(5 replies, posted in Creations)

Skype night!

(I still haven't had time to engage with this thread. Now I'm just being a jerk about it. Sorry.)

As for "tolerance of intolerance," I — for myself — generally find that to be a fairly easy question to answer.

Measure by the violence of the outcome.

Whom do you tolerate? Anybody who's intended outcomes can be stopped (if necessary) without violence. Some positions inherently increase the amount of exclusionary violence in the world — in the philosophical 'all-politics-is-violence' sense, that is — and some positions increase the amount of inclusionary consensus-attempt. Forget 'tolerance vs. intolerance,' and just seek to prevent violence — systemically, programmatically — as best you can. If you only do half-well at this attempt, you're still passing just fine. The attempt is the thing.

PS #1: I'm not sure if this was too simplified. It was either gonna be this-one-short-paragraph, or... one of my ginormous treatises that nobody enjoys reading. I'm happy to throw out a longer version if anybody's interested.

PS #2: Also, remember the etymology of "violent" — something 'violent' violates somebody's earnestly-willed outcome. At the end of the day, to have violence enacted upon you is to be shut down, not injured. It's the ultimate violation of will. The question lies in the violence of the violated person's earnestly-willed outcome.

Whoever the fuck this guy is — what he said.

This shit is just such a slog, y'know?


"Okay campers, rise and shine! And don't forget your fortitude because it's devastating out there today! (It's devastating out there every day — what is this, some Chekov shit? Not hardly!) So, really: Do you think any of our leaders are going to see themselves in the mirror today? Ha! That's right, doldrum-lovers — it's Tues-day!"

(For the record, I absolutely love this thread, I just haven't had time to engage with it yet.)

Well, anyway.

Just to begin somewhere, here are my concerns:



Non-Mod post:

Look, at this point, we represent the dwindling raft of debris still floating in the post-DIF stormwaters, and — for sanity — we've gotta cling onto each other as much as possible. I intend for this thread to be perfectly accommodating to people of any political persuasion — look: we're all concerned about the future of democracy — just as long as those political persuasions are expressed according to the aforementioned etiquette.

I want to be very clear: regardless of any disagreement you-and-I might come to, you can always expect me to drop "my" "role" in that disagreement, when it comes to mod concerns. In my capacity as a mod, I mean to be fully responsive to people who espouse opinions which, in my capacity as a poster, I'm literally yelling my disagreement about. (If it comes to that.) If you come to me for a mod-thing and are unsatisfied with my response, I also intend to leave any [rule-abiding] "public appeals" you make (in response to that dissatisfaction) public and unedited. I'll make my case as well — and, obviously, 'mod-rule' stands, until successfully appealled — but, while you won't get the last word on the ruling, your voice in this thread will never be silenced unless it's in direct violation of the rule above, even if your voice is being used to criticize the mods.

For any other person with mod-powers on this board, I expect the very same to apply. Strict separation of decisionmaking in "mod-capacity" versus "poster-capacity" is the minimum sufficient criteria for mod-powers on this board. If you have a problem with any other mod, you can always appeal it to me — and they may lose.

In the meantime?

Go nuts. Disagree with people's opinions. Just don't belittle people.

[placeholder for future mod-stuff-as-necessary, if necessary]

Mod post:

This thread has one rule:

Belittling of private figures will not be tolerated.

Everybody using this forum is a private figure.

If you're in any way confused about the implications of this rule, I'll include additional details in the spoiler box below. (Note: If you fail to read these details and then mess-up later in the thread, I'll be holding you accountable for having not read it, so... seriously: if you're confused, read the box.)

The Rule Show
If [whatever you express] targets and belittles any private figure, it will be edited.

No warning.

I'll show up in your post with bright red text and explain: 1) that I have edited your post; 2) what edits I have made; and: 3) why I made them. Express "harsh" opinions "harshly," if you want — you do you; it's your speech; these are harsh times — but keep a weather eye on your aim.

So, what's a "private figure?" Anybody who doesn't draw a public paycheck somewhere on Earth. Pursuant to these rules, Jared Kushner — for example; or Nigel Farage, or Marine Le Pen — is still "a public official," as far as a FIYH forumer from Croatia would be concerned. The "public" in-question doesn't have to reflect your national public; if [the person you're addressing] is beholden to the public, somewhere, they're public.

Until they draw a public check, another FIYH forumer is not a public official under any set of circumstances.

Last chance:

If your expression-of-opinion targets and belittles anybody on this forum — rather than their argument — you've fucked up. Get harsh with their opinions as you see fit, but if you go 'beyond' their opinion (into their 'motivations,' or anything along those lines), be warned: I will be actively seeking opportunities which allow me to demonstrate that the forum is being kept safer for them than you. I will take their side.

...and I love you, you idiot, so... for fuck's sake, don't make me do this. It's just one rule. Let's be cool, right?


Express your opinions into the conversation — not onto the conversant.

If you're not sure whether something crosses the line, you probably should rewrite the 'iffy' bit.


(41 replies, posted in Episodes)



(2,122 replies, posted in Off Topic)



I'm sorry to everyone.

1) Thanks for the update.

2) Dude, this sucks. Particularly the 'rock-and-a-hard-place' stuff with the ileostomy. What a nightmare.

3) Had you had issues like this in the past? (In other words, did you have any idea about this being an issue?)

4) I'm so sorry to hear about all this.

5) Thanks for the update.

6) Cat.


(16 replies, posted in Creations)

I once seen a too.

(Sorry Writhyn.)


(16 replies, posted in Creations)

I saw it, tooooo!

// very obscure reference to Muppet Treasure Island, for no reason

Owen_Ward wrote:

I know how bloody shitty it can be.



(16 replies, posted in Creations)






Just a moment —

*holds finger to ear*

Regan wrote:

Coming to you live and pumped on morphine from NHS hospital in England to say...this is sucking so hard!

Our correspondent is live and alive at the scene of the hospital. We look forward to continued coverage as the crisis wears on.

(No, but seriously: Hang in there, bud — and let us know how it's goin.')

Faldor: So FYI, Regan is in hospital with an abdominal abscess.

Having briefly Googled his thing, my understanding is that Regan is likely to survive... which means he'll return...

Which means he just found this thread and now he's reading it! Hi Regan! We were talking about you! See?


(213 replies, posted in Off Topic)

Owen_Ward wrote:

I'm not loving it, but it's been an enjoyable read so far. It has certainly stuck with me and I find myself eagerly awaiting any chance I get to start another chapter. That being said, although I really like all the individual ingredients, the pie as a whole falls short just a little - can't quite put my finger on why though.

Nah, that's the right opinion. You're good.


(213 replies, posted in Off Topic)

And are you enjoying Snow Crash? There are no wrong answers. Don't fuck up.


(213 replies, posted in Off Topic)

I should post in this thread more.


I'm terrified about wanting to read The Uninhabitable Earth, but I do.

Sequels -> Trilogies -> Franchises -> Reboots -> Remakes -> [Sequels to Remakes ->] Universes

Prepare for the Disneyverse.


(76 replies, posted in Off Topic)

No claims of it being particularly 'great,' but the destination was either gonna be this thread or the chatroom, so.

I was snooping through a digital archive of the New York Times from 1981, and was surprised to stumble upon:


EDIT 1: Incidentally, I don't recall having ever seen this poster before.

EDIT 2: Ope, here it is. Theatrical re-release.