The issue is not the abstract inconsistency of the enforcement of TOU, which is explicable by such things as oversight, but the fact that Jeff was involved within a short space of time in both matters. I am sorry, I found the juxtaposition offensive.
I can't imagine what would be offensive about it. Jeff did what Jeff does. He permitted an expression of political belief, an idiotic one, yes, but not an actionable one under SI's well-known policies, and punished what was perceived as a personal attack, something SI does not permit. Irritating, perhaps, but finding that "offensive" is something I would cite as definite evidence of taking things too seriously.
I refused to get caught in a long argument with E, because it is futile, and I do not want to get into it in detail or personally.
Hang on a minute. You have the balls to say this, about SI's atheists (unnamned, but we all know who we are):
To me, they may as well be Jew- haters, even granting they do not limit themselves, but despise those with some religious belief (most of their fellow men) pretty equally.
...and then you try to scoot out the back door saying that you "don't want to get into it in detail or personally"? That won't make it. You know perfectly well, as do the rest of us, why you don't want to argue with E over what you wrote. The comment was unsupportable and indefensible, and if you tried to argue it with E she'd have your guts laid out to dry before you could say "what ho". You knew that, so you headed for the nearest exit. I can't blame you, under the circumstances, but to come back and cry about being misrepresented is hardly appropriate.
I'm still waiting to see a post cited as an example of the "prejudice and contempt" allegedly spewed by atheists. I'm beginning to think there aren't any.
I did not complain about differences of opinion, except in a generic sense that makes what I said meaningless. I complained about certain perspectives: one, that started with the most startlingly nasty assumptions about Bush and his crowd, and that builds from there while begging any question of substantiation; and the other, that started with the most incredible blanket contempt for the foreign policy establishment of the United States, at least in the second half of the 20th century.
To avoid any claims of misrepresentation, here is what you originally wrote:
then I have to listen to endless "same old- same old" foreign policy apercus from some of the posters around here whose fundamental premise is that the entire foreign policy apparatus of the United States was either stupid, deluded, or cynically manipulative since World War II; that the Cold War was a sham; that there was never a justification for "lesser evilism", at least since we supplied "Uncle Joe" through Lend- Lease; that, despite all of the evidence, Reagan's tenure was a "bust"; and that containment, rather than being a largely successful policy followed with remarkable consistency since the late 40s, was
a total waste of energy that compromised our moral position abroad and enabled the "national security state" at home. No, the people I am thinking of know better than all of those who were on the line for what happened in the post- War Era, and they do not need to prove that it was all stupid, it is taken for granted. Of course, then, I am supposed to trust them rather than the Administration in their comments on foreign policy and our military posture. It is a real strain on my politeness.
We both know that nobody outside the lunatic fringe has adopted this whole mouthful as a "fundamental premise". Try as I may, I cannot read this in any way other than "some people disagree with me and I don't like it". If you would like me to read it otherwise, you will have to cite some examples of the kind of extreme position that you are lamenting.
I wonder, does it distress you that some people on the opposite lunatic fringe proclaim the opposite set of extreme positions? There are actually people out there who believe that US foreign policy since WW2 has been consistently brilliant, devoid of error or miscalculation. There are people out there who believe that containment was an unqualified success, a triumph without errors or victims. There are people who believe that everything the US does is right, simply because we are the good guys and we do not do wrong, either by intent or by error. There are people who believe that Reagan's administration was an absolute and unqualified success. There will always be such blindness on both ends of the spectrum. That is no cause for gloom, and only those who take things far too seriously could be reduced to gloom by the ravings of the nut cases on either fringe. The only sensible avenue is to discard the fringe inanities and seek understanding in the middle ground, where we always find that both sides have a part of the picture, and that both sides are incapable of recognizing other parts.
I would deal with the rest of it, but my daughter wants me to draw whales, a far more important task. That will have to do for now. |
