The better-dead list

[thatcrazycajun]

madfilkentist has banned me from posting comments to his journal on the grounds that he thinks I wish him dead. This is abso-frelling-lutely untrue and an unfair inference from my comment that I did wish California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) dead for his asinine policies with regard to his gay/lesbian constituents, as noted in MF's journal (whether "Ahh-nuld" is acting out of sincere belief or simply pandering to his party's conservative base makes no nevermind to me). If I want someone to disappear because they are doing something that hurts people I am one of/care about, it is a wish only unto that specific person, and my wishes toward anyone else cannot and should not be inferred from it.

If you think I'm wrong in saying this, feel free to post (including you, MF). I hereby publicly apologize to MF for giving the wrong impression, and hope my friend will rescind this ban, but it's his LJ and he can make the rules. Same applies to me and this one...but I will not return a ban for a ban. I will acknowledge that perhaps mine was an extreme reaction, but I am heartily sick and tired of people trying to legislate (their idiotic notions of) morality on me and mine, at all levels of government.

And in regard to the specific policy under discussion, I firmly believe that the teacher is the only one who ought to have any veto power over what is said in the classroom -- not the school board, not the government, not the students and certainly not any of the kids' parents. If any parents object to what their child hears there, it's their business to respond at home with their own views on the matter, not to try and censor everyone else's kids from hearing it. (The only exceptions to this I can think of are advocating violent crime or child molestation, and even then I would argue for a full investigation and due process before shutting/stringing the teacher up.) Not that I expect this will ever be the case in reality; guess I should resign myself to the eternal rule of Lazarus Long's that teaching kids the bald truth is a capital offense in any society.

"The trouble with truth is that it almost always destroys someone's cherished falsehood." -- Lazarus Long, as told to R. A. Heinlein

Comments

[osewalrus.livejournal.com]

Saw the quote. It takes more than this to make me wish someone dead, especially when such a non-permanent means as simply seeing him voted from office are available.

OTOH, I think MF overreacted.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

>>OTOH, I think MF overreacted.<<

I seem to get that a lot... Is it my cologne? :-)

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

You're volatile, you say things in extreme terms, and you talk a lot to people who are also volatile. It's a rough combination. If you intend to keep saying things in extreme terms, you might wanna cultivate some placid friends. :)

[pocketnaomi.livejournal.com]

It takes, in general, the utter lack of a secure but non-lethal method of stopping somebody's behavior for me to want them dead. This isn't to say that there have not been political figures who qualified, but so far, none in this country.

Karma? You're Soaking In It

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I wish no one violence or pain. I don't wish anybody dead. Not even the people I despise. If I wish them to suffer the consequences of their actions, I'd prefer they live long and healthy lives to really let 'em get everything that's coming to 'em.

Re: Karma? You're Soaking In It

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Hrm. You may have something there. If only we could guarantee that they will in fact "really get everything that's coming to 'em." Sadly, the karmic wheel does not always stop on whom it should; far too many who should get their comeuppance instead "fail upward."

Wishing someone dead may not be better, but I am afraid when I get irritable, I go ballistic, especially on my pet issues. Ego sum tantum humanus. (I am only human.)

Re: Karma? You're Soaking In It

[filkertom.livejournal.com]

I know nothing about this whatsoever; my life is blissful with Feng Shui 'n' stuff. :-/ Believe me, vicariously I've been bitch-slappin' a lot of folks the past few years. And, in gaming, I'm ridiculously, stupidly violent. I haven't even got around to installing Unreal Tournament 2004 or WarCraft 3 yet, because I'm too busy milking every frag I can out of Quake 3 Arena. At some point I have to buy Q4 for some fresh freakin' meat.

Yeah, that "fail upwards" happens a little too often for my liking as well. Ye Olde Boyz Netwerkke. Phuque 'em.

Re: Karma? You're Soaking In It

[otherdeb.livejournal.com]

Sorry about this but, who the heck are you to determine who is or isn't getting their fair karma? I like you, but never noticed any sign saying you had godlike powers of determining whether or not others are getting their rightful karma.

Re: Karma? You're Soaking In It

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

perspective is everything.
Maybe Aahnuld is catching shit that doesn't get publicised.

[zsero.livejournal.com]

Hmm, let's see. MF praised something Schwarzenegger did, and you said that you wish Schwarzenegger dead for it. MF thinks, "if I praise his action, then it should be presumed that were I in his place, I would have done the same; had I done so, TCC would wish me dead for it; therefore, by wishing AS dead, he may as well be wishing me dead too".

