White Hart Mildenhall, of course!
12 April 2010
If you could be on the cover of any magazine, which would you choose?
Popular Science! I want to invent SOMETHING cool! :)
What's the furthest you've ever traveled?
Hah, what method? Driving? 3000+ miles. Motorcycle? Same thing. Flying? Probably closer to 7000 miles.
If you were stranded on a desert island, which one person would you bring with you?
Why would I bring anyone to be stranded on a desert island? Nothing grows there except cacti, snakes and scorpions. :P
What's your dream car?
If you'd asked me this 2 weeks ago, it would have been a BMW 728i. However, I now prefer the Mercedes-Benz CLK-550 AMG in black. *nod self*
Sunrise or sunset?
Sunset. I see the sunrise almost every day, and while beautiful, has yet to compare to the sunsets I've seen. :-)
08 April 2010
What 3 things do you think will become obsolete in the next ten years?
Computer keyboards, steering wheels, and DVD's :P
What's the best book you have ever read?
Stranger in a Strange Land, by Robert Heinlein. Of course. :)
What was your favorite birthday gift?
So far, it would have to be the Swiss Army knife my father gave me when I was 10. Sadly I lost it. :(
06 April 2010
A Rant About Commenters on Journalism Pieces
Please read the article (click the title link) BEFORE you read this blog - there's a reason I picked this particular article to do this to.
Ah, my favorite comes next. This guy, I don’t think, even bothered to completely understand what he QUOTED in his post.
Until next time!
I am going to, for once, tear apart the comments on an article, instead of the article itself. The article was well-written, and I fully agree with it. Business owners of ANY type should be allowed to (read: not banned from) discriminate against whomever they so chose, and in doing so, either doom themselves to failure (especially when surrounded by those they discriminate), or public shame (which would end in failure anyway).
Some of the comments, to me, are ridiculous and completely false. Let’s start with the first one that annoyed me (they’re in chronological order on the page).
· Adamastor
6 Apr 2010, 12:36PM
"Yes they should be allowed ? or rather, they should not be banned....."
However, they should be obliged to display their prejudices in advance, so that people who know they will be discriminated against and people who would discriminate against people with such prejudices will know which places to avoid.
Adam Astor postulates that such discriminators should post a sign regarding their discrimination. While on some level ,I agree with this idea, I find it preposterous at the same time. Does Adam Astor wear a sign that he discriminates against lima beans, or dogs with long hair, so that lima beans and dogs with long hair will know before they interact with him that they will be discriminated against? Presumably not. Bonehead comment, Adam Astor.
The next one is comical to me, simply because they commenter proves himself to be a “I’m smarter than you, and I can prove it with this rhetoric” type of person.
· Tehillim
6 Apr 2010, 12:40PM....
“I'm certain he wrote this as a complaint, but callous self-interest on the part of B&B owner would be something quite welcome to the homosexual couple having to drive home in the middle of the night. That's right: I am arguing that the reason we have anti-discrimination legislation is because we're simply not callous or nakedly self-interested enough to ensure people don't get treated like second-class citizens. It might not be the sort of thing Miss World wannabes say, but "I hope, one day, all that matters is money" is, in its own Machiavellian, twisted and evil sort of way, a positive and hope-filled vision for us all.”
You say the couple would have benefited from callous self-interest, but admit that it didn't in this case - and then assert that legislation exists because callous self-interest doesn't overrule all else... and then offer a prayer for a world in which it does? Bonkers article, riddled with contradiction.
Do you see why I find this person to be an idiot? Be honest – it doesn’t make YOU an idiot if you don’t see why, so don’t sweat it. He ends with “riddled with contradiction.” Where does “They COULD benefit [or would, in this case]” contradict “They DIDN’T benefit”? Where does “callous self-interest DOESN’T” contradict “callous self-interest SHOULD” (such as in the case of praying for a world where callous self-interest DOES overrule personal discrimination). Oh, wait, it’s NOT a contradiction. The article doesn’t state flat out that the B&B owners DID benefit, and shortly thereafter state that they DIDN’T. It also doesn’t state that callous self-interest DOES overrule bigotry, and follow that up immediately by stating that it doesn’t. Tehillim, please see a dictionary before you post such rubbish.
