Posts by Rich Lock
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Emma Hart,
You get this discussion is about men, right? And the most valuable part of it is men actively engaging with it? I appreciate that you’ve distinguished “talking-not-listening” from just talking, but we need men talking about this.
I appreciate that. I'm just a bit wary of wading in with size 11 here's-wot-I-think-right hobnails, especailly in a discussion like this. My understanding is that it can be offputting for women who would otherwise be minded to participate to have a bunch of men wading in and opinioning the place up.
-
A thought: would it be a good idea to have another thread, possibly an open thread, more to provide a separate space for general or more male-oriented discussion? I've got a few thoughts, but am wary of clogging up this thread and talking-not-listening.
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Lilith __,
One thought on that vid - interesting that in a discussion of 'traditional' masculinity, the sherriff felt able to dismiss the guy as a non-threat because 'he seems kind of timid' - i.e. not exhibiting traditionally masculine traits. That possibly says as much about the culture and expectations as anything else.
-
Up Front: Lighting the Dark, in reply to Russell Brown,
Wading in cautiously: thanks for the post Emma. Just wanted to say that and sort of stick my hand up as a non-contributing-but-actively-listening person.
I’ve chewed over a couple or three things over the years, still do. None of them terrible, all of them things I wish I had the chance to do over because I don’t like who I was then and there.
I'd bet that more or less everyone does. I certainly do. I read a lot of the links in Emma's post, and they're thought processes, paths, and conclusions I've mostly already arrived at after spending the decades since my teens getting comfortable with myself. But in my '20's? No.
So how do I contribute in a way that helps more people to be comfortable well-adjusted humans?
-
Hard News: Circumstance and coincidence, in reply to Alex Coleman,
The theories are that he did lie, (this is appraently a conspiracy theory on par with trutherism, according to the PM and his backers), or that he told the truth and he didn’t know anything about DotCom even though there was an awful lot of stuff happening all around him for months on end.
Which also raises question about his competence, as Russell and other have alluded to. Did he lie, yes or no? If no, given how much was going on under his nose in his baliwick on his watch, is he actually competent for the role he occupies?
-
-
Speaker: Let's talk about class, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Thing is never expect middle class liberals to fight a class war
Bingo. Asking middle class liberals to be more class-conscious and at the same time expecting them to fight or care for the working class is a contradiction.
But the proles, if only they could somehow become conscious of their own strength, would have no need to conspire. They needed only to rise up and shake themselves like a horse shaking off flies. If they chose they could blow the Party to pieces tomorrow morning. Surely sooner or later it must occur to them to do it? And yet-! Until they become conscious they will never rebel, and until after they have rebelled they cannot become conscious.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Rich of Observationz,
Also, having Russia and Nato spend their time and money probing each others defences with planes and warships isn’t such a bad idea.
Here in the UK, the government is steaming ahead with their intended replacement for the Trident sub-launched nukes, for no easily-discernable rationale. Possibly the old ones weren't shiny enough. I'm sure the billions spent on being able to pound Russia into slightly more radioactive dust will be a comfort to those civilians on hospital waiting lists, people and prgrammes who rely on subsidies or grants, anyone using the aging intrastructure, and so on.
-
Hard News: Softly, softly, in reply to Tom Semmens,
For what exactly? Are you really implying that the only way of achieving a stable nation-state is through achieving racial/cultural purity?
All the empirical evidence of the last 200 years – in Europe at least – points to that. So the answer to your question is yes, that is what I am saying.
I would be very interested to hear how you think that could or should be applied to New Zealand society.
-
This doesn't look good.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/may/20/thailand-army-declares-martial-law-denies-coup-live
Hope you and yours are OK, Simon.