I hope your womun keeps the racket down while we nap. Mammy kin raise quite a ruckus cleanin' the kitchin, and then I hafta go sleep out in the woods.
or maybe NASCAR weekly.
One ah these days, ah'll be on the cover.
Kicks body Is it dead yet?
My friend Duncan died once (actually more than once), and they brought him back as a ghola.
Something that thread brought up is what does "Feminism" mean now-a-days?
Beyond defining feminism as a movement that fights for social, economic, and political equality for women, I don't think you can easily define what feminism means to people nowadays. Feminism means a lot of different things to a lot of different people, and trying to narrow it down to a list of bulleted points leaves out a lot of different perspectives. For example, there are feminists who think that marriage is a socially acceptable form of prostitution advanced by the patriarchal society, while others think that marriage is a beautiful relationship shared between consenting adults. Some believe that pornography can be socially liberating for women, while others find it demeaning and objectifying to women.
I think that if you want to know how people define feminism today, you need to be willing to listen respectfully to a lot of different ideas and perspectives from a lot of different people. After all, the experience of a woman fighting for equality in America is going to be very different from the experience of a woman fighting for equality in Iran. What might seem vitally important to one, might seem trivial or even counterproductive to the other.
As far as feminism in gaming is concerned, again, I think that it largely depends on your perspective. If you're a game designer, I think you need to take into consideration how pronouns, artwork, and stories might affect the sale of your products to women. If you're a gamer, I think you need to keep the sensitivities of the other players at your table in mind. If a player objects to a particular characterization of women or men in game, listen respectfully, and try to take their opinions into consideration as you develop your game. After all, the primary objective of all GMs and game designers is to make sure that the people who play in your games are comfortable and having fun. If someone is not having fun because they find some element of the game objectional, then maybe you need to take time out and reflect on whether or not that element should remain in the game.
The important thing to remember is that feminism isn't about 'women vs. men,' or 'us vs. them.' It's about social equality. People who believe in social equality take time to listen to other perspectives, and they work to create reasonable solutions that increase equality for everyone. If someone starts shouting for equality, it's likely because they feel like their voices aren't being heard. If you encounter someone like this, step back, and take time to listen. This is especially true if you view the person as 'the problem,' or 'the enemy.' You might be surprised by how much you agree on issues, and might discover a solution to the problem that ultimately pleases everyone.
A term which has a very specific meaning and has never been applied to all feminists. A feminazi is a member of the feminist movement who's over all goal is to see to it that as many abortions as possible occur. You know, like the ones who protested CBS running an ad during the Super Bowl where Tim Tebow's mom says I had a choice and I chose life. Those type of people don't have a pro-woman, pro-choice agenda, they have a pro-abortion agenda. You can count the number of feminazis in this country on two hands.
Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
Smurf
The existence of so much backlash againt the feminist movement ON THIS BOARD answers the question. It's not only far from meaningless.. it's more important than ever.
Because if the movement was truly meaningless... it would not stir up so much resentment.
The unfortunate thing about it, is that so much backlash has given us a less than savory picture of the gaming community to a female thinking of entering it on her own (as opposed to being dragged in by a male significant other)
Agreed. There seems to be a great deal of wilful ignorance on these boards. I'm glad SK has as strong, balanced and well-articulated an understanding of feminism as he does. That, in my opinion, does credit to the Paizo staff. But I'm not going to beat this horse to death. I'll just sum up my views by saying: equality is not a zero-sum game.
And for the record, I am a heterosexual male and consider myself to be a feminist.
Some of you good ol' boys should consider renting the movie "North Country."
This place looks good for a siege. Now where are my privates?
|
A term which has a very specific meaning and has never been applied to all feminists. A feminazi is a member of the feminist movement who's over all goal is to see to it that as many abortions as possible occur. You know, like the ones who protested CBS running an ad during the Super Bowl where Tim Tebow's mom says I had a choice and I chose life. Those type of people don't have a pro-woman, pro-choice agenda, they have a pro-abortion agenda. You can count the number of feminazis in this country on two hands.Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
True enough, but I think it is also important that if people are going to quote somebody when it comes to things like this that it be given the proper context. As Drachesturm pointed out, there are people out there that do need to be distinguished from the greater feminism movement because of their extremist views. When I was in college I took a feminist political thought class and our professor, a woman for the record, pointed out that there are even groups that identify themselves as feminist that advocate support for pedophilia and incest as "liberating expression." We need to distinguish between mainstream equality oriented feminists and radicals of all stripes. Perhaps "feminazi" is a bad term, but we do need something.
Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
Well said. Denigrating the view points of others, especially on a forum where posters hide behind anonymity, is just another bully tactic.
|
|
Well said. Denigrating the view points of others, especially on a forum where posters hide behind anonymity, is just another bully tactic.Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
Isn't that what you just did?
True enough, but I think it is also important that if people are going to quote somebody when it comes to things like this that it be given the proper context. As Drachesturm pointed out, there are people out there that do need to be distinguished from the greater feminism movement because of their extremist views. When I was in college I took a feminist political thought class and our professor, a woman for the record, pointed out that there are even groups that identify themselves as feminist that advocate support for pedophilia and incest as "liberating expression."
I certainly would not support such a way of "liberating expression," but assigning those who hold that position some dismissive label does not contribute to a constructive dialogue or further understanding of why some people might view those acts as "liberating expression."
And, just because the prof was a woman, doesn't mean she doesn't have other political/religious/social/personal biases that affect the way she presents material in class.
|
|
True enough, but I think it is also important that if people are going to quote somebody when it comes to things like this that it be given the proper context. As Drachesturm pointed out, there are people out there that do need to be distinguished from the greater feminism movement because of their extremist views. When I was in college I took a feminist political thought class and our professor, a woman for the record, pointed out that there are even groups that identify themselves as feminist that advocate support for pedophilia and incest as "liberating expression."I certainly would not support such a way of "liberating expression," but assigning those who hold that position some dismissive label does not contribute to a constructive dialogue or further understanding of why some people might view those acts as "liberating expression."
And, just because the prof was a woman, doesn't mean she doesn't have other political/religious/social/personal biases that affect the way she presents material in class.
The profesor was recognized as an unbiased voice in the debate by many groups, having even been presented with awards by the National Orginization of Women. And am I correct in understanding that you believe that feminists and others should not be able to define who does and does not represent them? I am not advocating using a derogatory voice, just being able to apply a different label to groups that do not represent the mainstream feminist movement so that the voices of the radicals do not get blended in with the voices of the rational. As a father, educator, and former law enforcement official who has extensive experience working with victims of pedophiles and incest, I do not believe that supporting it is rational.
Some of you good ol' boys should consider renting the movie "North Country."
Sounds like a pretty tragic movie. That being the case if you have a well and balanced view of feminism then it should be easy for you to comment on what fraction of domestic violence is committed by women. Mulitple choice to make it easy for you:
a) <1%
b) 10%
c) 20%
d) 50%
And since we're exchanging suggestions on ways to inform one another, why don't you google Erin Pizzey and read up on her back story.
It's easy to condemn people who question feminism when all you've done is read their propaganda.
(For a more immediate concern, any one else find it funny that UN aid organizations are only giving food coupons to the women in Haiti? What happens to the men with no female relatives?)
Isn't that what you just did?Well said. Denigrating the view points of others, especially on a forum where posters hide behind anonymity, is just another bully tactic.Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
My intention was not to denigrate your point of view. And if you feel as though I did, then I sincerely apologize. And while I respect that you are conveying an honest point of view, others in this thread seem to be trying to turn the discussion into a joke... which I don't believe was your intention.
We can agree to disagree, David. I did not mean to assign the "bully" label to you, especially since I am assuming that David Fryer is your real name -- you have the courage to post under your real name on these boards. But as indicated previously, I believe that the act of imposing a derogatory label on the point of view/philosophical orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. of another is a common bully tactic. It seems that until Dove Arrow made her point, you were just using a label that you heard others use in reference to a particular group of feminist advocates (you are not the one that created the label).
|
|
Isn't that what you just did?Well said. Denigrating the view points of others, especially on a forum where posters hide behind anonymity, is just another bully tactic.Regardless of how we might define them, I think we'd all be better off if we did away with terms like 'feminazi.' I think that terms like this betray a lack of respect for other people and other perspectives, and I don't think they belong in any sort of reasoned discussion about ideas.
