"I have to warn you, I learned to play [chess] in the fourth grade and I'm unbeatable. But if you win, I will give you free drinks for one whole day." -- Barrista Girl
Gorckat recently mentioned that he saw me pop into FICS, but was too nervous to say hi. At first, this seemed strange, because online chat is not that personal, but this (along with other experiences) lead me to develop a theory of social barriers.
As one moves up the scale below, interaction becomes more personal and it takes an extra layer of guts to communicate in this fashion for the first time. However, it’s not very hard to move down the scale.
Face-to-face
Telephone
Online chat
E-mail
Blog or forum responses
Of course, if you’re naturally social, the amount of guts it takes to move up the scale may be very small, and romantic interest can throw the scale completely out of whack.
Going back to Smith’s statement (see prior post), he had an insight which I think people fail to keep in mind. Even those who are considered “enemies” and “evil” almost always consider themselves on the side of good. Going even a step further, they probably have some decent reasons to think how they do (even if the actions are out of line).
Please bear with me non-American readers; I’m going to use some examples who are considered US rivals, but may or may not be for your country.
Hugo Chavez, socialist extraordinaire: His attempts to consolidate power smack heavily of authoritarianism, whether he sees it that way or not. But his desire to better the country seems sincere enough, and he continues to receive massive support from the poor–which indicates that probably they are a bit better off than before.
Robert Mugabe: Famed for an ill-fated land redistribution program, which took the farmland away from white colonial descendants and gave it to blacks. Yes, the program lacked foresight and was a wrong way to go about things. But can you blame a black African for feeling bitter about white possession of the land that was the result of imperialism?
Osama bin Laden: We all know about him. He’s not insane in the usual sense, and not all of his reasoning is nuts, including his displeasure at the US abandoning Afghanistan after the Soviets were driven back in 1988.
So how would you compare Bush, morally, to some of these other leaders?*
vs Osama: Osama favors blowing up people because they happen to live in the wrong country. Bush doesn’t kill civilians (at least not intentionally). We’ll give Bush the nod here.
vs Mugabe: If the Bush administration is dumb, Mugabe’s government is beneath retarded. (That’s not a moral issue, but just had to mention it.) The Republican party doesn’t actually go out beating up Democrats and jail them for trying to run for office. Mugabe prefers a more pro-active approach to maintaining his power. Advantage: Bush.
vs Chavez: Chavez has been active in suppressing media unfavorable to his cause and attempted to change the constitution so he could run unlimited times for office. But then again, Bush doesn’t have a problem kidnapping terrorist suspects on foreign soil and using “alternative interrogation techniques”. We’ll call this one a draw.
*A bit tongue in cheek, but still stepping on eggshells here.
Today’s post is not silly, funny, or demented. I apologize.
—
“Even Hitler didn’t wake up going, `let me do the most evil thing I can do today.’ I think he woke up in the morning and using a twisted, backwards logic, he set out to do what he thought was `good.’” — Will Smith
There’s no part of that statement which indicates Smith actually supports Hitler, correct?
I thought so.
Well, the tabloids have been jumping on this, claiming Smith stated the former dictator was a good person. The Anti-Defamation League believes Smith wasn’t praising Hitler, so that should help things. But what about the unwashed masses who read tabloids but haven’t even heard of the ADL?
—
A tiger escaped a zoo enclosure, killing one person and mauling two. In this case, someone died, while in the story above, Will Smith took a slight reputation hit. So why does the tiger incident induce so much less emotion in me? Probably because the tabloid distortions are intentional and malicious, while the tiger escape is likely accidental. But looking at the results of the incidents it doesn’t seem to make sense.
Here’s the link if you want to read the whole story, but I’ll summarize. Through a website, Guy A found Guy B who were both interested in doing a bondage session. Guy A got a little more than he bargained for when Guy B left him alone wrapped up with only a straw in his mouth to breathe. Apparently, the straw fell out before Guy B got back, and that was the end of Guy A (Guy B later committed suicide, presumably at least in part over this incident).
Now in this particular instance, the master left the slave bound by himself for a few hours, which few would disagree is patently irresponsible. But what about the general case? Let’s say there’s a consenting couple who are always in proximity during the session, but there’s some sort of accident. Should the surviving/non-maimed consenting partner be held legally liable?
And I can’t believe I’m asking this, but does anyone practice bondage? (You can put your name as “Anonymous” to answer that one.) What’s usual, for there to be established ground rules, or more on the spur of the moment? Does it actually enchance your sex life?
Please don’t look at me; I’ve never tried this stuff. [Mascot's note: I have!] [Counter-note: No one's asking your opinion.]
[Note: The Mascot is filling in while I'm away for the weekend. If he becomes overly stupid or offensive, let me know on Monday so I can kick his shell.]
On Thursday, someone Googled gay sex liquid, and this website was one of the results.
…
Man, I really need to start paying attention to the site more.
thank...