I will be making an exception for the next post, as it was comical to me in its sarcasm. I have nothing to say beyond that about this post.
· chiefwiley
6 Apr 2010, 12:34PM....
In our brave new diverse culture, we have to enforce the strictest possible mandate that everybody, and that does mean everybody, must be absolutely and identically diverse. Everybody must also be of the identical opinion about diversity, and anybody who is neither diverse nor fully infatuated with the greatest diversity in every aspect of society must be punished, shunned, and kicked to the curb.
There can be no room in the inn for any difference of opinion about anything, especially among the innkeepers. Tolerance is reserved solely for people who are only intolerant toward approved outsiders and reprobates.
Well said, Chief Wiley. Well said.
This one is not so much of a ridicule-able comment as it is an uninformed comment.
· ProfessorPlums
6 Apr 2010, 12:34PM....
I wonder, would openly gay B&B owners invite heterosexual Christian couples to stay in their establishment?
Why wouldn’t they, Professor Plums? The openly gay couple have already been dealing with the stigma of BEING homosexual in a society where it’s considered abnormal, if not downright unacceptable (depending on where you are). They are more concerned about getting rid of the discrimination than furthering it. Most openly gay people (that I’ve met, at any rate) accept and understand that many people won’t accept them for who they are, but also understand that many more will. I’ve not met one member of the GLBT crowd that discriminates against all heterosexuals. Some heterosexuals, yes, but that’s more of a “they started it” situation.
This next one, I just want to smack. *THWACK* Consider yourself smacked, Sailor1031. This comment (as are all of them) is an OPINION. To YOU, Sailor1031, this point is untenable. Again, my opinion = *SMACK*.
· Sailor1031
6 Apr 2010, 12:44PM....
So Charlotte, where would it stop? Buses? the railways? airlines? banks? how about a B&B that would not accept women as guests? Your point is untenable as you well know.
I personally find your opinion, Sailor1031, untenable, for reasons only I will ever know.
Ah, my favorite comes next. This guy, I don’t think, even bothered to completely understand what he QUOTED in his post.
· Covenant
6 Apr 2010, 12:47PM
"It might not be the sort of thing Miss World wannabes say, but "I hope, one day, all that matters is money" is, in its own Machiavellian, twisted and evil sort of way, a positive and hope-filled vision for us all....."
That someone could in all seriousness write the above can only mean they have no conception of who 'us all' includes. If Charlotte Gore thinks the poor and dispossessed have anything to gain as a result of money being the only thing that matters - she is sadly and grossly mistaken.
I suspect the reality is that she, like all right-wing libertarians, doesn't actually care about the poor - as long as those rich enough to afford it can buy every single thing they've ever desired, then all is apparently right with the world.
The love of money proselytized by the rich really breaks records in self-obsession and self-indulgence.
Covenant, let me explain a concept to you. It’s called READING before you type. Charlotte’s statement about money being all that matters has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with rich or poor. This article was about discrimination, and whether or not B&B owners should be allowed to. Yes, she made mention of the fact that in some ways, it’s as though they are discriminating against the poor, because they can neither afford other accommodations or to bribe their way around the discrimination. Her statement in the final paragraph (which you so eloquently quoted, yet did not understand) was referring to the idea that money should be the only thing concerning anyone, and bigotry itself should be lost. The idea was that who or what the person is shouldn’t matter, and as a business owner, you should only care about the money they give you. In the case of a B&B, if the person or persons checked into your establishment cause problems on your premises (starting fights with other guests, throwing food, peeing on the carpets, banging things around loudly in their rooms, etc), then by all means, contact the authorities and bar THEM.
As for calling Charlotte a “right-wing libertarian” who “doesn’t actually care about the poor”, it's a bit presumptuous, don’t you think? You don’t know her personally, and short of her stating it, you CAN’T know her actual position in life. How do you know she’s not a struggling journalist? You DON’T. Stop making assumptions.