My intention was not to denigrate your point of view. And if you feel as though I did, then I sincerely apologize. And while I respect that you are conveying an honest point of view, others in this thread seem to be trying to turn the discussion into a joke... which I don't believe was your intention.
We can agree to disagree, David. I did not mean to assign the "bully" label to you, especially since I am assuming that David Fryer is your real name -- you have the courage to post under your real name on these boards. But as indicated previously, I believe that the act of imposing a derogatory label on the point of view/philosophical orientation, race, ethnicity, gender, etc. of another is a common bully tactic. It seems that until Dove Arrow made her point, you were just using a label that you heard others use in reference to a particular group of feminist advocates (you are not the one that created the label).
I was actually refering back to the idea that Drachesturm's statement was somehow less valid then others because he used the term "feminazi" to describe a specific group of people that have a strong pro-abiortion agenda and disguise it as a feminist agenda. I understand what you are saying, but by calling him a buly and saying that his statement denegrates other veiw points, with out discussing the substance of his statement seemed odd to me. As I mentioned in a previous post, I am a teacher with a political science and history emphasis. One of the things I tell my students is that they should always address the substance of someone's argument. It is easy to marginalize a person by using words like "bully" and "denegrating" but it does nothing to move the debate forward and simply makes us into what we are acusing the other party of being. While I welcome sincire discussion of differences of ideas, using terms like that on either side just invites a flame war.
Some of you good ol' boys should consider renting the movie "North Country."Sounds like a pretty tragic movie. That being the case if you have a well and balanced view of feminism then it should be easy for you to comment on what fraction of domestic violence is committed by women. Mulitple choice to make it easy for you:
a) <1%
b) 10%
c) 20%
d) 50%And since we're exchanging suggestions on ways to inform one another, why don't you google, Erin Pizzey and read up on her back story.
It's easy to condemn people who question feminism when all you've done is read their propaganda.
(For a more immediate concern, any one else find it funny that UN aid organizations are only giving food coupons to the women in Haiti? What happens to the men with no female relatives?)
How would you know what I have or haven't read?
And sure, I'm not going to claim that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence. Yet overall, the severity of domestic violence perpetrated by males against females is far more severe than the reverse (and yes, I'll acknowledge that women also perpetrate significant and horrific acts of violence, though in many***not all*** cases they're likely to have been pushed into that corner by an even more abusive partner).
EDIT: how one defines "domestic violence" also affects the numbers that will be generated.
And while I respect that you are conveying an honest point of view, others in this thread seem to be trying to turn the discussion into a joke...
Depending on whom you have in view with this comment, it's possible that you simply did not get the joke.
How would you know what I have or haven't read?
I don't. That's why I'm asking you to answer the question.
And sure, I'm not going to claim that men are the only perpetrators of domestic violence.
I never said you did. It's a simple question and should be easy for you to find the answer to and if you have a well and balanced view of the issue, you'd already be aware of the answer.
Yet overall, the severity of domestic violence perpetrated by males against females is far more severe than the reverse
Actually you're wrong about that: http://www.ejfi.org/DV/dv-6.htm
Scroll down to the section: Aren't women injured more than men?
True enough, but I think it is also important that if people are going to quote somebody when it comes to things like this that it be given the proper context. As Drachesturm pointed out, there are people out there that do need to be distinguished from the greater feminism movement because of their extremist views. When I was in college I took a feminist political thought class and our professor, a woman for the record, pointed out that there are even groups that identify themselves as feminist that advocate support for pedophilia and incest as "liberating expression." We need to distinguish between mainstream equality oriented feminists and radicals of all stripes. Perhaps "feminazi" is a bad term, but we do need something.
I think that it's perfectly legitimate to divide feminist groups into separate subcategories. However, I don't think it's appropriate to use derogatory terms as labels. I think that if there are feminist groups out there like the ones you describe, then they should be allowed to choose a term that they feel best describes their form of feminism. I also think that we should strive to understand and use such terms wherever appropriate, and not resort to derogatory terms, even if we deem them to be appropriate.
