![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Jan. 30th, 2008
Discussions of race are always, always framed in such a way as to put the onus for explaining and educating on the people of color; its no different in fandom. The "I can't write about characters of color because I'll get it wrong" argument has a subtext, to those of us who've heard it over and over and over again, of, "You people are never satisfied!" instead of "How can I get it right?" Coming from people who routinely write about gay men when they're neither gay nor male, that always leaves me puzzled. And shouldn't every writer ask "How can I get it right?" about all aspects of characterization?
Rest here:http://darkrosetiger.livejournal.com/364844.html
Also:
You know how I realized that was stupid, anyway? When I noticed there are people out there who think they can't write Martha/Mickey/etc because they'll get characters of color wrong, and then they go and write about a 900-year-old time-travelling alien.
From: commenter here: http://darkrosetiger.livejournal.com/364844.html?thread=2149420#t2149420
Thank you,
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
starkeymonsterA Pragmatic Endorsement of Hilary Clinton
Jan. 30th, 2008 08:16 pmJanuary 05, 2008
Why I'm Supporting Hillary (for now)
I've been hearing a lot from my Obama-supporting friends about how inspired they are by him and that's truly a wonderful thing. We've had eight years of horrible, divisive, cynical, mud-slinging, non-representational politics, and going into an election where people are feeling hopeful about our political future for the first time in forever--rather than merely going for the lesser of two evils--is life-changing.
I really mean that.
In addition, I hear the arguments against Hillary having caved and supported the war initially, and no, I don't believe that she genuinely supported the war. I do believe that she caved and went with political expediency at a time when the winds were blowing irresistably that way. I don't care that we'll never know how Obama would have voted on that one. Obama's stance on the war if he'd been in a position of power is immaterial.
Because the reason I support Hillary is exactly that she bowed to political expediency rather than follow her conscience and possibly--probably--lose her seat.
Rest here:
http://clairelight.typepad.com/seelight/2008/01/why-im-supporti.html
In my view, this blogger has got a point. Many points.And if Hilary hadn't pulled the race card, then I wouldn't care. But she did. And I can't in good conscience vote for her, it goes against all my Liberal Idealistic Values. All I can do is hope that if Obama wins, he'll be practical, pragmatic and progressive.Someone who will go to war to push through the stuff that needs to go through, if he or she has to. Someone who will not compromise and give away too much in the name of unity. Because hope is a fine thing. But Liberals have tolerated flatout bullshit for way too long. The policies have been hijacked by extremist conservatives for more than long enough. It's WAYYYYYY past time for progressive change.
Why I'm Supporting Hillary (for now)
I've been hearing a lot from my Obama-supporting friends about how inspired they are by him and that's truly a wonderful thing. We've had eight years of horrible, divisive, cynical, mud-slinging, non-representational politics, and going into an election where people are feeling hopeful about our political future for the first time in forever--rather than merely going for the lesser of two evils--is life-changing.
I really mean that.
In addition, I hear the arguments against Hillary having caved and supported the war initially, and no, I don't believe that she genuinely supported the war. I do believe that she caved and went with political expediency at a time when the winds were blowing irresistably that way. I don't care that we'll never know how Obama would have voted on that one. Obama's stance on the war if he'd been in a position of power is immaterial.
Because the reason I support Hillary is exactly that she bowed to political expediency rather than follow her conscience and possibly--probably--lose her seat.
Rest here:
http://clairelight.typepad.com/seelight/2008/01/why-im-supporti.html
In my view, this blogger has got a point. Many points.And if Hilary hadn't pulled the race card, then I wouldn't care. But she did. And I can't in good conscience vote for her, it goes against all my Liberal Idealistic Values. All I can do is hope that if Obama wins, he'll be practical, pragmatic and progressive.Someone who will go to war to push through the stuff that needs to go through, if he or she has to. Someone who will not compromise and give away too much in the name of unity. Because hope is a fine thing. But Liberals have tolerated flatout bullshit for way too long. The policies have been hijacked by extremist conservatives for more than long enough. It's WAYYYYYY past time for progressive change.
Movie I want to see ...
Jan. 30th, 2008 09:25 pmShelter. Starring Brad Rowe and Trevor Wright. Released by here! Films. Coming to theaters March 2008, followed by an exclusive run on here! Networks April 2008.
Blurb:Forced to give up his dreams of art school, Zach spends his days working a dead-end job and helping his needy sister care for her son. In his free time he surfs, draws and hangs out with his best friend, Gabe, who lives on the wealthy side of town. When Gabe's older brother, Shaun, returns home, he is drawn to Zach's selflessness and talent. Zach falls in love with Shaun while struggling to reconcile his own desires with the needs of his family.
The kiss from 2:09-2:11. The nuzzling. *melts at the cute* What the hell is here! Networks? Myspace is here: http://www.myspace.com/shelterathere with pretty pictures and more clips.
http://www.secularstudents.org/node/1933
Via
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
dark_christian
MySpace: No place for Atheists?
Submitted by august on Wed, 2008-01-30 18:09.
Contact: Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D., b.pesta@csuohio.edu
MySpace Deletes Largest Atheist Group in the World.
Cleveland, OH.— Social networking site, MySpace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content.
Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time MySpace has cancelled the group since November 2007.
What’s unique in this case is that the Atheist and Agnostic Group was the largest collection of organized atheists in the world. The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and the Secular Student Alliance.
“MySpace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”
“It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics-- and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do,” said Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain of Harvard University. News Corporation, Murdoch’s global media corporation which also includes Fox News, purchased MySpace in 2005.
“My personal profile was deleted as well, and despite weeks of emails to customer service, plus a petition signed by 500 group members, MySpace won’t budge. I think these actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America (and to businesses whose money was spent displaying ads on our group) that we are not welcome on MySpace,” said Pesta.
