Things I need to do, and stuff I've got on my mind

[wordinista]

Because posting my to-do lists on my LJ actually helps me GET STUFF DONE:

Vacuum
Clean kitchen
Empty dishwasher
Laundry (in progress: 1 load washing, one on-deck)
Dust living room
RESEARCH PAPER (goal: 3 single-spaced pages [which I will then convert to double-spaced so I beam at my level of accomplishment])
GO TO HOME DEPOT and get:
      4 3/4"X10' PVC pipe
      24 3/4" PVC end caps (...I may need only 12)
      Adhesive vinyl stripes, possibly found at a sign shop?

I am exceptionally disappointed in the Miami/FSU game -- I know the 'Canes are a freshman-heavy team this year, but a lot of the coaching decisions seem to be more of the same.  Randy Shannon cleaned out the staff, as far as I know, but his replacements don't seem to be doing much better than the previous staff.  I don't know.  I DO know that my boys were able to come back from a nearly 20 point deficit, going into the half with a 3-21 score.  The game ended 39-41, though there were a lot of wacky flukes that happened, which benefitted the 'Canes.  I'm still disappointed they lost this game -- really, this was the only game I wanted them to win.  And they lost by two.  :(

I have a much longer post in mind, re: people's political posts and the posts of people who are Sick to Death of Politics and the consequent posts from the former group, but I have a lot I want to do today, and probably won't get around to writing it.  But here's my basic breakdown:

1.  These are our LJs.  Some of us pay for the space, and some don't, but the fact remains that these are our little corners of the virtual universe, and should be a Safe Place for us to talk about what we like, and what we don't like.  This goes for folks talking about politics as well as the folks who are Sick to Death of reading entry after political entry on their frends lists.  Free speech, yo.  It goes both ways.  (And it really doesn't matter if they're just sick of reading political entries, or if they're sick of politics altogether.  Our LJs are places where we can express ourselves and our opinions, however unpopular.  As long as it falls within LJ's TOS and doesn't fall under the rubric of speech NOT covered by the Constitution, i.e. inciting people to riot or what have you, then people can pretty much bitch about whatever they want to bitch about.)

2.  There is, of course, an excellent argument in "if you don't like it, don't read it," and I support that argument wholeheartedy.  However, as much as we insist that these are our personal journals, putting something out there means that someone's going to read it.  We have our friends lists because there are people with whom we want to share our thoughts.  So it's problematic to say "so don't read my entry" when these are friends we're talking about -- people we ostensibly want to share our ideas and opinions with.  And also, that argument likewise works both ways -- no one HAS to read anyone else's entries.  We choose to.  And by making that choice, we run the risk of tripping across views we disagree with.  It's not fair to say, "If you don't like it, don't read it. Suck it up and deal," because the same can go for whoever's reading those "OMG ENOUGH ALREADY" posts on their f-lists.  If you don't want to read those types of posts, then don't.  But if that continues, there's going to be a whole lot of talking, and not much listening going on.

3.  So maybe it's an issue of courtesy.  Personally, insofar as politics goes, I don't care who says what on their blog.  It's their blog.  It's their space.  It's their tiny little bit of internet real-estate.  I care when huge, long, winding posts (political or otherwise) aren't put behind LJ cuts.  I care when I see the people I like and respect using hateful, vitriolic language against people whose ideas and principles differ from their own.  It's not the politics or lack thereof I take issue with, it's negative, angry, condescending, hateful, and, yes, ignorant language (from either side) that bothers me. 

And it would bother me no matter what the topic; however, politics seems to bring out the worst in a lot of us when we're faced with those whose opinions are in opposition to ours.  Because, for me, that anger and that negativity says a lot about the person, and I'm finding myself disappointed in people -- not in their views, but in the language they're using to express those views.  Now, granted, it's their LJ, and they can say what they want on it, but that doesn't mean that there won't be repercussions later, because "freedom of speech" does not equal "freedom from repercussions."  Does this mean we should censor ourselves on our own LJs?  No, I don't think so.  But there is something to be said for courtesy -- we have friends-locks, LJ-cuts, and filtered locks for a reason. 