I'm curious how far you would take the "derogatory term" limitation, Dovearrow, and upon what basis. I guess I'm pretty clear that if there was a brand of feminism that was misandrist or abusive of children, I'd want a title that identified rather than suppressed that characteristic, in the same way that I wouldn't want misogyny called something else less derogatory. I don't find the word feminazi helpful, because I never heard of a feminism that supported the goals of the National Socialists, but by the same token in the academy, I've met a refusal to call Islamist terrorists "terrorists," to have them labeled instead "religious activists," a category which the same author used to cover Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Is derogatory always out of bounds? Is dialogue always the goal?
This place looks good for a siege. Now where are my privates?
Oy, I believe they jus' rolled under me chair.
So let me get this straight. You're advocating that it's okay that today's men pay for the apparent "sins" of their grandfathers while totally disregarding the fact that the vast majority of those men had no say in the system either and that modern women aren't suffering those same problems.
I don't see me saying that anywhere. I said "keep in mind...."
More likely, you wouldn't be able to have her sit on your knee because with 2-3 generations of potential divorce between you, you might see once a year if that.
Dude, got any sugar? This coffee is way too bitter to drink.
That's a nice tagline, but can you actually name some of them?
The glass ceiling? That's been throughly discredited by Warren Farrell.
One man's analysis of a situation isn't proof or discrediting.
The pay gap is a direct consequence of women's choices. When you actually control for equal experience and work load in the same job, the pay is the same or in some cases better for women. The oft quoted 76 cents on the dollar is a function of an apples to oranges comparison which treats...
It's still discriminatory because a woman is still expected to have and care for children, whereas it's acceptable if a man devotes his life to his career rather than his family.
But it looks like your experiences with radical feminists have hurt you and now you're not willing to see that change is still needed--both to compensate for how women aren't treated as equally to men, and how men are treated unfairly regarding women (such as in divorce and child support).
Ists and isms have negative connotations i.e Fascists, Communists, I think part of the problem with the nomenclature of the word Feminism is that it is not inclusive of 49% of the population.
It appears (please note that I said appears) to represent the promotion of the feminine over that of all others. Thus to a person that does not fall under its banner it is a hostile word.
So I prefer Equalitarian (what I call myself) which is an inclusive word that indicates that the person is working for the betterment of others regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation.
Acts that on face value such as the UN providing funds to women only serve to reinforce this view. But when rationally explained i.e women are the ones usually caring for children (often other peoples children as well as their own) and the sick and thus they are making sure that the food reaches those less able to fend for them selves.
From the way it is reported it is implied that that men either don't deserve the money or will be irresponsible with it (which is understandably insulting).
I think SKRs "what's good for the goose is good for the gander", approach some what confusing - by that example I should be allowed to poison, massacre, and dispossess the European side of my family because they did it to my Aboriginal side of my family (straw man I know but they have their uses).
Also in answer to SKRs why didn't I go outside the company when I was having difficulties with the topics of conversation, I don't think I would have been taken seriously. I am very sure I would have encountered the above men have been doing it to women for years argument and I would have been marked as a difficult person.
I also liked the people I worked with and all I wanted was not to listen to discussions regarding their gynaecological problems or if their partners were or weren't performing well enough in the bedroom. Yes I asked them to tone down their conversations, they thought it was funny and didn't stop.
I did not want anybody to be sacked or have their chances at promotion crippled as they had families to support as well.
*ThreadJack*
Because I missed the original thread.
To the issue of the half-orc being removed from the 4e PHB1. I don't play 4e, don't own any of the material (well, ok some of the miniatures). Still, thinking about the core races in the 3.5 PHB, if I had to order them honestly on what I thought was the most fundamental to a fantasy game it would be: 1 human (SEXIST!), 2 elf, 3 dwarf, 4 halfling, 5 half-elf, 6 half-orc, and 7 gnome. So if I was considering dropping some of these and replacing them with others, dropping the half-orc and the gnome would seem pretty rational to me.