Now let me borrow your hat for a minute, TCC: "But you're not in AS's place, MF. You haven't done what AS did, and you're not likely to, because you're not likely to be in a position to. I don't wish people dead for what they would do in some utterly unlikely hypothetical circumstances, only for what they have done, or perhaps for what they are likely to do in the near future. If you were to make a serious bid for the governorship of California, I might then have to start considering whether and when to add you to my better-dead list; since you're not, the issue doesn't arise."

There, have I summed it up correctly?

MF seems rather free with the banning. I think it's an Objectivist thing. He's banned me because I've proved myself insufficiently libertarian or something. Because no true libertarian could possibly see any action by the White House as other than completely demonic, or somethin like that; I'm not entirely sure, but I think our last exchange went something like that, so that was probably it.

---

Now to the substance of your comment:

And in regard to the specific policy under discussion, I firmly believe that the teacher is the only one who ought to have any veto power over what is said in the classroom -- not the school board, not the government, not the students and certainly not any of the kids' parents.

Er, in that case, shouldn't you be agreeing with MF, and with Schwarzenegger's veto? I disagree with your argument, since we are talking about what goes on in state schools, where teachers are presumed to be speaking in the name of the state, and therefore the state has a legitimate interest in ensuring that certain views are not taught in its name. (If state school teachers are not speaking and acting in the state's name, then why can't they lead prayers?) But since you seem to believe in complete teacher autonomy, what's your problem with Schwarzenegger's veto, or with MF's praise of it?

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

My understanding of the veto is that it was to deny teachers the right to decide what to teach about homosexuality and relevant public policy. Have I misread or interpreted?

[zsero.livejournal.com]

I think you need to read MF's post again. You seem to have read it backwards or upside down. What a pity if your falling out should have turned out to be over a misunderstanding. Perhaps if you explain that you actually wish the CA legislature dead, and Schwartzenegger alive, MF will unban you, since you happen to agree for once...

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I have gone back and read the original article again. I don't think I did misinterpret: Schwarzenegger vetoed legislation that would have allowed teachers to refrain from discriminating against GLBTQ people in designing curricular materials. If you (or anyone else) still think I'm misreading it, here's the link so you can judge for yourself:

San José Mercury News article (http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/local/states/california/northern_california/15459110.htm)

[zsero.livejournal.com]

You've got it backwards:

The measure, SB 1437 by Sen. Sheila Kuehl, D-Los Angeles, would have prohibited the instruction, use of textbooks or school-sponsored activities that adversely reflect on people based on their sexual orientation.

That's the exact opposite of your summary.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I'm sorry, I don't see how my summary is in opposition to yours. If GLBTQ-adverse material is prohibited, is that not protecting the GLBTQ community against discrimination? If not, how?

[zsero.livejournal.com]

The legislation would not have "allowed teachers to refrain" from teaching such material, as you claimed. They're already allowed to refrain. The legislation would have prohibited them from teaching such material; since you "firmly believe that the teacher is the only one who ought to have any veto power over what is said in the classroom -- not the school board, not the government...", you should condemn the legislature, which attempted to apply just such a veto, and applaud the governor for confounding the attempt.

There is simply no way to reconcile your stated opinion with the legislation, or with your condemnation of the governor for vetoing it.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

Okay, I think I see your point now. Ultimately, I would like for teachers to be free to teach the actual truth of the world and the sciences, free from interference. Whether government policy can accomplish this or not, reasonable people can debate. I tend to think that Jefferson was right in saying "that government governs best which governs least," but I also know that some restraint is necessary against the baser parts of human nature. It also seems to me that no mortal human being can credibly lay claim to knowing the mind of God or the views therein on human behavior, and therefore nobody has any business being allowed to change public policy to suit only their own notion of "morals." Those who attempt to do so, IMO, should be at the very least removed from a position to do so expeditiously. Those who demonstrate a tendency to do this repeatedly earn my undying enmity, though perhaps not deserving execution except in my aggravated and jaundiced mind.

Does that make more sense to you?

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

YOU?
Insufficiently Libertarian?
[gasping on the floor]

[jonbaker.livejournal.com]

Well, actually, I had long thought ZS more of a Republican than a Libertarian. His response to my latest blog post, comparyed with Gary's (MF), bears that out nicely.

[mneme]

Direct agreement with osewalrus -- it takes a lot more than this for me to wish someone dead (and honestly, Schartzeneger is pretty liberal as far as Republican pols go; it seems to me that that his conservative vetos (notably gay marriage and this) were both justified along "I agree with the bill on this issue, but think it's unnecessary"). I don't even wish the Shrub dead -- just out of office and probably on trial.

[billroper]

I firmly believe that the teacher is the only one who ought to have any veto power over what is said in the classroom -- not the school board, not the government, not the students and certainly not any of the kids' parents.

So would it be all right if a teacher was a Holocaust denier? Or (at the risk of invoking Godwin's law) taught that Adolf Hitler was a great man? How about Fidel Castro (just to head off toward the opposite end of the political spectrum)?

I'm not sure that you've thought this through. Or, if you have, you may have a much different view of the consequences than I do...

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I don't want to see a Holocaust denier or Hitler-lover teaching either. But if we open the door to saying they can't teach those things, then the precedent can be used to say, "No, you can't teach that gay is okay" as well. If parents communicate their own values to their children well enough, the kids should be able to see through such rubbish on their own.

[billroper]

Understood. But that means that a teacher could decide on his or her own to teach that being gay is a bad and evil thing and there would be nothing that could be done about it.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

I debated a long while whether to post this. I finally decided that, since you've explicitly requested feedback.

I want to say this bluntly, becuase I care about you as a friend, and I do not wish to be misunderstood.

You piss people off because you state your opinions loudly and often quite brashly. You piss people off when you don't stop to consider the reaction other people might have to your opinion, particularly when they might not agree with you. You piss people off when you tar people with the broad brush you are indiscriminately wielding. You piss people off becuase you don't appear to have any respect for other people's boundries.

In short, you piss people off because you don't think, because you aren't considerate, and because you shoot first and ask questiosn later.

Worse yet, you get in trouble with this sort of thing again and again, and don't seem to learn.

Perhaps instead of backpeddling and protesting that you were misunderstood every single time this happens, you should set aside some time for introspection and self-analysis, and see if you can determine why you do this over and over again.

[thatcrazycajun.livejournal.com]

I thank you for being friend enough to tell me truthfully that I am behaving badly - and worse, behaving badly on a repeated basis. Perhaps I should not even be using a medium where it is so easy to post one's thoughts before one has had time to think them all the way through. I certainly don't want to make anyone angry or do anyone wrong. I will take the suggestion and attempt to figure out why this happens so often and how to prevent it. I had no idea I was proving to be such a consistent asshole, and I apologize wholeheartedly to all concerned.

[autographedcat.livejournal.com]

You're welcome.

As to the other part of your post, I offer a passage from Tolkien as a reason I disagree with your nation that Arnie, or anyone, deserves to die:

"What a pity that Bilbo did not stab that vile creature [Frodo declares] when he had a chance!"

"Pity? [Gandalf replies] It was Pity that stayed his hand. Pity, and Mercy: not to strike without need. And he has been well rewarded, Frodo. Be sure that [Bilbo] took so little hurt from the evil, and escaped in the end, because he began his ownership of the Ring so. With Pity."

"I am sorry" said Frodo. "But I am frightened; and I do not feel any pity for Gollum."

"You have not seen him," Gandalf broke in.

"No, and I don’t want to," said Frodo. ". . . Now at any rate he is as bad as an Orc, and just an enemy. He deserves death."

"Deserves it! I daresay he does. Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. I have not much hope that Gollum can be cured before he dies, but there is a chance of it. And he is bound up with the fate of the Ring. My heart tells me that he has some part to play yet, or good or Ill, before the end; and when that comes, the pity of Bilbo may rule the fate of many -- yours not least."

Something to think about.

Only Human

[(Anonymous)]

I would think that the folks reading your comments on LJ would (de-facto) take your comments as being your opinion only. DUH That is what this community is all about, people sharing ideas, opinions, perspectives. If one is going to take someone else's opninion as a personal threat or attack, one needs to limit his/her circle of those whose opinions are welcome.
Therefore, TCC, take it not to heart that you have been 'banned' (read: censored) out of that person's LJ. That person is not yet evolved enough to consider more than his own POV. You are trancendant!

OTOH, you may want to heed the previous advice, and consider the feelings of those more sensitive than ourselves. Don't want to overwhelm the poor dears, you know.

Peace,
Baggy

[kitanzi.livejournal.com]

May I suggest that taking this as "you're a consistent asshole" is also an overreaction? You do have a pattern, in my experience, of not recognizing when something you say may be offensive, or even when it has already offended. You are by no means an asshole, but you're not very socially aware. :)

[msminlr.livejournal.com]

in short, a typical fan-guy

[delennara.livejournal.com]

Urgh. You know, while I don't think it is any kind of rule, I restrain myself from writing about politics, religion and education exept under rather close friends locks.
Those seem to be the themes which seem to lead almost surely into flamewars and ugly discussions.
But it doesn't say that you aren't allowed to discuss them - at least I hope that your country still allowes the right of free opinion expressed publicy.
Only I, myself, grew tired of that sort of discussion. Because it seems to be very unlikely to convince anyone anyway.