People on our friends-lists are our friends, remember, and while I don't condone walking around on eggshells, being worried to speak our minds (I was there myself not too long ago), I think it's important to give people a choice when it comes to reading or not-reading posts that are lengthy, issue-oriented, potentially incendiary, or that otherwise have the potential to carry with them repercussions.  Personally, I try to remember to use LJ cuts, warning people of a rant, a lengthy entry,  strong language, or what have you.  Because while it is my LJ, I understand not everyone wants to read overly long, or exceptionally ANGRY entries. 

...Overly long entries like this one.  XD

Comments

[aoi-tsuki1.livejournal.com]

True, dat. I know you well enough to know you mean it, too, as an intelligent person and not...geez, pretty much the only non-Obama voter I can think of on my f-list. *waits for masses of previously silent ppl to chime in*

Perhaps this is weird, but I've become inured to most political discussion (though I might've caved recently out of annoyance at various factors), and even the most ignorant vitriol - again, from either side - is only kind of annoying...unless it's coming from my dad. That's why I'm dreading the outcome of the election: the gloating and piss-and-moan-ing will be endless no matter who wins, and I already know who I'm going to have to avoid. :(

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Yeah, I do mean it -- but you know me pretty well anyway. I'm not sick of the political entries themselves, but of the overwhelming negativity, and the level of vitriol that's almost fandomesque in its ferocity. Those kinds of attitudes were the reason I left the IY fandom, and, gawd, you know that firsthand.

...The silence of the McCain supporters is something that's been bothering me more and more recently. I've seen loads of news stories of McCain supporters whose cars have been vandalized, whose yard signs have been stolen or otherwise vandalized, and in one case, a man was beaten up for telling some guy who was vandalizing a McCain sign to knock it off.

There was a blog entry... somewhere, I cannot remember where or else I would cite it, where some fans wearing McCain shirts were denied entry to the Bears/Eagles game at Soldier Field (security citing "no political messages"), while folks wearing Obama pins or shirts were allowed in. Stuff like this bothers me, because it's starting to step on the toes of the First Amendment, and that's when I get prickly. Using intimidation (speaking more to the folks doing the vandalizing -- I don't know what's up with security at Soldier Field) to effectively prevent people from expressing themselves Is Not Cool, no matter which side you're on.

[aoi-tsuki1.livejournal.com]

*nodnod* It'd be twelve degrees of impossible to calculate how many jerky and/or illegal scare tactics, misinformation and even incidents of physical violence are perpetrated on each side; sadly enough, some people (not you) are content to throw them back and forth till one runs out, in which case the other "wins." Duuuuumb. And who knows how many of these things are known/approved by the candidates themselves? Not me.

It's kind of silly not to argue that the media's paying more attention to potentially racist or assholish Obama detractors--I've never seen any stories I can remember about people being bullies or outright dicks to McCain supporters, or if I have, it ends on a "See, the Book of Revelations said he was the Antichrist!! Poor people suck!!" note, which kind of pisses on its credibility. That said? Damn my brain if I ever thus conclude that it doesn't ever happen. Gahhh.

We should become omniscient and just get it over with.

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

I've never seen any stories I can remember about people being bullies or outright dicks to McCain supporters

The one that really sticks out in my mind was this guy (a gentleman on the elderly side -- probably in his early 60s) pulled over because he saw someone defacing a McCain sign. He told them to knock it off, and the guy doing the defacing beat him up (punching him in the pacemaker in the process, which sounds like the punchline of a really bad joke, I'll admit).

We should become omniscient and just get it over with.

A-freaking-men.

[ankoku-jin.livejournal.com]

This is what I likes about you, bunneh. *squishes* XD

Seriously, though, we may differ in which candidate we support (OK, to be totally honest I don't really support any of them, all are very flawed in some way) but you've stated your choice in a reasoned, logical manner and I can totally respect that. Contrast with all the unreasoning hate that I see (because many people vote for moral standpoints, which are by nature NEVER logical) and yeah.... it's damned refreshing, let me tell you.

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

*squishes back!*

Yeah, a lot of the moral arguments sort of... fall flat with me. I mean, I get what you're saying -- all of the candidates ARE flawed in some way. And I myself had planned on voting for Obama at first, but the more I learned about him and his policies, the less I believed I wanted to hand him the keys to the country. But, since I don't believe in NOT voting, I've made the best decision I can, based on what issues are important to me. (Economy, kind of at the top of the list.)

