The Dim-Post

August 10, 2015

Various

Filed under: Uncategorized — danylmc @ 10:04 am

I’ve just finished reading Lathe of Heaven by Ursula Le Guin. Very short summary: le Guin writes a reality-bending Phillip K Dick novel – but this isn’t as great as it sounds which is why you probably haven’t heard of this book. Phil Dick wrote about reality and asked ‘what is the real?’, because as a mentally ill drug addicted creative genius who had regular religious visions he genuinely did not know what was real and what wasn’t. Le Guin is much more grounded. She doesn’t have the same stakes in the subject as Dick so her book on the ‘nature of reality’ becomes a vector for her interest in Daoism and other eastern faiths. It’s not terrible but its no VALIS.

But what really struck me while reading this book was the bibliography at the beginning. In the space of a handful of years Le Guin wrote:

  • A Wizard of Earthsea (1968)
  • The Left Hand of Darkness (1969)
  • The Tombs of Atuan (1971)
  • The Farthest Shore (1972)
  • The Dispossessed (1974)

That’s an amazing streak. Two canonical sci-fi novels and three canonical fantasy novels in six years.


Also, I’ve been watching Deutschland 83, which is an excellent show in its own right, but also has a fine 1980s soundtrack. The second episode featured ‘Boys Don’t Cry’ which reminded me that I never ever listened to The Cure or New Order or any of that music until I was in my mid-to-late teens because I had heard – and genuinely believed – that listening to ‘gothic music’ made you commit suicide. This wasn’t an unusual thing to think in the early eighties, for a ten year old or even an adult. There was a lot of moral panic around youth sub-cultures. Serious media outlets wondered if Dungeons and Dragons taught children to worship the devil. The question of whether ‘gothic music’ somehow programmed people to kill themselves was an ongoing media obsession.

I remember wondering what this deadly music sounded like while also being terribly afraid that I would hear it, accidentally and then robotically kill myself. These were valid fears. Although I did also wonder how such music could be released and distributed without killing everyone involved. Ironically, despite the obsession with transgressive youth subcultures, mainstream pop culture was far more transgressive then than it is today.


Matt Nippert interviewed TV3 boss Mark Weldon. It is hilarious. My highlights: Judith Collins was considered as a Campbell Live co-host to rescue the show. Weldon explains that he was thinking ‘outside the building’. He’s supposed to be one of the most visionary geniuses of our business elite, and he’s also an Auckland National Party insider so I find it amusing that when he’s really using his brilliance to synergise and break paradigms his vision only runs as far as the nearest Auckland National MP. Also amusing: yes, ratings are down since Weldon took over. Way, way, way down – but, Weldon explains:

The strategy is a lot broader than pure ratings,” he says.

Weldon says other metrics, such as engagement and on-demand streaming, are also important, as are synergies with the company’s radio assets. Simon Barnett, a breakfast host at MediaWorks, won Dancing with the Stars, and Weldon says: “It’s been a great boost to MoreFM, a key brand for us.”

Story debuts tonight. I hope its good. These shows like to open with big stories and make a name for themselves – 3rd Degree broke some huge stories but never quite recovered from the humiliating ignominy of opening the show with a piece about a wheel clamper and following it up with an interview with Anna Guy, who was also a reporter for the show, somehow. Their ongoing challenge will be to break big stories in the climate of a network that is both desperate to arrest a ratings slide but is run by National Party hacks who shut the last show down because it was embarrassing the government. That’s gonna be a tricky tightrope to walk.

60 Comments »

  1. Entering the dangerous territory of a catch-all thread of the day!

    1. Never read much Le Guin (probably none, unless she was in one of the numerous anthologies I read as a kid). It may have been some sort of inherent sexism (ewww, lady-author), but considering I read all of McCaffery’s works, it’s probably down to my mum not having any Le Guin in her otherwise extensive SF collection.

    2. Brooding teen angst plus the tail end of glam = goth. No different to Manson or Slipknot from the 90’s. What is the current commercial version of teen rebellion? Gaga? Minaj?

    3. Been thinking about current affairs journalists as contestants on A Dogs Show. Mary Wilson as the huntaway that scared the sheep straight up through the gates is the most obvious. Who would be the cunning eye dog? Weedon is probably the farmer looking at a bunch of uninterested sheep while his dog is busy licking his nuts.