As for the issue of half-orc must coming from rape, yeah, I prefer more options than to be shoe-horned into something like that. In a setting where magic exists and some at pretty common levels, the idea that two consenting members of different races might get together seems pretty easy to see. Heck, disguise self is a 1st level spell. If that ugly sorceress orc lady wanted to pick up that nice looking, though slow, human(SEXIST!) farmhand, for a fling in the hay, it probably wouldn't take much. Now when he wakes up, he might be wishing for a coyote ugly escape kit. I guess you could in some way call that "rape" (since she used deception), but I don't buy it. Just like I wouldn't call it rape in that adventure where a squirrel was turned into a hot farmer's daughter and a PC could get to "know" her better.
Frankly, forcing all half-orcs to be the product of rape just strikes me as intellectual laziness. I could see it as a common issue in a setting, but the only way?
And the whole issue of half-elfs are more like to be consenting, really? What about a human (SEXIST!) could possibly turn on an elf? His real "manliness"? That would probably gross female elves out if we were being honest with ourselves. Hell, most female elves probably spend more time in diapers than most sexual active males have been alive. It would probably seem to be like child abuse to them.
I'm curious how far you would take the "derogatory term" limitation, Dovearrow, and upon what basis. I guess I'm pretty clear that if there was a brand of feminism that was misandrist or abusive of children, I'd want a title that identified rather than suppressed that characteristic, in the same way that I wouldn't want misogyny called something else less derogatory. I don't find the word feminazi helpful, because I never heard of a feminism that supported the goals of the National Socialists, but by the same token in the academy, I've met a refusal to call Islamist terrorists "terrorists," to have them labeled instead "religious activists," a category which the same author used to cover Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Is derogatory always out of bounds? Is dialogue always the goal?
I don't want to get into this discussion too deeply, because I think it takes the conversation wildly off topic. What I will say is that if the goal is dialogue, then using a term like 'feminazi' to describe any feminist group is counterproductive. Similarly, experience has taught me that if you use terms like 'sexist,' 'misogynist,' and/or 'prejudiced' to describe anyone who has concerns about the feminist movement (even if those labels are used in general, and are not leveled at anyone in particular), it tends to stifle dialogue.
I think if we want to have a reasoned discussion about feminism, then we need to put such labels aside. Otherwise, it's unlikely that any of us will be able to come to any sort of mutual understanding. Those are my final thoughts on the matter.
|
Feminism is an apparition summoned by people on internet forums after listening to Rush Limbaugh. These people have little or no exposure to actual feminists, but feel as though it is an encroaching threat on their own lives because they cannot distinguish his sexist ramblings from their own thoughts.
Ah, yes, the "you're a moron if you listen to stuff I think is stupid" argument. My favorite :)
|
I'm curious how far you would take the "derogatory term" limitation, Dovearrow, and upon what basis. I guess I'm pretty clear that if there was a brand of feminism that was misandrist or abusive of children, I'd want a title that identified rather than suppressed that characteristic, in the same way that I wouldn't want misogyny called something else less derogatory. I don't find the word feminazi helpful, because I never heard of a feminism that supported the goals of the National Socialists, but by the same token in the academy, I've met a refusal to call Islamist terrorists "terrorists," to have them labeled instead "religious activists," a category which the same author used to cover Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. Is derogatory always out of bounds? Is dialogue always the goal?I don't want to get into this discussion too deeply, because I think it takes the conversation wildly off topic. What I will say is that if the goal is dialogue, then using a term like 'feminazi' to describe any feminist group is counterproductive. Similarly, experience has taught me that if you use terms like 'sexist,' 'misogynist,' and/or 'prejudiced' to describe anyone who has concerns about the feminist movement (even if those labels are used in general, and are not leveled at anyone in particular), it tends to stifle dialogue.
I think if we want to have a reasoned discussion about feminism, then we need to put such labels aside. Otherwise, it's unlikely that any of us will be able to come to any sort of mutual understanding. Those are my final thoughts on the matter.
Feminism 'nuff Said.
I don't see me saying that anywhere. I said "keep in mind...."
Yes you said men need to understand that historically women didn't have as many rights as men did with regard to modern situations in which men don't have as many rights as women do. Based on the context of your comment what sort of interpretation were you expecting? (Moreover as evidenced by several other posters I'm not the only one who saw it that way either.)
