A note to the guy who unfriended me when he got mad at my wife...

[mcroft]

It may be that you took stock of your friends list and decided that I didn't add anything to your day. That's cool. Most of my entries lately have been collected twitter translations.

It may be that you're planning to badmouth my wife for not letting you turn several parallel threads in one post on her LJ into your soapbox for your radical political opinions and decided that it would be unkind to show them to me and po-faced to make a custom friends group that excludes me. Points for straight up-ness and planning ahead, I suppose, balanced out by many points off for hot-headedness.

It may be that you think I'm likely to unfriend you because you unfriended her and you chose to accelerate the process. A self-fulfilling prophesy, but not out of the question. I generally find that people who assume that I'm an extension of my wife's decisions are prone to other failures in reasoning.

It may be that you found that your brilliant political analysis is wasted on anyone with such poor judgement as to actually marry my wife. I'm not sure I can disagree. I've read your political posts and they do seem to be wasted on me.

In any case, I wish you well, and I hope you work out your quickdraw temper issues before they become a liability to your personal or professional life. I'll do my best to cope with not being on your friends list.

TTFN,
Michael

Comments

[la-directora.livejournal.com]

You are FTW, my friend. :)

[arden-ranger.livejournal.com]

I'll do my best to cope with not being on your friends list.

Welcome to what seems to be an ever growing group.

[goldfired.livejournal.com]

Indeed.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Oh, get over yourself, you and arden_ranger both.

[princejvstin.livejournal.com]

As it has been said, you and your wife are individuals. Unfriending you because of disagreements with your SO is, in the end, illogical.

[kadath.livejournal.com]

ARGH.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

Well congratulations, you posted something that wasn't a Tweet about your socks.

My only comment on the subject was public with comments disabled, and I had intended that to be my only comment. I wouldn't have made it at all if I didn't think it had broader applicability.

I was attempting to minimize the chance I'd have to interact with your wife during the election season, so she can safely pat herself (and her friends) on the back without the danger of someone criticizing a hard-fought solipsism.

Nobody taped your eyelids open and forced you to read my politics filter.

I have no illusions that, should I bad-mouth your wife, you'd hear about it... just as I've heard about this (unlocked) post.

[mcroft.livejournal.com]

You're thinking of someone else. I don't wear socks. However, thanks for clarifying. I hope your attempts to minimize interaction with us don't affect your (or your fiancee's) ability to enjoy TBR come June/July. If not, perhaps you enjoy the self-created drama. Different strokes, et al.

I meant it when I wished you luck. I think you're lined up to burn a lot of bridges. I know a number of people who hold outside-of-the-mainstream political opinions (it was hard to blog in 2001 without knowing libertarians, for example). The ones who are successful in representing their views are aware that not everyone shares them, not everyone will share them when they are explained, and that some of their opponents aren't stupid. The ones who didn't do such a good job with those had little influence because they came across as either bullies or as people who couldn't defend their positions. The latter folks often end up storming off in a huff, which possibly makes them feel better, but really doesn't do anything positive in the "influencing people" department.

FWIW, there's a saying in software development that's applicible to politics: " 'perfect' is the enemy of 'better'." Politically, I'd like 'perfect', but if what I can get is 'better', I'll take it. I'm not convinced that you and I agree on this, and I know we don't agree on what's 'perfect'. I'm OK with that.

You get to pick what your on-line persona gets to be. One choice ends up in the on-line equivalent of a compound in Waco, Tx. The other has the possibility of influencing things. When you get some free time, you may want to consider if who you appear to be is who you want to appear to be.

[dirkcjelli.livejournal.com]

My attempts to minimize contact with you both are an effort to insure (or increase the likelihood of) my ability to enjoy TBR.

I'm fine with defending my opinions-- it is being asked not to express them in the name of politeness that sends me through the roof. I'll Godwin this one for everyone else... if someone stands up in a journal saying how Hitler is such a nice man, a vegetarian who loves dogs and children, I'll call a spade a spade in no uncertain terms... especially when they don't know what they're saying. (I don't care if the other guy is Stalin.)

We're in agreement that 'perfect should not be the enemy of the good,' which is how I'd heard it... but there is still such a thing as "not damn near good enough"-- and the Democratic Party supporting an ongoing war which is killing high six figures and displacing low seven figures of people is not good enough, not when they were elected with a mandate to Do Something. Opposing impeachment when the President has Nixonian approval ratings... not good enough. Thirty years of political retreat have got us where we are today, by moving the goalpost for the Democratic Party. There are a few good eggs... who will not receive their party's nomination or support.

I've outright said I'll hold my nose and pull the lever if I have to, but these are the f-ing primaries. The candidates won't -get- any further "left" than this, especially those who are consciously aiming for the "center."

Should there have been any confusion (not the first comparison to right libertarians of me I've seen), it is inapt. I'm throwing (polemical) bombs from the Left, not the Right.

[djinnthespazz.livejournal.com]

*grinning*