What's also interesting is that people had done something casually
that offended Patrick. Then as many people as I've seen object to
anything he's said are wondering why Patrick is complaining (not
casually, but quite formally) about something a group of people
have done casually and (arguably) victimlessly.
For some people, casual intent is an excuse for almost any
behavior. The rational for this is because for some people, and to
varying degrees, realizing possibilities comes first, which depends
on tolerance of the casual. What then does a publicly-presented
opinion owe to these people?
I'm wondering what kind of reaction Patrick would have gotten if
instead he had expressed reservations that a court of people were
demonstrating disgust at music fans who they (the court of the
disgusted) felt were devoted to music -- not because the impact of
the music held up over time (if ever, arguably) but because their
devotion was based on reliving the past.
(I remember music [of the reliving-of-the-past variety] being a
common theme in reaching difficult patients of Oliver Sacks [and so
I withhold my sympathy from those who vent disgust at such an
application of music].)
And how does this relate to the complaints, of which Patrick
shared, against Kevin Drum for allowing access to his content by an
unapologetic conservative. Is Kevin owed the same consideration
against casual disgust as classic-rock fans, or no?
Comment statistics for Mike on the Making Light blog
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Mike:
Show all comments by Mike.