Betcha the concept would be a lot less popular if the French-language version weren't available and people had to fall back on "freaking the mundanes" to describe the behaviour.
Thank you for the link back; I went through and read a lot of stuff. (Because I should be writing, of course, heh.)
There are times I wish I had some sort of place I could look through and see what mainstream consensual reality looks like; I've never known, and it would be awfully useful at times like these. Because I really don't know how widespread this perspective is, this notion that the left is anti-religion.
To the extent it exists, I think it's a big bloody problem. I just can't judge the extent from here.
I know that a large part of where I have very little give in my political positions comes down to a refusal to support people who are opposed to who I am. (Like my position that I won't vote for anyone who thinks that my marriage needs to be defended from people like me.) Who I am is, among other things, religious.
As I said, I don't know how widespread this anti-religious presumption is; I see other commenters are far more familiar with its effects than I am.
I think there's another side to it, and it may be one that's more palatable to those people who are crying "pandering".
The vast majority of arguments of opposition to the concept of religion that I have seen are, well, dumb. They mistake the practices or beliefs of small groups for the beliefs of the majority; they mistake tendencies in religions that they're familiar with for intrinsic properties of religion as a whole.
I'm a minority of a minority, religion-wise; this puts me in the interesting position of rarely seeing a condemnation of "religion" that actually has any relationship with my religious beliefs at all. (And have the occasional dubious pleasure of seeing people cite my gods as notions too ludicrous to be believed in.)
I just can't take people who say those sorts of things seriously. If their positions are so ill-researched that they think that all religions are evangelising, that religion is the same as belief in an omniscient, omnipotent creator, that religion is intrinsically bound up with fear of hell, that religion and science are incompatible, or any of the other things that I see coming down the pike every so often -- well, if someone's arguing like that, I know they're talking ballocks. Am I supposed to trust what they say on some other subject?
Blowing one's credibility to make cheap shots that miss is not a productive strategy.
I must say, having Beethoven, Pachelbel, Vivaldi et al listed provides me with the sort of comfortable whimsical feeling I need to start my working day in good mettle.
Ah, the Style Invitational. Yum. Thanks for the pointer, I always forget to dig it up. . .
Always an excitable boy . . .
1167 to 0.
What an . . . interesting . . . running count we're getting in these comments.
It had a distinctive 'second part of trilogy' feel for me; the people I saw it with and I were commenting on that.
I'm working on a theory that the power-generation thing is supplementary; it may be what the humans know, but like Stefan Jones said, the Matrix is where the AIs live -- and I suspect at least some part of it is generated from human minds. Hence why they don't just chuck the humans and go for a more efficient fusion reactor.
The rhythm was different than the first one; Kevin didn't like that, I'm still pondering what I think of it.
If you got too little sleep, Kate, I got too much; that was roughly my thought too. (But I may be biased by my peanut allergy.)
I read the article by hitting the 'printable copy' link or some such, if that helps anyone who's finding it blank.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2004 | 3 |
| 2003 | 7 |
Total: 10 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Electrolite by Darkhawk:
Show all comments by Darkhawk.