Dude, got any sugar? This coffee is way too bitter to drink.
Ad hominem attacks don't actually add to the conversation. Moreover at a roughly 50% divorce rate the likelyhood of my comment rises pretty dramatically with each generation of separation.
One man's analysis of a situation isn't proof or discrediting.
Nor is saying the above evidence that he's wrong. If you have information to the contrary, why not bring it out into the open?
It's still discriminatory because a woman is still expected to have and care for children,
Every woman I know who has kids made a decision to keep them. Nobody forced them to do it and there are numerous methods of not having kids ranging from simple birth control to adoption and abortion. I fail to see how you can argue, in good faith, that a woman's freely made choice to pursue a career or a family can be counted as discrimination by men against her.
whereas it's acceptable if a man devotes his life to his career rather than his family.
Do you really beleive that the pursuit of a career has nothing to do with providing for one's family? For some men sure, but the vast majority? There're actually numerous studies that show that married men make for better harder workers than unmarried men because the latter don't have a family to support.
But it looks like your experiences with radical feminists have hurt you and now you're not willing to see that change is still needed--
Quite to the contrary actually. Change is needed, but as women are treated by men the same way men treat other men on a social and personal level, they (women) find more and more that they don't like it. Add in the elements in the feminist movement that keep moving the goal posts and one starts to question if we'll ever reach a state of "equality".
For fun you should look up why a lot of feminists who are obstensibly about "equality", think that having more girls than boys in post secondary education is good now, but wasn't when there were more boys than girls.
|
|
I don't have anything to add to the discussion, but I do notice a lot of fear to discuss this topic, and I think that's interesting (they tend to show up as quasi-witty asides and little blue Franco-Teutonic demons).
By the way, it's no more strange to see this thread at Paizo than the Civil Religious thread or the iPad thread or the Health Care thread.
I don't have anything to add to the discussion, but I do notice a lot of fear to discuss this topic, and I think that's interesting (they tend to show up as quasi-witty asides and little blue Franco-Teutonic demons).
By the way, it's no more strange to see this thread at Paizo than the Civil Religious thread or the iPad thread or the Health Care thread.
Whoa dude, your post like disappeared for a second, then reappeared. Trippy. Must have been some really good shrooms.
|
|
Andrew, well, there are some topics we may never have open, honest discussions about, since the labels "sexist", "racist", "homophobe", "Christian" and other pejorative terms for anyone who disagrees with or questions the "enlightened, accepted" viewpoints on a host of topics always get bandied about.
Andrew, thanks for the qualifier, "quasi."
|
|
I don't have anything to add to the discussion, but I do notice a lot of fear to discuss this topic, and I think that's interesting (they tend to show up as quasi-witty asides and little blue Franco-Teutonic demons).
By the way, it's no more strange to see this thread at Paizo than the Civil Religious thread or the iPad thread or the Health Care thread.
No fear I just feel a nutjob needs to be called a nutjob. Smurfs are simple a quick and easy way of doing so rather then spending all day typing a long diatribe no one in their right mind will take the time to read let along spend an equal time responding to. Especially since a few words can do what several may not be able to.
|
|
...a lot of fear to discuss this topic.....I don't know about other folks, but for myself, I just see enough of this political crap everywhere else. It's nice to try and have a safe zone somewhere.
looks around
Oh well....
I like a nice calmed reasoned and sincere discussion. This is happening less and less.
A wise man once said that when we move from talking about n issue to talking about how we talk about an issue, all opportunity for understanding has been lost.
What?
I like a nice calmed reasoned and sincere discussion. This is happening less and less.
I blame Sebastian.
Andrew, thanks for the qualifier, "quasi."I thought we were at least being semi-witty.
Well there are certainly some half-wits around.
Andrew, thanks for the qualifier, "quasi."I thought we were at least being semi-witty.
Now you're being a nutjob, which I've just been told I can do, without fear, in a calm and sincere fashion. That was comic genius and social commentary of the highest order.
I don't know about other folks, but for myself, I just see enough of this political crap everywhere else. It's nice to try and have a safe zone somewhere.
Please believe me when I say I completely agree with you. However at the same time, letting the half-truths and outright lies slide doesn't sit well either.