Orlion Blight

It's actually an optical illusion, your brain presenting an image you can comprehend. For a true glimpse of what truly lies under that beard is enough to drive most flamboyantly insane!

I had attended a couple panels with Max Gladstone at the Readercon, including one where he was a contestant on a Who's Line is it Anyway type "show". Seemed like a good fellow who had studied under the One True Author. Anyhow, this morning I got the following from Tor comparing him with Brandon Sanderson (who, to be clear, is not who I was calling the One True Author). Sigh... Will my reading pile ever shrink? It's like the US National Debt at this point! http://www.tor.com/2016/08/01/max-gladstones-craft-sequence-feels-like-it-could-fit-into-brandon-sandersons-cosmere/?utm_source=exacttarget&utm_medium=newsletter&utm_term=tordotcom-tordotcomnewsletter&utm_content=na-readblog-blogpost&utm_campaign=9780765379429

Comet!

@The Honor Spren I would say your assessment is entirely accurate. @Pestis the Spider For the first guy, dealing with him would be similar to dealing with Twi's problem: consistent rejection. In your case, letting him know that walking you home makes you uncomfortable would be the sort of thing to do. Be unapologetically honest (I.e. Don't use the form "I'm sorry, but..."). This will be key if he asks "but what about that one time..." you can say "the conversation was interesting." Or nothing. You don't owe him an explanation. The second guy sounds fairly extroverted, so he might be simpler. Let him know you feel uncomfortable with being touched by people you barely know. He'll either apologize or say something corny like, "we should get to no each other, then!" A simple, direct "No" with no laugh would be a proper response in the second case. Or an "eww". In either case, if this continues to be a problem, let the appropriate supervisor know.

Hmm... I can no longer see that topic myself.

This haul is Orlion Approved!

Indeed, the only thing venomous is this slanderous attack on our snake friends!

Fifth Season

Possum

When details are scant/unreliable, however, what then? Or even what if they are inconclusive? At that point, you have what Rawls called "Pluralism", or the arrival at different conclusions/views through reasonable means. That's simply what happens, why we have different political parties and different ways of looking at things. Some do not ever get out of seeing things "from a certain point of view," but that does not have to be my problem or defining characteristic. I won't ever be completely open-minded (I doubt anyone can be!) but I also don't have to be a zealot for a cause...or even be completely dismissive of even what would appear to me to be most obviously crem (say, like crystal healing and ancient aliens... Two conversations where I managed to not come anywhere close to saying "are you storming stupid?!" Like I would reflexively like to say). I've found I can hijack those beliefs anyway for my own symbolic purposes, anyway.

He also was a vegetarian, owned pets, breathed, drove cars, was a politician, had a mustache, wore clothes, spoke German... Really, Hitler probably did a lot of things you find permissible and so in your day to day life. Should I be concerned that you are working to establish a fascist regime? Hardly. Choosing what you believe is a privilege, and making use of that privilege does not in any way make you a regular terrible person, let alone an atrocious one like Hitler.

That's the thing about critical thinking though, isn't it? You have to process the information you get and determine of the source is reliable. Damaged viewpoints aren't the end of a relationship, or even necessarily a flesh wound to them. (I would argue that healthy sparring is necessary in a relationship, but that's a whole other topic ;)) It is our responsibility to verify claims and determine what they mean to us. To hijack one of your examples: you decide to ask the person if he is an unapologetic racist. He informs you that no, he is in fact an apologetic racist. You'll have to decide how that affects your relationship, but you've done critical work: taken a claim, investigated and gathered information...possibly having your perceptions challenged at least twice! Maybe more, as the incident continues! It's work, but you end up with a much more sophisticated worldview... One that may even compel you to defend another's positive experience with a book you personally consider to be garbage

You could. But that would ignore that events of the twentieth century are hardly "ancient history" with "accounts filled heavily with symbolism." What about being Michael Crichtoned? Where the author goes out of his way to do massive amounts of research and presents a comprehensive bibliography of sources and still reaches questionable/controversial results (such as with State of Fear)? Either case is fine, I believe, so long as neither is held to as dogmatic truth. Having your perceptions challenged is a good thing, even if it is done by one with questionable talent.

Well, when dealing with ancient history...most of which we only have accounts filled heavily with symbolism, exaggerations and fabrications are the order of the day! And if such is the case...why not choose the fabrication you prefer?

Or, he can join the Umbrage campaign!

Yeah, I was much the same way. In exchange for some spare change, I was willing to believe in anything!

Correct!

Guys will always latch on to anything, so shut him down! Stay professional! Remember, you're building a new life, you got no room to pity this fool! Things like "I'm working" "I don't see how that applies to the job at hand" etc, will resolve a lot of issues. Just be consistent. If he becomes a creepazoid, notify the proper supervisor.

A rat and mole mess about with boats, a toad steals a car. Lessons learned.

If they are anything like other Trump properties, we have nothing to fear from Trumpbots

Star Wars

As I've heard elsewhere, "God created Man in his own image. Man returned the favor."

To quote Tina Turner: What's love got to do with it? I hope he leaves you alone Sunbird. Ugly people like him are so often enabled, is disheartening.

I'm trying Smashburger for the first time, and it is rusting fantastic.

A lot of that seems like more of a wishing that Harry Potter was something other than what it is. It is centered on Harry, who would be the hero of your typical white privileged child. You're the chosen one, important, and no one else can save the world but you...even if other more talented, worthy people do all the heavy lifting. You end up with all the glory. Also, Snape is somehow a hero? He's a terribly immature adult whose pinning for unrequited love would make Jay Gatsby blush at its extravagance. And that's all fine because it's just YA escapism with some basic life lessons. That's what it is and all it is and it succeeded in being what it is. It was never a terribly sophisticated screed on class disparity, or the plight of minorities... It was just a story that people could escape to as a break from their real world concern. So long as the play does that, it will be a resounding success, no matter how ridiculous it is. Because Harry Potter has always been ridiculous, and that was always the point. People do not want to read about the hard and oft times futile work of finding a place in this world, they'd rather fantasize about one where a magic talking hat takes care of that on your first day of school.