    FM

    Comment by Fooman — August 10, 2015 @ 10:25 am

  2. “The strategy is a lot broader than pure ratings” he said. Is he talking about his survival in the job or the stations success. Ratings were the problem he and Julie were supposed to solve, so not sure that ‘engagement’ will cut it for Oaktree.

    Comment by dukeofurl — August 10, 2015 @ 10:44 am

  3. Good luck to all the good people involved with Story.

    Comment by Moses — August 10, 2015 @ 10:47 am

  4. Ursula Le Guin’s ‘By The Book’ in today’s NYTimes
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/09/books/review/ursula-k-le-guin-by-the-book.html?ref=books

    Comment by jonothan8 — August 10, 2015 @ 11:14 am

  5. “3. Been thinking about current affairs journalists as contestants on A Dogs Show. Mary Wilson as the huntaway that scared the sheep straight up through the gates is the most obvious. Who would be the cunning eye dog? Weedon is probably the farmer looking at a bunch of uninterested sheep while his dog is busy licking his nuts.”

    Great one.

    Also Appropriate that the TV3 post is included in one on novelists. Weldon is entirely estranged from the english language.

    Comment by Tinakori — August 10, 2015 @ 11:19 am

  6. “Weldon explains that he was thinking ‘outside the building’” – yes quite – and deeply inside a totally different building – a big round one in welly

    Comment by framu — August 10, 2015 @ 11:44 am

  7. just had a quick scan of the interview – but the last line is hilarious

    “”The only politician who’s had a conversation me about current affairs with me is Andrew Little.””

    yes weldon – they use staffers and other assorted party workers/insiders – what youve never heard of jason ede? – good one mark

    Comment by framu — August 10, 2015 @ 11:46 am

  8. Missing “Come Dine with Me” already.

    Comment by unaha-closp — August 10, 2015 @ 12:49 pm

  9. When I was nine or ten I guess? the Earthsea Trilogy was a mindblowing experience for me and my reverence for the books stayed with me into my teens, so when Tehanu came out I grabbed it and read it as soon as I could. I was totally unready for it intellectually and my reaction was a sort of proto-gamergate “WTF IS THIS SHIT FEMINISM YOU’VE RUINED EARTHSEA I HATE YOU”. Embarrassing in retrospect.

    Comment by @simongarlick — August 10, 2015 @ 12:57 pm

  10. Agree Deutschland 83 is excellent. I would recommend The Americans, also in this vein.
    Another recent AMC show that nails the soundtrack (interestingly, of the similar era) is Halt and Catch Fire; well worth a watch.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 10, 2015 @ 1:02 pm

  11. I really like John Grisham but I find his books a tad on the boring side. But that Australian author, Bryce Courtenay, to me he is the worst. But some people rave about him, or at least he used to.

    Rebellion is not as bad as it seems. Without people breaking the mould, we wouldn’t have gay rights or women’s rights. We would be a totally different world now than what we are now.

    Comment by Daniel Lang — August 10, 2015 @ 1:55 pm

  12. Australian author, Bryce Courtenay, to me he is the worst.

    How does Wilbur Smith stack up, in comparison?
    I read a few of the Courtney Dynasty books in high school and recall not much beyond adventurers-doing-adventuring and implausibly long passages of people fucking in, on, or next to African rivers.

    Comment by Phil — August 10, 2015 @ 3:40 pm

  13. Australian author, Bryce Courtenay, to me he is the worst.

    How does Wilbur Smith stack up, in comparison?

    Wilbur Smurf. Like Courtenay a South African, ironed smooth by the privileges of apartheid. Courtenay hit his stride after moving to Australia, where he pursued the dual careers of author and advertising cult figure. Due to a curious cultural quirk, the Lucky Country has long treated admen as household name celebrities like nowhere else. Siimon Reynolds with the extra i, Mo and Jo of Mojo, John Singleton, who even had his own TV show. Perhaps it was a mercy that Courtenay passed over when he did, as he’d featured land wars-era NZ in his last picaresque potboiler, and had threatened a sequel.

    Comment by Joe W — August 10, 2015 @ 4:51 pm

  14. I had heard – and genuinely believed – that listening to ‘gothic music’ made you commit suicide.

    Having reached the doddery old age of 20 in the early 80s, I had no fear of goffs. However, I did sometimes think that the people peddling that “causes suicide” stuff should be forced to listen to “Bela Lugosi’s Dead” on a continuous loop until we’d established whether their claim was true or not.

