In the disabled blogs, the past few months there have been account after accont about people devasted by the word and its cognates. It doesn't matte if you're gardeners are OK with it. This is a different place, different people, maybe people none of us know.
These words hurt, hurt badly.
No amount of deflection, or analyzing me or whether or not I get you changes that.
I dind't miss the content of the story, asserting it is projection on your part. I never addresssed that aspect. To fill in the point now, the story doesn't redeem the offensiveness. The humor does not redeem the offensiveness.
Or alternately, I did miss the story. I did miss the humor. I guess I'm just not smart enough.
Personally, I'm just fine with who I am. It's OK you're not.
Just wondering, why talk about me like I'm not here?
What I wonder about is that the US version of its sovereignity is that it is the only truly soereign nation, that all other nations are to some extent tribal - not only dependent on the US for protection, but also to one extent or the other, lacking the capacity to function fully in the broader world as it is, much like the US govt related to tribal nations within its borders - seeming to recognize them legally, but having little pause in killing or moving entire populations.
So I wonder if there is a connection to the use of drones in say Pak and Yemen, countries still characterized by a significant tribal component. Again back to Lux. It Lux was harboring a terrorist, we probably would not use a drone to kill him.
I also wonder it would be accurate to characterize US policy/attitude toward Islam in general and Islamic countries in particular as more tribal than the norm, discounting whatever nation state status we recognize in them.
A hypothesis I've been mulling is that a significant node in this web is that the US has evolved into an untenable theory/reality of sovereignity. Part of this is the elevation of American Exceptionalism from Stalin's critique of the idea of America's supposed exception from the laws of Marxism, to theidea that America is exempt from historical and legal processes in general,
The problem isthat the US has ben able tomake signifcant actions under this theory. For instance Luxembourg could come to a similar view of Lux Exceptionalism, but would not likely meet with enough success for anyone else to take the idea seriously.
The US is inthe position of defending a unique form of sovereignity. To change this position would be a profound a far reaching project. I know that my brain is not up to the task of scetching out the possibilities.
Colin, you're right. time to stop.
In the disabled blogs, the past few months there have been account after accont about people devasted by the word and its cognates. It doesn't matte if you're gardeners are OK with it. This is a different place, different people, maybe people none of us know.
These words hurt, hurt badly.
No amount of deflection, or analyzing me or whether or not I get you changes that.
Don't make this about you or me.
That's it - straight down the middle.
I dind't miss the content of the story, asserting it is projection on your part. I never addresssed that aspect. To fill in the point now, the story doesn't redeem the offensiveness. The humor does not redeem the offensiveness.
Or alternately, I did miss the story. I did miss the humor. I guess I'm just not smart enough.
Personally, I'm just fine with who I am. It's OK you're not.
Just wondering, why talk about me like I'm not here?
nice rationalization. I think you call it splitting. However small the readership is here, it's a public place. "Retarded" is just as offensive.
It was just a joke - humorous. Seriously?
Then it's my problem. Classic.
for the record - I wasn't looking for trouble. I paused some time before making my comment. I don't know why you can't grant me sincerity here.
Scott, your use of the word "retard" was offensive.
What I wonder about is that the US version of its sovereignity is that it is the only truly soereign nation, that all other nations are to some extent tribal - not only dependent on the US for protection, but also to one extent or the other, lacking the capacity to function fully in the broader world as it is, much like the US govt related to tribal nations within its borders - seeming to recognize them legally, but having little pause in killing or moving entire populations.
So I wonder if there is a connection to the use of drones in say Pak and Yemen, countries still characterized by a significant tribal component. Again back to Lux. It Lux was harboring a terrorist, we probably would not use a drone to kill him.
I also wonder it would be accurate to characterize US policy/attitude toward Islam in general and Islamic countries in particular as more tribal than the norm, discounting whatever nation state status we recognize in them.
A hypothesis I've been mulling is that a significant node in this web is that the US has evolved into an untenable theory/reality of sovereignity. Part of this is the elevation of American Exceptionalism from Stalin's critique of the idea of America's supposed exception from the laws of Marxism, to theidea that America is exempt from historical and legal processes in general,
The problem isthat the US has ben able tomake signifcant actions under this theory. For instance Luxembourg could come to a similar view of Lux Exceptionalism, but would not likely meet with enough success for anyone else to take the idea seriously.
The US is inthe position of defending a unique form of sovereignity. To change this position would be a profound a far reaching project. I know that my brain is not up to the task of scetching out the possibilities.