I've gotten into arguments with students who wanted to write argumentative papers, defending moral standpoints, because I refused to accept that as a topic, and promised an F if they tried. I was once reported to the department chair for doing this. I have argued passionately with my mother in favor of gay marriage. I believe firmly in a woman's right to choose (and to folks who want to make THAT a moral argument, I say "judge not lest ye be judged, man").

Issues with their roots in moral arguments will never be resolved with any degree of satisfaction for either side -- people aren't happy with compromises in that case. And I do not want politicians arguing for or against these "moral" issues. Good GRIEF, consider the level of corruption and greed in Washington -- and people want them to make sound decisions on moral issues? WTF?

[darkfrog24.livejournal.com]

This... ...is interesting. I find myself quite intrigued. I've never herad of moral arguments talked of as inherently illogical before. Religious arguments, sure, but not moral ones.

If you'd care to tell me where you're coming from on this, I would be most interested.

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

Well, for me, it's the difference between "morality" and "ethics." Ethics are... slightly different -- morality is based heavily on personal and familial beliefs. For my money, morality is something we've had instilled in us (or not) from an early age.

For instance, I had a student want to argue that abortion was immoral -- but there's no quantifiable evidence to prove or disprove the morality of abortion. You can't measure morality, you can't cite it, and because morality itself is so subjective, and individuals have different moral compasses, it's difficult if not downright impossible to present a coherent argument, possibly because it's more an emotional argument than anything else.

Granted, morals and ethics do cross paths, and while it's sometimes easy to point to unethical behavior and say "That's immoral," it's not always so black and white.

I've heard of this on an NCIS episode in which Ducky was getting his master's... (didn't get it)

[darkfrog24.livejournal.com]

I have pored over the 'pedia looking for a clear writeup of the distinction between ethics and morals when the two are not used synonymously. The closest I've gotten is ethics as the study of morals, but I'm not sure even that's dead-on. The examples of ethical schools of thought seem more concrete to me than the examples of moral thought, but that might just be because I've seen them before.

So you would have been willing to accept a paper arguing that abortion was or wasn't unethical? Or something more concrete about whether or not abortion/trickle-down economics/cheese whiz sculpting did or did not harm society in some way?

Re: I've heard of this on an NCIS episode in which Ducky was getting his master's... (didn't get it)

[w0rdinista.livejournal.com]

If I remember correctly, in one of my classes, the prof defined ethics as determining what is right or wrong, but taking into consideration that circumstances influence ethics. Morals, for my money, are less... flexible, rooted more in emotion, and, as I said, more subjective.

Considering that the assignment was for the students to write a research paper, using research and facts to prove or disprove their thesis, I was hesitant to accept any topics in which people were deeply invested emotionally. I was willing to meet with any student who WANTED to write on those topics, and to discuss how they planned to proceed, but reminded them that research papers based on their personal belief system were problematic at best.

So you would have been willing to accept a paper arguing that abortion was or wasn't unethical?

To answer your question, it would have depended heavily on the student, how they planned to conduct their research, what reliable sources they expected to use, and so forth. I can't answer yes or no, because every student's thought process and research paper strategy was different. My first question would have been, "And how do you plan to prove/disprove that?" And my decision would have been based heavily on whatever their reply might have been. (The woman who wanted to write that abortion was morally wrong wanted to cite heavily from the Bible -- something I found problematic for a research paper. She then wanted to write about video games being "morally wrong," at which point, I suggested to her that she could probably make an excellent argument against excessive violence in video games, as long as she recognized that the video game industry does use a rating system. I don't remember what she eventually wrote about.)

I did encourage them to tackle more concrete issues that relied less on "I feel" statements, because, for a freshman/sophomore comp class (a good number of whom consistently struggled with identifying reliable vs. unreliable sources), a research paper dealing with concrete issues would have yielded more research results and citation sources. Less of a headache overall.

But my big thing was "you cannot argue beliefs or personal preference." The analogy I used most often was that if you prefer chocolate ice cream to vanilla, no amount of persuasion is going to make you believe otherwise. Likewise, no amount of verbiage is going to convince a Hindu it really is actually okay to eat beef.