    Comment by Psycho Milt — August 10, 2015 @ 6:59 pm

  15. “you probably haven’t heard of this book”

    Hipster level… rising…

    Comment by Ubu — August 10, 2015 @ 9:32 pm

  16. run by National Party hacks who shut the last show down because it was embarrassing the government.

    Not everyone thinks JC is that important and it could be Nat insiders think he’s important in that having him against the Nats is good for them.

    Well, they didn’t lose the last election.

    Comment by NeilM — August 10, 2015 @ 10:16 pm

  17. I don’t quite understand why those who chose not to be a part of the new flag design process are now all upset by the 40 possibles.

    What were they expecting – that their unstated preferences would be considered?

    They chose not to be involved and one fairly obvious consequence was they might not get a flag they like.

    It’s not really up to those who did get involved to solve that problem.

    Comment by NeilM — August 10, 2015 @ 10:55 pm

  18. @Neil: Last I heard a flag was supposed to represent all NZers, not all NZers who chose to engage with the design process

    Comment by Ubu — August 11, 2015 @ 12:29 am

  19. ast I heard a flag was supposed to represent all NZers,

    How’s that Union Jack in the corner working out for ya?

    Comment by Phil — August 11, 2015 @ 9:21 am

  20. err, Neil, the only people who have decided anything are the panel of flag choosers. Loads of people engaged by submitting varied flags in the style of memes for a modern era, but were ignored by the elites.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 11, 2015 @ 12:33 pm

  21. New Zealand has fought long and hard to be taken seriously on the world stage, and we regularly ‘punch above our weight’ in a lot of important ways. If you or your sheep-farting-a-rainbow brethren want to shit all over that, just come out and say it.

    Comment by Phil — August 11, 2015 @ 12:43 pm

  22. New Zealand has fought long and hard to be taken seriously on the world stage, and we regularly ‘punch above our weight’ in a lot of important ways. If you or your sheep-farting-a-rainbow brethren want to shit all over that, just come out and say it.

    And at present we do so under the symbol of a small flightless bird with a very long beak (or, our military does, at any rate: http://www.gbfmilitaria.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/NZ-kiwi-patch.jpg).

    I think you may be putting a bit too much weight on what is, in the end, just a bit of cloth.

    Comment by Andrew Geddis — August 11, 2015 @ 1:45 pm

  23. Unfortunately I can’t get into Le Guin’s writing. Her Earthsea series didn’t do it for me and I stopped reading The Left Hand of Darkness part-way through, but I recognise that she’s technically impressive and a lot of people *love* her.

    If you haven’t read it yet, have a look at Margaret Atwood’s The Handmaid’s Tale. It’s one of those books that will stick with you for a long time.

    …but is run by National Party hacks who shut the last show down because it was embarrassing the government.

    Also, to be fair, the show had become tedious.

    Comment by Ataahua — August 11, 2015 @ 3:11 pm

  24. @Andrew – yeah, a heat-of-the-moment post.

    On reflection, I think I’m still angry that no-one supported my grass roots movement to have the flag be a silhouette of a Kane Williamson cover drive.

    Comment by Phil — August 11, 2015 @ 3:44 pm

  25. I think you may be putting a bit too much weight on what is, in the end, just a bit of cloth.

    Why not, when the alternative appears to be poking both of poor NeilM’s eyes out with one slender finger.

    Comment by Joe W — August 11, 2015 @ 5:53 pm

  26. It’s not really up to those who did get involved to solve that problem.

    Those who *did* get involved appear to have been under the impression that they were designing beach towels.

    Comment by herr doktor bimler — August 12, 2015 @ 12:30 am

  27. I allow for a very broad definition of science fiction, which includes reality. Perhaps Phil was interfered with by the secret service because they identified him as a Precog?

    But it would be difficult to see how *they* could identify him without today’s tech, unless we live in a simulation: in Phil’s VALIS. If Precogs exist they should leave strange jokes here and there. Then we’d be truly though the Looking Glass, folks! But who needs oracular seers when *they* have the internet. How boring. Unless there’s many *theys*…

    Too much dick sorry. Must chill with Le Guin more reddyly.

