinions...except smooth peanut butter is better than crunchy and spanking adults is much better than okay under the right circumstances.