This next one is placed here solely as a kudo to the author of it. Thank you for posting it, whoever you are. I’ll just tag you for the incorrect punctuation usage. Not to worry; kids graduating from university have difficulty with it, so who am I to harp on you about it?
· wotever
6 Apr 2010, 12:51PM
The focus should not be on the fact it is gay people these Christians wish to discriminate against.
It should, instead, be on the fact that it is Christians who wish to have an exception in the law to suit their particular prejudices. against a section of the law abiding public.
It should, instead, be on the fact that it is Christians who wish to have an exception in the law to suit their particular prejudices. against a section of the law abiding public.
Gay people are not looking for special treatment, they want equal treatment, that's all.
So, the only logical conclusion is, that if christians want to separate themselves from the rest of societies laws on equal treatment, then they must accept to be separate themselves, from that same lawful protections.
So, the only logical conclusion is, that if christians want to separate themselves from the rest of societies laws on equal treatment, then they must accept to be separate themselves, from that same lawful protections.
If I ran a B&B, having christian people stay, at the same time as gay, black or different faith people could cause much disharmony because of their stated discriminatory attitude.
This should be enough to allow me to ban christian guests.
This should be enough to allow me to ban christian guests.
After all, I'm sure they have plenty of christian only places they could stay, where of course they would never have to face the horror of meeting a gay person.
My solution is: If you want a special opt out you get one! As long as you accept being opted out, yourself. Problem solved.
Bravo, wotever.
Ken Barlow is an idiot. I think he’s just another Covenant, who didn’t bother reading what he was quoting. Here’s another perfect example.
· KenBarlow
6 Apr 2010, 12:51PM
chief
"Everybody must also be of the identical opinion about diversity, and anybody who is neither diverse nor fully infatuated with the greatest diversity in every aspect of society must be punished, shunned, and kicked to the curb."
Well, yeah, if you run a restaurant in the UK you can't have an overt no whites policy - for a small number of racist restaurant owners this policy must cause huge problems and sleepless nights. For everyone else, however, it's really no big deal - white people have the right to enter a restaurant and not be kicked out because of their skin colour. *shrugs*
Some people don't like this, true, but, really, who cares? Are we really going to see huge demonstrations and civil disobedience from activists demanding the right to exclude white people from shitty restaurants? It's never going to happen and life in the UK will just carry on as normal.
Like I said, if you're a racist and you want to kick white people out of your restaurant you can't. Stop crying about it though and just get on with it. Deal with it. Worse things happen at sea. You're unhappy about serving white people? Well who gives a shit about how unhappy you are? Maybe you should see a Dr and get some pills. Maybe have a holiday. Maybe just stop running a restaurant.
You should remember the post he’s quoting – I applauded it a few comments back. Ken, however, didn’t bother reading it. I’m guessing he saw, “ChiefWhiteHater” where it says “ChiefWiley,” and immediately went on the “If you hate white people, take a pill” tactic. When did Chief Wiley say he hated white people, or that he ran a restaurant? Let’s try sticking to the context, Ken.
Last, we get to a comment from the author of the original article, Charlotte Gore. I suspect she probably didn’t anticipate quite the frothing-at-the-mouth madness she’s incited from a few of the more vindictive posters (some have gone to petty name-calling, while others have simply played the “I’m not angry, I’m disappointed” card, much like your mum used to do), but the way I see it, she’s handled it with aplomb, and I admire her staunch yet guarded optimism for a world without prejudice.
· CharlotteGore
6 Apr 2010, 12:52PM
AllyF
"Your solution is actually socially destructive. It opens the door to a fractured, riven, unhealthy society."
Don't I know it? I really do. I know for a fact this isn't the kind of society I want to live in, but then a) It's not actually up to me b) I have no right to impose my vision of a perfect society on anyone else, c) simply telling people they're not allowed to do X doesn't change the underlying problems at all.
I want to live in a society where we don't need these kind of rules.
Thank you, Charlotte. I couldn’t have said it better myself.
And this concludes my tearing apart of commenters who'd be better off talking to themselves in a padded room (and giving shoutouts to those who were intelligent enough to complete a rational thought BEFORE posting it). :)Until next time!
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)