    Comment by Lefthanded — August 12, 2015 @ 3:25 am

  28. “…Their ongoing challenge will be to break big stories in the climate of a network that is both desperate to arrest a ratings slide but is run by National Party hacks who shut the last show down because it was embarrassing the government…”

    So far, the tactic appears to be a combination of curiously unconvincing outrage at “Fair Go” lite stories, magazine style soft news and infotainment. I guess that puts off the fateful day when they have to do a political story and get hauled in the bosses office to make sure they hold steady on keeping the opposition parties in a laser beam of accountability.

    As far as the flag goes, I hate they way the whole thing is an elite imposed process on an indifferent population which doesn’t give a shit about a 26 million dollar taxpayer funded homage to John Key’s ego. You shouldn’t change something as fundamental as our flag just because John Key drunk on his own power wants to leave a permanent legacy to remind us of how wonderful he thinks he was as our leader, and he is used to buying what he wants either with his (or in this case) or someone else’s money.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 12, 2015 @ 8:02 am

  29. an indifferent population which doesn’t give a shit about a 26 million dollar taxpayer funded homage to John Key’s ego

    There are two things wrong with this notion.

    1. Tons of people care about it.
    2. To reduce it to a “John Key’s ego” issue plays into the hands of the operators who allow Key to talk past the issue (as noted in a previous thread).

    Not saying that I don’t think that a big driver for Key is to leave a permanent and effective immutable legacy, but I think to hinge opposition to changing the flag on this notion is counterproductive.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 12, 2015 @ 9:48 am

  30. something as fundamental as our flag
    Non-patriot that I am, the country changing its flag concerns me about as deeply as the company I work for changing its logo.

    Comment by herr doktor bimler — August 12, 2015 @ 10:20 am

  31. Entirely agree with Sanc.

    Here are the Poll stats…http://thestandard.org.nz/guest-post-the-flag-a-change-is-gonna-come/#comment-1054687

    Comment by swordfish — August 12, 2015 @ 12:00 pm

  32. Since this is the all-purpose thread: Happy birthday Danyl!

    Comment by George D — August 12, 2015 @ 12:54 pm

  33. The Dutch flag was blue, white and orange except they got sick of the orange discolouring and just left it red. The French flag is the colours of Paris, adopted after the storming of the Bastille as a symbol of revolutionary France. Legend has it the Austrian flag is reddened with the blood of Turks from the defense of Vienna. The flags many countries – Argentina, the US and UK for example – reflect political settlements of the time. Spain’s flag features yellow because everyone else used white, and confusion often reigned on the battlefield.

    Flags evolved from devices used to rally troops on the battlefield to being used to denote nationality of ships at sea, and hence to countries. Generally speaking, national flags usually evolve from something else naturally or can spring forward as a symbol of a particular moment – the stars and stripes fluttering in the rocket’s red glare of fort McHenry did it for any alternative designs. Flags are not things designed in cold blood by committees of elderly members of an establishments elite. To me, our current flag represents our current political arrangements well, and over time it has come to be a sleeping dog that allows it to be whatever anyone wants it to symbolise.

    The time for a new flag is the time we change our political arrangements, when we cast off the yoke of colonial cringe and the British monarchy, and become a republic.Then we should get a flag that represents that new nation.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 12, 2015 @ 1:08 pm

  34. Flags are not things designed in cold blood by committees of elderly members of an establishments elite

    Canada.

    Comment by Phil — August 12, 2015 @ 2:31 pm

  35. Ah yes, Canada. First of all, in Canada it was generally agreed the flag they had was unsuitable, and debate about the flag had been an onging and fiercely debated topic since the end of WW2 – a maple leaf based design only being rejected in 1946 because it featured the Union Jack, which was detested in Quebec. So in Canada came at the end of 20 years of full-on argument. Secondly, the new flag was only accepted in Quebec because it lacked a Union Jack, and as such it was accepted by then as a symbol of Canadian unity. Maori have no particular dislike of the Union flag – in fact there is a general conservatism around ANY change vis-a-vis the crown, with a fear that any change in constitutional arrangement will affect the tresty ‘special relationship”.

    In other words, the Canadian flag was the culmination of two decades of fierce debate, an intense dislike of the existing flag by a significant ethnic minority and was driven by a desire to keep Canada whole. None of these three things is in operation in relation to our flag “debate”, which is largely the result of some lack-lustre half-formed thoughts of a republic and a half-baked prime ministers brain fart wish to impose his legacy on us.

