Socio-Political and Religious Intolerance in Off-Topic

It was just one little elephant. Sheesh.

Hehe, I specifically had you in mind when I wrote that, Seth

What about Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose? I didn't think so.

Mhmm. Agree.

Blasphemer!!! And don't even think of getting anywhere near my copy of Focault's Pendulum!

Hmm.. That seems odd. Why would you be so against Ann Rand?

Atlas Shrugged is certainly not an easy book to get through, or exactly a piece of entertainment.

Yet objectivism is an interesting philosophy. It's especially interesting when you consider it in the historical context in which Rand wrote.

I think valuing the individual is something that is worth preserving. While we are indeed social creatures, we are first and foremost individuals. It is an essential part of our being, and to deny it will always lead to misery and failure.

Although, in my opinion, you can pretty much get the gist of objectivism by reading Anthem, rather than going through a massive tome like Atlas Shrugged or The Fountainhead.

Seconded.

Dun' mess with the Umberto-Man. Foucault's Pendulum is a modern literary masterpiece, and I shall tie anyone who thinks differently to the bottom of a working pendulum.

Chip Midnight, myself, and several others have been through this on a thread about an SL socialist party in the political forum. Here, it's a sort of inside joke between Chip and myself.

Check out the other thread, if you're interested.

Hmm.. I'm not sure what thread you're talking about. I did notice that you belittled someone for expressing views taken from Rand's works, but I didn't really see much justification for such a position.

I was just curious as to whether you've actually read much of Ann Rand's work, whether you were against the ideas she presents, her writing style, or whatever.

But, if it's really just some random statement, and doesn't actually relate to Ann Rand, then my mistake. I'm new around here, and don't know the forum's history. And this forum seems to move REAL fast compared to others.

<--is willing to step in deep doo-doo to make a point

My point was that the "wall of literary and demi-religious shame" is a poorly built one, indeed. At any moment, it could topple taking with it centuries of priceless literary work.

If one reads Eco through *just* a Judeo-Christian lens, one misses the point of The Name of the Rose entirely. While I do not advocate for the writing of Ayn Rand or Dan Brown (meh), I would like to point out that much of literary value can be painted with the same "demi-religious" brush.

Eco is a genius.

I wouldn't mind being tied to a working pendulum--just as long as there is adequate clearance for my big, fat butt.

Missed the Rand inside joke--need to scope out the other thread.

And that point would be?

I'm not sniping here, hon. I ask this in all seriousness, because I also want someone ~ ie., not me ~ to write a ... well, I suppose a thesis, actually ... showing the remarkable amount of resonance between Eco's brilliant Name of the Rose and Cronenberg's brilliant Videodrome. Thematically, plottingly, historically ... I mean, I see many such resonances, and they fascinate the hell out of me. But I want someone with a more academic background --- and who's less lazy, too --- to explore this thoroughly, and to render it in accessible text ...

And while I'm all contrasty and comparisony, here? What about how Foucault's Pendulum was like a much smarter, farther-reaching, more entertaining, and certainly less-maddening version of John Fowles's The Magus? Yes? You there, in the back, with the paisley necktie ...



Aw, sweetie ... better have me tied to that pendulum with you ... you and your cute butt, tyvm.

Personally I was both amazed and "amused" (not funny ha ha, but funny disappointed) that the "key an SUV" and "burn a Bible" threads were tolerated at all --- even in the Off-topic forum or even considering any right to free speech claims.

The originator stated in one of those threads that the thread was **intended as a troll** - a violation of the TOS.

Couple this with the fact that the same resident then deletes posts and threads in a sub-forum this same resident moderates because those posts offend that resident's personal perspective of "what that sub-forum should be like" and the extent of the ludicrousness is multiplied.

Toleration required? Why? It's a violation of the TOS.
Amusing to some "with 'higher intellects' and similar senses of humor or political perspectives? and therefore acceptable in Off-Topic BECAUSE it is in Off-Topic? Not. It's still a TOS violation to troll.

Gotta ask those who think it's perfectly acceptable to post trollishly in Off-Topic with the deliberate intention of incitement... what's the point of the TOS then? Does it not apply across the board to all? across all forums? acroos both equally? If not... my question is simple: are there ANY boundaries that "you" do recognize?

I lied. It wasn't a troll. I just said that to turn down the heat on the thread so I could start the second in the series. In fact I think keying an SUV in protest is as acceptable as going to war in Iraq. Think about that last sentence awhile.

~Ulrika~

For the record:

1. I never belittle anyone. I never make random comments.

2. Full discussion on Ayn Rand in the "Socialist Party" thread, rather prominently displayed in the "political science forum."

3. I never comment on what I haven't read. Except to ask questions. Perhaps a tactic you might use? See #2 above.

This:



is the difference between this:



and this:

Granted, Seth.


However, the people who construct the. .



are not concerned with what comprises the wall of. . .



Then again, I am saying this to a proponent of Harold Bloom.

You mean this?

"Naw. You quoted Robert Heinlein, who often pretended to be a serious political ideologue, and then laughed like hell at the fools who took him seriously. And then you went a step further and quoted Ayn Rand.

Which means that no sensible person of any political persuasion will take you seriously. Your only hope is to argue convincingly that you were engaging in stream-of-conciousness political satire."

This seems like you were belittling that guy.

Although I do see that you made explanations of your dislike for Rand, after the last time I had seen that thread. It seemed somewhat colored by underlying poltical bias, but I suppose that's fairly common.