For a Wikipedia article on the now defunct atheist and agnostic group, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group.
For links to Pesta’s defunct group and profile, visit http://www.MySpace.com/aiffb.
###
Well, hello Myspace. Fuck you very much, you intolerant extremist-pandering piece of shit. So, atheists annoy you all, do they? And therefore our voices need to be deleted, don't they? So much for tolerance. Apparently what that means is let the religionists rule our lives and fuck anyone who says differently.
Jane Smiley hit it on the head a year ago here on The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/tolerance-or-social-con_b_16005.html:
When Christians talk about secular Americans being “tolerant” of Christian beliefs, they are misusing the word. What conservative Christians want is not toleration, but social control. Toleration takes place between two people who know one another, and is a feature of personal relationships. Social control is about who gets the power to dictate policy and law. Christians like Mark Joseph sometimes play the “tolerance” card as a way to present themselves as a disempowered group, but what it is about them that is disempowered is their ability to tell the rest of us what to do. And most of the rules they want us to follow are abstract–rules about how men and women should relate, rules about what families should look like, rules about what people should learn. The program, for Christian conservatives, is not essentially about faith or morality–those are elements in a larger program. The larger program is enforcing conformity. What’s the real goal? Well, no doubt it is money and power–have you seen how wealthy the Pope is? Of Pat Robertson? Or the pastors of some of those other mega-churches?
Secularists are sometimes called “fundamentalist” because they hold their beliefs–say pro-choice, separation of church and state–quite passionately. They vehemently do not want to be dictated to by religious groups, and they do not want their children to be forced to go to religious schools (school where creationism is taught as science). They are alleged to be “intolerant” of Christians. But the secularists are rarely if ever saying “Do as I do”, they are saying “Leave me alone”. The Christians quite often are not only saying, “Do as I do”, but also “My right is to make you live by my beliefs, and if you resist me, then you are ‘intolerant’.”
Lord, please save me from your followers!!!
Via
dark_christian MySpace: No place for Atheists?
Submitted by august on Wed, 2008-01-30 18:09.
Contact: Bryan J. Pesta, Ph.D., b.pesta@csuohio.edu
MySpace Deletes Largest Atheist Group in the World.
Cleveland, OH.— Social networking site, MySpace.com, panders to religious intolerants by deleting atheist users, groups and content.
Early this month, MySpace again deleted the Atheist and Agnostic Group (35,000 members). This deletion, due largely to complaints from people who find atheism offensive, marks the second time MySpace has cancelled the group since November 2007.
What’s unique in this case is that the Atheist and Agnostic Group was the largest collection of organized atheists in the world. The group had its own Wikipedia entry, and in April won the Excellence in Humanist Communication Award (2007) from the Humanist Chaplaincy at Harvard University and the Secular Student Alliance.
“MySpace refuses to undelete the group, although it never violated any terms of service,” said Bryan Pesta, Ph.D., the group’s moderator. “When the largest Christian group was hacked, MySpace’s Founder, Tom Anderson, personally restored the group, and promised to protect it from future deletions.”
“It is an outrage if Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation and the world’s largest social networking site tolerate discrimination against atheists and agnostics-- and if this situation goes unresolved I’ll have little choice but to believe they do,” said Greg Epstein, humanist chaplain of Harvard University. News Corporation, Murdoch’s global media corporation which also includes Fox News, purchased MySpace in 2005.
“My personal profile was deleted as well, and despite weeks of emails to customer service, plus a petition signed by 500 group members, MySpace won’t budge. I think these actions send a clear message to the 30 million godless people in America (and to businesses whose money was spent displaying ads on our group) that we are not welcome on MySpace,” said Pesta.
For a Wikipedia article on the now defunct atheist and agnostic group, visit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atheist_and_Agnostic_Group.
For links to Pesta’s defunct group and profile, visit http://www.MySpace.com/aiffb.
###
Well, hello Myspace. Fuck you very much, you intolerant extremist-pandering piece of shit. So, atheists annoy you all, do they? And therefore our voices need to be deleted, don't they? So much for tolerance. Apparently what that means is let the religionists rule our lives and fuck anyone who says differently.
Jane Smiley hit it on the head a year ago here on The Huffington Post http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jane-smiley/tolerance-or-social-con_b_16005.html:
When Christians talk about secular Americans being “tolerant” of Christian beliefs, they are misusing the word. What conservative Christians want is not toleration, but social control. Toleration takes place between two people who know one another, and is a feature of personal relationships. Social control is about who gets the power to dictate policy and law. Christians like Mark Joseph sometimes play the “tolerance” card as a way to present themselves as a disempowered group, but what it is about them that is disempowered is their ability to tell the rest of us what to do. And most of the rules they want us to follow are abstract–rules about how men and women should relate, rules about what families should look like, rules about what people should learn. The program, for Christian conservatives, is not essentially about faith or morality–those are elements in a larger program. The larger program is enforcing conformity. What’s the real goal? Well, no doubt it is money and power–have you seen how wealthy the Pope is? Of Pat Robertson? Or the pastors of some of those other mega-churches?
Secularists are sometimes called “fundamentalist” because they hold their beliefs–say pro-choice, separation of church and state–quite passionately. They vehemently do not want to be dictated to by religious groups, and they do not want their children to be forced to go to religious schools (school where creationism is taught as science). They are alleged to be “intolerant” of Christians. But the secularists are rarely if ever saying “Do as I do”, they are saying “Leave me alone”. The Christians quite often are not only saying, “Do as I do”, but also “My right is to make you live by my beliefs, and if you resist me, then you are ‘intolerant’.”
Lord, please save me from your followers!!!