    Comment by Sanctuary — August 12, 2015 @ 4:55 pm

  36. In other words, the Canadian flag was the culmination of two decades of fierce debate, an intense dislike of the existing flag by a significant ethnic minority and was driven by a desire to keep Canada whole.

    It’s a flag that offers fast unambiguous brand recognition for those whose need to make it clear that they’re not Americans usually outweighs their patriotism.

    Comment by Joe W — August 12, 2015 @ 5:40 pm

  37. Come on Danyl – the RWC-Green situation is begging, screaming – dare I say it, gagging – to be put out of it’s satirical misery.

    And it will ease your pain. Something along the lines of Shearer as The Terminator should do.

    Comment by tom hunter — August 12, 2015 @ 5:53 pm

  38. Fucking apostrophes!

    Comment by tom hunter — August 12, 2015 @ 5:54 pm

  39. @Joe: I thought the need to differentiate from Americans was a sign of Canadian patriotism

    Comment by Ortvin Sarapuu — August 12, 2015 @ 9:12 pm

  40. @Ortvin : If the stereotypes are true, you’re probably right.

    Comment by Joe W — August 12, 2015 @ 11:55 pm

  41. It’s a flag that offers fast unambiguous brand recognition for those whose need to make it clear that they’re not Americans usually outweighs their patriotism.

    Until Canadians open their mouths and then it’s a case of “Are you American?”🙂

    I didn’t realise NZ needed brand recognition…whatever, school maintenance is a more pressing problem.

    http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=11493442

    Comment by Ross — August 13, 2015 @ 7:25 am

  42. 3rd Degree broke some huge stories but never quite recovered from the humiliating ignominy of opening the show with a piece about a wheel clamper and following it up with an interview with Anna Guy

    To be fair, it’s “revelations” about the David Bain case were the death knell. Who knew it would go into bat for someone who, based on the evidence, likely murdered his family?

    Comment by Ross — August 13, 2015 @ 7:28 am

  43. “based on the evidence, likely murdered his family”

    pretty sure that very much a “6 of one, 1/2 doz of the other situation” these days

    Comment by framu — August 13, 2015 @ 8:56 am

  44. Maori have no particular dislike of the Union flag

    Sanctuary, what Maori don’t have is a single voice on any issue. Nor do Pakeha, for that matter.

    Comment by Ataahua — August 13, 2015 @ 4:04 pm

  45. Fijians do.

    Comment by Lefthanded — August 13, 2015 @ 11:47 pm

  46. The time for a new flag is the time we change our political arrangements, when we cast off the yoke of colonial cringe and the British monarchy, and become a republic.Then we should get a flag that represents that new nation.

    Or one could argue that changing the flag is a step towards such a republic.

    Does it have to all arrive on the same day with nothing changing unless it does?

    I’d be quite happy with two. New Caledonia has two. Or none – most primates do without.

    But this it’s not the right time argument implies there’ll be a right time for everyone.

    Comment by NeilM — August 14, 2015 @ 12:08 am

  47. @Ataahua: Part of engaging with Sanctuary is accepting two crucial things. Firstly, that large demographic groups (Maori, the poor, the working class, patriotic New Zealanders) speak with a single voice, and secondly, that Sanctuary can tell you authoritatively what they are saying

    Comment by Ubu — August 14, 2015 @ 12:30 am

  48. I think the term “no particular dislike” is completely consistent with not having a “single voice”, in fact almost implies it.

    Comment by Jason — August 14, 2015 @ 8:45 am

  49. The not the right time and not the right reason argument against flag change has its problems.

    Is it really possibly that everyone wanting a change will at any point agree on timing and reason?

    If you at present think this initiative fails on time and reason and therefore should not go ahead would you then accept that later in time others could veto a process that you agree with because they don’t?

    It also presupposes that people will agree to change for the same reasons or that they should if change is to occur.

    One doesn’t necessarily have to agree with Key’s reasons for change to want change oneself and the likelihood of agreeing with everyone is slim.

    If the flag changes at any point then one will have to accept that other people wanted the change for different reasons. Waiting for some magical future moment where every citizen has the same view of decolonisation and republicanism might mean waiting a very long time.

