Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Every word a gem

This is just awesome. Picking randomly:

My new rule for when I fancy doing a bit of the ol’ condemnation is: “Do the people I’m condemning have any actual power?”

Or:

However when I see that I’m getting a £3.50 surcharge at a cash machine I want to put their fucking windows through. This is the selfish impulse the right expertly engages but ought to belong to the left.

Or:

My optimism comes entirely from the knowledge that this total social shift is actually the shared responsibility of six billion individuals who ultimately have the same interests. Self-preservation and the survival of the planet. This is a better idea than the sustenance of an elite. The Indian teacher Yogananda said: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.”

Or:

The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity. Not out of some woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle but because we live on it, currently without alternatives. This is why I believe we need a unifying and in - clusive spiritual ideology: atheism and materialism atomise us and anchor us to one frequency of consciousness and inhibit necessary co-operation.

Somewhere along the line I became way too polite.

0
No votes yet

Comments

Submitted by lambert on

In... Wait for it ... Salon. No wonder Greenwald left. Natasha Lennard is, of course, to the odious Chris Bowers as Annie Lowrey is to the odious Ezra Klein. One big happy!

Submitted by hipparchia on

Natasha Lennard is, of course, to the odious Chris Bowers as Annie Lowrey is to the odious Ezra Klein

you should get your facts straight before you start sliming people.

Submitted by lambert on

... married, I would have sworn that Bowers and Lennard are married, as Klein and Lowry are. Since you're saying I'm wrong, had you given consideration to investing a moment in explaining why? Speaking of slime.

And Bowers is odious, and Klein is odious, while Lennard is not odious, and Lowry is not odious (or not as odious as Klein).

Submitted by hipparchia on

Since you're saying I'm wrong, had you given consideration to investing a moment in explaining why?

sure, i considered it.

Submitted by hipparchia on

1. "any stick to beat a dog." heh. sliming natasha lennard by saying she's a bad person just because of who she's married to isn't an example of this? and why is it ok to imply that people who are married to each other are completely interchangeable?

2. it's natasha chart, not natasha lennard, who is married to chris bowers.

criticizing people for what they write or say when they have a large megaphone or tall soapbox, or pointing out which political organizations they run with, is good, and often necessary. personal attacks, otoh, are unwarranted. also, refraining from commenting on people's personal lives can avoid little mistakes like forgetting who is married to whom.

3. "slime" isn't always a motive. sometimes it's just a result.

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit's picture
Submitted by The Infamous Or... on

Polite is okay. In fact, "polite" really ought to be a default setting - good manners can help keep the wheels of society lubed. If I were to post up no end of stupid or abusive material here, I would have my butt tossed from the site - and rightly so!

The trick, though, is to remember that not everybody shares those values, because not everybody is part of One Big Family Of Man. There are a large number of ... let's be polite and call them "predators" ... out there, and they are not, and have not done anything to be, deserving of polite responses. But that's what they *count* on, people being sooooo nice to them while they're performing unnatural financial acts on their victims wallets (and lives and lifestyles and whatnot).

Polite is good. Manners are good. But reserve 'em for the deserving!

Submitted by hipparchia on

i do like this one: “It doesn’t matter if a cave has been in darkness for 10,000 years or half an hour, once you light a match it is illuminated.”

otoh, i'm a "woolly, bullshit tree-hugging piffle ... atheist" so i'm thinking i don't actually want to live in the society that he's dreaming of.

Submitted by lambert on

So maybe "The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity" is the better perspective. Though that seems to argue for a rational religion, and I'm not sure that's possible. I can believe that mycelial mats, hence soil, are sentient, and hence worthy of some sort of worship, but they are material as is the earth and everything in or on it.

The Infamous Oregon Lawhobbit's picture
Submitted by The Infamous Or... on

Worship? Or just the respect that should be accorded by default to other sentients, absent evidence offered by that sentient that it doesn't wish to be respected?

Submitted by hipparchia on

I can believe that mycelial mats, hence soil, are sentient, and hence worthy of some sort of worship,

that's infinitely preferable to the religious sects who teach that god wants us to stone homosexuals to death. if my new revolutionary overlords were to require me to adopt a religion, i'd definitely consider this one.

"The only systems we can afford to employ are those that rationally serve the planet first, then all humanity" is a better (and more inclusive!) paradigm that i can go along with, and i don't see it as either necessarily requiring or creating a religious or spiritual worldview.