    Comment by NeilM — August 14, 2015 @ 9:37 am

  50. Is it really possibly that everyone wanting a change will at any point agree on timing and reason?

    Of course not. But that is also not a good reason to proceed in a ‘damn the torpedoes’ fashion.
    Polling is pretty clear than most people – at least, most people who are interested enough to have an opinion – don’t want the flag changed and also, don’t like the process under which it is being performed.
    Why people don’t want to change the flag is academic.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2015 @ 10:57 am

  51. Why people don’t want to change the flag is academic.

    Not wanting to change the flag under any circumstances is a coherent point of view.

    Not wanting to change the flag now because other peoples’ reasons for change are different isn’t.

    Comment by NeilM — August 14, 2015 @ 11:15 am

  52. I found the Earthsea books steadily less enjoyable the more they explained How This All Works – I preferred the quite alien fantasy of the earlier ones even though the politics were, in hindsight, not great.

    Comment by Trouble Man — August 14, 2015 @ 11:31 am

  53. I don’t think you understand what the argument Neil.

    It’s quite coherent to say that you want to become a repoublic, and that the new republic should have a new flag. There is nothing incoherent about such a person opposing changing the flag to represent an independence they don’t think exists.

    For such people the change of the flag isn’t the most important part, but it would be an important symbol of the change they do want.

    And yes, they do have to convince enough of everyone else to make the republican change if they want to see it happen, but that’s always been the case and no one denies it.

    Comment by Pascal's bookie — August 14, 2015 @ 11:42 am

  54. Changing the flag only when NZ becomes a republic is a coherent argument.

    But as you imply that only displaces the problem of timing and reason from a flag debate to a republic debate.

    Who determines the timing of a debate on republicanism, who determines the reasons?

    If people can object to changing the flag because it’s not the right time and not the right reason then shouldn’t some people have exactly the same right of veto on moving to a republic?

    It would seem odd though for people who support becoming a republic opposing that because other people support it for different reasons.

    Comment by NeilM — August 14, 2015 @ 12:04 pm

  55. For such people the change of the flag isn’t the most important part, but it would be an important symbol of the change they do want.

    Pretty much this.
    Basically, it’s seems nonsensical to me to even start having a conversation about changing a flag without identifying a catalyst for change that the majority of people accept / buy into.

    If people can object to changing the flag because it’s not the right time and not the right reason then shouldn’t some people have exactly the same right of veto on moving to a republic?

    This is a pretty dumb line of reasoning, precisely because if we were having a debate about becoming a Republic you could be damned sure the line of reasoning wouldn’t be “The Caucus has decided that NZ should become a Republic. Now you’ll get a chance to vote of some elements of our constitutional arrangements from these 4 options. After you’ve voted on that we’ll ask you to vote again on whether you’d like to stick with being a constitutional monarchy with the Queen of HoS or not.”

    There would be a sensible and ordered process that would take some years which would likely start with a Yes/No question put to the population along the lines of “Should New Zealand become a Republic?”.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2015 @ 1:41 pm

  56. Lets just be thankful that John Key has chosen a new flag as his legacy rather than massive reform of the welfare or tax systems, or something else that would actually cause suffering (rather than just mere embarrassment)

    Comment by Michael — August 14, 2015 @ 3:43 pm

  57. There would be a sensible and ordered process…

    Some think this changing the flag process is sensible and ordered.

    No doubt there’ll be those that think what you consider to be sensible and orderly isn’t.

    Comment by NeilM — August 14, 2015 @ 3:45 pm

  58. Revolutions or major constitutional changes come before flags: a forewarning.

    Comment by Lefthanded — August 14, 2015 @ 4:15 pm

  59. NeilM – some people think all kinds of stupid shit makes sense, but they’d still be empirically wrong.

    I think in this instance we can in fact rely on the wisdom of the crowd.

    Comment by Gregor W — August 14, 2015 @ 5:19 pm

  60. Yes Neil, people really do disagree about things. Genuinely, and they have their reasons. This is known. I’m not sure why you think it’s a big deal.

    If we had a debate about republicanism, some people would disagree that we should become one. If they are the majority at the end of the debate, then we won’t change. And it doesn’t matter what their reasons are. You might think some of their reasons are stupid, like you do for some of the people who you think really ought to support changing the flag right now. But you aren’t the boss of them.

    Comment by shakingstick — August 14, 2015 @ 6:53 pm


RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URI

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Blog at WordPress.com.

%d bloggers like this: