Neil Gaiman

On behalf of Garner:

"A few things:

1) Candeleena: Welcome to boardania. We believe in a freeform exchange of ideas here, following a freeform flow of ideas, and recognize that a discussion that starts out about Neil Gaiman may well wind up as a debate on the misnomers of 'social anthropolgy' and 'mass psychology and communications'. If you're finding that you sparked a controversy that has not worked its way to a natural conclusion, you don't get to say 'Okay, can we please ignore this controversy I started'. Simply not done. If you say 'Can we move this to another thread please', then it can be considered, but your reason for the request seems to be just another take on 'Can we please ignore the controversy'. From everything I've heard you say so far, I have little reason to believe you'd actually adress the issue if we separated it from this topic.

Furthermore, I believe that creating separate topics for sub-discussions within a thread gives that topic a greater sense of importance. Trying to get you to recognize your prejudices and bigotry is not that important to me. Not important enough to dedicate a thread to you, anyway. I'm fine with carrying it on in here. If you really want to make a new thread for it, go right ahead but I'll expect you to contribute to that thread.

2) Pixel: Thank you for your post of Tuesday, August 8th. Your preliminary suggestion has been noted and our board of directors will issue a response to you promptly. We value all our posters, and believe that each suggestion deserves equal consideration, regardless of the point of its origin.

As you have so astutely observed, Clay and Grace have been sharing a computer in recent days. As you have so conveniently observed, Clay has failed to notice on at least two but less than three occasions that Grace has had the audacity to use her own computer - that Clay gave her no less - to contribute to these boards and check her email and the like. After such occasions, Clay has made the casual oversight of not double checking to make sure he was still signed in.

Owing to an increased insight into the proper nature of male-female relations, thanks entirely to the many well written and convincing essays of your own authorship, Pixel, Clay has now decided that Grace, as a woman, should not be allowed to use the computer at all. She has clearly created a situation in which no one is able to tell who's typing what, and this situation must be stopped before Doors posts as Ella, or someone confuses Marcia's comments with Maljonics.

We sincerely apologize to anyone who's been so thoroughly confused by the single-computer status of the Garner household that they cannot tell which Garner is standing right behind them with a spiked club and about to royally wallop their doctor shipman assy for being a pillock.

Sincerely,

Garner, Inc.

3) Back to Candeleena for a bit:

A] I'm not taking things "personally" as an American. I'm taking things "personally" as someone who objects to bigotry in any form, and proactively attempts to wipe stupidity out in the developed world like we managed to do with small pox and polio. Unfortunately, there's no vaccine against being an idiot yet, so I've got to resort to logic and reason and insults in my humanitarian crusade.

If I wanted to insult a 'Mechovian', I'm sure I could come up with something vaugely generic enough knowing nothing more than he's from the former soviet union. Bread lines, gulags, cossaks, communism... there's plenty of fertile ground for insults there. But here's an idea, what if I just said "Well, he's a typical Mechovian (in the negative sense)."

Gosh, look, I've just insulted him AND his entire fictitious country. And I don't even know a thing about them. I'll just wait here for a few years while that point slowly sinks in... Don't mind me. I've got some reading to catch up on.

B] The people who 'tease' me about being American include cab drivers who inquire why I live in the UK (the response is usually 'Hell, if you had bush for a president, wouldn't YOU move?') and a guy with a wooden leg who claims I, as an american, buy up all the contents of the sandwhich wagon before he can manage to get out of the building to get his lunch.

In the first instance, the cab drivers are making conversation and, in a very English (in a good way) manner, we both make jokes about our respective political situations - not about our respective nationalities or cultural qualities.

In the second instance, the chap with the wooden leg has no social skills and everyone in the office mocks him on a regular basis to repay his 'witticisms'. I respond much less often and much less aserbicly to his 'teasing', as my opinion holds he is only seeking attention and he'll eventually quit with the american jokes when he sees I don't reply.

Your assumption, once again, is inaccurate.

C] Maljonic is probably the least easily irked person I've known who wasn't on thorozine or qualudes. Your comment about his popularity is uninformed, inappropriate, inaccurate, and thoroughly bewildering. Why would such a thing be relevant here, why would you even think it in the first place? Your skills in a debate are rapidly falling to such an abysmal depth that a few more such irrelevant idiocies may just convince us to stop bother trying, and completely ignore you.

So please, keep up the good work.

D] Your philosophical efforts to undermine a debate are not a valid debating tactic. First off, the thing about sweeping statements is that they present a general but INACCURATE view. if they also present an offensive view, you are faced with the consequences of uttering an offensive and undefendable statement.

At this point, a mature adult would apologize. You, on the other hand, dig your hole deeper.

As for the truth of such a sweeping statement, existentialism and solopism and ontology all aside, what is untrue is far easier to define than what is 'true' or 'truth'. Thus, while you can try to defend your untrue statements by justification, we can still say 'assuming that were the case, your original premise is false. further examination holds that your supporting premises are also false.'

Try to express it using Symbolic Logic like TFL or some other language, and you'll find that you're building a house of cards with one hand, and setting the foundations on fire with the other.

E] You said "why can't we speak of some negative things too, provided we do it in unexaggerated [sic] and polite way?"

You have not spoken of negative things in an 'unexaggerated' or 'polite' way.

You said "Are we only allowed something like 'Slightly unpleasant things please happen to Americans for their offhand approach to other cultures?'"

You believe that all americans are offhanded in their approach to other cultures? You believe, therefore, that they should all suffer unspecified 'unpleasant things'?

Don't think i'm taking this personally as an american, I'd find this just as wretchedly and blatantly insipid if I were a mexican or if you were talking about the sudanese.

To go back to your curious 'philosophical' method of avoiding a direct question, I have a few philosophical questions about your notion of a 'polite' and 'unexaggerated' way to comment on Americans:

Define 'slightly unpleasant'. Define 'offhand approach'. Prove to me that this is endimic to all americans. Lastly, justify why the punishment (slightly unpleasant things) fits the alleged crime (an offhand approach to other cultures).

F] Your innocent opinion is as innocent as a Klu Klux Klansman walking past a synagogue and saying "Those Jews... they may control the media now but we'll show them one of these days!"

Sorry, let's rephrase that in an unexaggerated and polite way. Our hypothetical Klansman might say, in a Candeleenaly innocent way "Those Jews, I sure hope they get their come-uppance because they keep the master race down."

G] You can insist that black is white and up is down, but it won't make them true. You can redefine chromatics, linguistics, geometry, and the electromagnetic spectrum, but your house-of-cards-cum-pile-of-ash excuse for reasoning won't support any arguement that'd sway anyone who didn't already share your stereotypes, prejudices, and bigotry.

You are not thinking clearly or freely of your horrible preconceptions. Your stated opinions and beliefs indicate nothing but you dislike americans because they're americans. Your notion of americans is not subject to change, because you don't believe there's anything wrong with it. Therefore, as you likely see it, you're not in the wrong.

Yet, let's take your convenient philosophical definition of truth. After all, you said it was the only one that was viable. No one here's agreeing with either your premises or the way you arrived at them.

Either, logically, you are in the wrong and should affect a corresponding change in your attitudes and behaviors, or we are entirely and as one united in a misconception and, one would presume, you would have a better time in greener pastures, free of americans and 'easily irked' people.

H] You say the use of a mythological archetype is justified, then you argue that one cannot change an archetype. Question: Since when are mythological characters any more one dimensional than less mythological characters? Gilgamesh was more than just a bloke who went on a hunt. Elijah was more than just someone who hated little kids.

What archetypes is gaiman using as his central motif? If he's using a different interpretation of the same character-symbol of a mythological god that you idolize, why is he suddenly in the wrong.

Thor's more than just some bloke with a hammer. Loki's more than just a pratctical joker.

But let's take your hyperbolic and uninformed example again... Where's the romance and power? Maybe it's just me, but I'd say that there's inherently a thousand different stories of 'romance' and 'power' in a young girl turned to prostitution who dies by violence.

Consider, in the earliest days of 'American' literature, there was often a large universal antagonist of 'the wilderness'. As the fledgling nation expanded and encompassed the bulk of the continent, the wilderness was tamed. Things changed, and it became cliche that there was an 'urban jungle'. The 9 to 5 office job working character would come home and say, exhausted it, 'it's a jungle out there'.

Why, then, can the character who was a metaphor for the raging sea to a people who lived on the coast and lived off of the fruits of the sea, become a metaphor for rising tides of gang violence that float a thug-life culture in the metaphorical concrete-and-smog ocean of los angeles?

Maybe, and this is just a sweeping, innocent statement here, maybe you're just too thick to read anything that's written outside the boundries of your tunnel vision?

[quote:25da5e06ce="Wikipedia"]There is a tradition in many newsgroups and other Internet discussion forums that once such a comparison is made, the thread is finished and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically "lost" whatever debate was in progress. This principle is itself frequently (though perhaps incorrectly) referred to as Godwin's Law.[/quote:25da5e06ce]

[quote:25da5e06ce]F] Your innocent opinion is as innocent as a Klu Klux Klansman walking past a synagogue and saying "Those Jews... they may control the media now but we'll show them one of these days!"

Sorry, let's rephrase that in an unexaggerated and polite way. Our hypothetical Klansman might say, in a Candeleenaly innocent way "Those Jews, I sure hope they get their come-uppance because they keep the master race down." [/quote:25da5e06ce]

Watch it Garner, you [i:25da5e06ce]nearly[/i:25da5e06ce] lost there

[size=9:25da5e06ce](sorry, had to find some silly remark to make or I'd have to admit agreeing with you...)[/size:25da5e06ce]

[size=9:8aca048606]I was procrastinating about replying, in light of the request not to derail... but given the other posts I thought I might as well get this comment in.[/size:8aca048606]

[quote:8aca048606="Candeleena"]Just one more comment. I'll illustrate it with an example. We in Poland believe that Germans are an extremely tidy nation. When we go to Germany and see some dirty corners (work of the 100 untidy Germans) , we say to ourselves "a-ha! some Poles have been here" because our stereotype of Tidy Germans is too precious to lose[/quote:8aca048606]

So would you say that as a joke or do you actually believe it?

If you actually believe that statement, then that really is quite sad and you need to expand your worldview.
If you're saying that as a joke on the German/Polish stereotype, then that's fine, as long as you don't take it too far.

But, your original statement about Americans was a stereotypical statement used as a point in a debate, not in jest. That is the difference. So we can only presume that you really believe all americans are like that or that you put it in there to offend deliberately, having seen no other evidence to the contrary.

posting on behalf of that all-american dimwit, Garner

[quote:9e9e89ffad="Garner"]Oy, Frenchie, shouldn't you be waving a white flag of surrender at the first mention of Godwin's Law, just by association?

(CAVAT: The French lost millions of lives and tremendous amounts of economic infrastructure in the first world war. granted it was their demands and insistance for the brutal terms of the treaty of versais that lead directly to the second world war and the nazi invasion of france, but their token defense and rapid surrender have to be considered in light of their still recovering from the last war status. The french people simply could not survive another conflict on that scale. As such, the only way to save the country was to surrender the country. Thus, the various jokes and comments about the french rolling over for hitler like a puppy for a bone are unfair and short sighted, and often used to back up a negative stereotype of the french people and their rather lackluster military history.

It would be far more worth while to hate france for their snotty tourists, snotty waiters, and producing annoying people like Katcal.)[/quote:9e9e89ffad]

[quote:187f563392="Garner"]Oy, Frenchie, shouldn't you be waving a white flag of surrender at the first mention of Godwin's Law, just by association?

(CAVAT: The French lost millions of lives and tremendous amounts of economic infrastructure in the first world war. granted it was their demands and insistance for the brutal terms of the treaty of versais that lead directly to the second world war and the nazi invasion of france, but their token defense and rapid surrender have to be considered in light of their still recovering from the last war status. The french people simply could not survive another conflict on that scale. As such, the only way to save the country was to surrender the country. Thus, the various jokes and comments about the french rolling over for hitler like a puppy for a bone are unfair and short sighted, and often used to back up a negative stereotype of the french people and their rather lackluster military history.

It would be far more worth while to hate france for their snotty tourists, snotty waiters, and producing annoying people like Katcal.)[/quote:187f563392]
Oy, Yank, I was "produced" by the country you are now shamelessly stealing sandwiches from. General snottiness will have to be enough to make you hate the French. Although don't be too hard on them, they already have to put up with me.

Garner, I think Kat is an expat, not a native Frenchie. Perhaps you're being ironic and I fail to see that.

I spell Tor without an 'h', and Loke with an 'e'. That might not be correct English, though. Just wanted you to know how a viking spells it.

Had I known about Godwin's Law a lot of discussions I've lead over msn with Roman would have ended much quicker. He's the master of nazi comparisons, but I reckon he has a get-out-of-jail-card in this case.

Other than that, I'll stay out of this discussion. If I've understood Garner correctly, which I sometimes find hard to do but I'm sure that is my failing and not Garner's, I generally agree with what he's saying, extra kindness, hold the anger.

[quote:1e768f122b="KaptenKaries"]Garner, I think Kat is an expat, not a native Frenchie. Perhaps you're being ironic and I fail to see that.[/quote:1e768f122b]
Thanks KK, only you mad sauna-obsessed moose-loving scandinavians understand me.

On behalf of Garner, again

[quote:859196ccfd="Garner"]I know Kat's an expat, but she's easy to wind up by calling her a frenchie. I believe the accepted english spelling of Loke is Loki, but there could be other variants. Thor's definately got a theta rather than a tau, both phonetically and in its spelling. as for difficulty in understanding my posts, even native english speakers have a hard time with that, but so long as you keep agreeing with me, then you'll be doing alright.

incidentally, Katcal, i aint a yankee, i's a southerner.[/quote:859196ccfd]

**note to self : remember to call Garner a yankee, or Yanky on all possible occasions **

Oh, and Yanky, it's spelled Versailles, by the way... I only just worked out what that word was supposed to be...

Wow, you go out for the evening and wake up to a thread five pages long!

I think that most of what needs to be said has already been said by others, but I'll still add my two cents.

As an American who spent twelve years growing up in a foreign country (London), I have been the subject of a myriad of stereotypes. Kids would ask me if my family is like The Simpsons or if my dad owns a gun, things along those lines.

Fact of the matter is, what the rest of the world sees as American culture is filtered through that demon of demons: the media. American sitcoms and dramas show America as image-obsessed, shallow and idiotic.

Now, upon returning to the US last year, I'll admit, after 12 years away from the place I was afraid I would be going to high school with a bunch of airhead cheerleaders and bible-thumping conservatives.

But America deserves more credit than that. Sure the president isn't the sharpest tool in the shed, but he, and the other public faces of America, are not what really goes on.

My best friend and I went out to dinner last night. She's lived in Nebraska her whole life. We talked for three hours about politics and current world problems. She's not a scary, narrow-minded right-winger. She's a liberal hippie vegetarian who wants to join the peacecorps.

America is huge. Fifty different states, hundreds of city, thousands of towns, and millions of people. The media makes it easy to lump that all into a stereotype, but a visitor to America will be met with more than just a shallow, simplified opinion of something. There's too much going on in the US for it to be simple. Sure, the kid I sat next to in English class was a cheerleader, but the kid in front of me was a member of the ACLU!

We're all different, and though it's easy to consider Americans to be a bunch of idiots, we aren't all idiots.
I wouldn't be going to college if I were an idiot!

Now I suppose I shouldn't have let this stereotype business yank my chain, but after spending the better part of my formative years being picked on for no other reason than the fact that I was born in America, you might be able to understand why this struck a nerve.

I will admit that while America is full of intelligent, broad-minded individuals, it is, of course, also full of narrow-minded simpletons. But every country has its simpletons! American television just portrays a number of its characters as shallow, ignorant dolts, and that is what the rest of the world sees, and natural psychology makes them associate this characteristic with anyone who comes from the US of A.
The rest of the world forgets about their own dolts and conservative minds who live just down the street.
It's just easier, what with the current political administration and all, to make America the butt of everyone's jokes.

Stereotypes are often made light of in this day and age, especially with political correctness being rampant, but they annoy the hell out of me. As far as I can see, I'd rather someone picked on me for a valid reason, other than the fact that my passport is a certain design.

I think that's about all I had to say. I admit to being slightly irked, but that may just be because it's not even 9.30 in the morning yet and I haven't had my coffee. Hope I didn't ramble on too long.

I'm also surprised by the size of the reaction.

All right, let's get on with it:

1) I postulate that posts should not exceed, say, 100 words because more makes it very difficult to relate to some important issues contained in them, and then people complain of being ignored

2) please don't use people's christian names instead of forum nicks. I'm new and I find it hard to follow

3) Garner: no, you're not taking it personally :badgrin: (that was irony if you haven't noticed). Your speech was frankly devastating for my ego . Can't you see that at the same time of preaching good discourse manners to me, you're breaking some basic rules, too? The introduction was very nicely balanced and made a very good impression on me, but why did you have to lose your temper and start calling me "thick"? ts ts ts.

4) Garner: "Slightly unpleasant things please happen to ....[fill in]..." is a quotation from "Interesting Times", and a joke of course. I'm surprised you didn't get it.

5) All right if you insist I can start a new thread for you, but what shall I call it? archetypes and why not to break them? xenophobia and common national stereotypes? Applied semiotics and other Sciences? We've been arguing about many things here. Where do you want it, too - in Boardania?
The problem is the the dicussion is very likely to be quite futile because we have already said a lot. Won't it be boring? :?

On the subject of making posts clear...

I wouldn't rely on us knowing every Discworld book inside out just because we're fans. Also, if it is the case you were being ironic, it's evidently not easy to tell (although I did pick up on a fair amount of sarcasm), so can I suggest that if you find yourself caught up in a debate of this kind in the future, you try to leave out the irony and the jokes? Because sometimes they're hard to pick up on, and it would be easier for us to identify the points you were making without them. We're not a completely humourless board, but these things can lead to confusion.

[quote:c9bd0eb21d="chrisjordan"]...if you find yourself caught up in a debate of this kind in the future, you try to leave out the irony and the jokes? Because sometimes they're hard to pick up on, and it would be easier for us to identify the points you were making without them. We're not a completely humourless board, but these things can lead to confusion.[/quote:c9bd0eb21d]
That was cute, thanks for the advice, I will remember that. And of course I understand YOU were being ironic, too!

Eh? Ironic about what? Making posts clear?

Edit: Oh, the 'humourless' comment? Yeah, well. It didn't cause my post to be unclear, so that's OK.

:shock: so you were completely serious? :shock: :?
edit: your edit - ah! that's OK!

Which? Where? Which bit are you talking about?

Edit! Gah! Crossposting mayhem! Are we unconfused now?!

Think so. I've been reading your webpage. You a GIRL? :shock: or has plaid designed your page? *totally confused*

I'm the first name in the copyright! Yep, Plaid designed it. How did you know?

They don't make me hard to follow, Mr Good Manners, but hard to relate to every issue.

Chrisjordan: it is written at the bottom of the page

[quote:d035d3a89e="Candeleena"]They don't make me hard to follow, Mr Good Manners, but hard to relate to every issue.

Chrisjordan: it is written at the bottom of the page [/quote:d035d3a89e]

Her real name is. Not 'plaid'.

And the amount of sighing and sarcastic remarks you've used in this thread, you criticising Garner's manners? That's irony.

I never ever used an insulting word, like "idiot" for example. But now please let's move to a new thread I opened in Boardania, and let's leave this one for more literary discussions.

It sometimes seems to me that this board has a low threshold for accepting strong views from new members.

Also, I did not like the strong mythology element in this book at all, thus why I did not like the book overall

[quote:3012717ed0="Hex"]As an American who spent twelve years growing up in a foreign country (London)[/quote:3012717ed0]

Wow. I went to London before they make it a country. I must go back now.

Jackal, I don't have a problem with new or old members holding and discussing strong views. It does bother me when someone starts making an ass of themselves and then tries to insert themselves into a place of authority.

Candeleena, when you said the 'in a negative sense', you were talking at me. You didn't know it because you were too far stuck up your own ass to see that not everyone here holds to the same political, social, or religious ideas. Believe it or not there are some Americans that follow those 'in a negative sense' ideas that enjoy reading books and discussing them on a website. Even though I may be a negative spot on the face of America, I do often get on well with most of the board members. For me, this was a direct slap in the face and one that you not only denied, but also deemed justifiable. I may disagree with your particular views on many things, but that doesn't mean that I have to consider your views as negative views. That makes you more close minded than the most bigoted of individuals.

I see no reason at all for not using any part from any and every culture in order to inhance our own. This, far from being a negative thing, is a great thing about America. We've taken hundreds of cultures, thrown them into a pot and culminated out own variation.

[quote:61787f2859="redneck"][quote:61787f2859="Hex"]As an American who spent twelve years growing up in a foreign country (London)[/quote:61787f2859]

Wow. I went to London before they make it a country. I must go back now.
[/quote:61787f2859]
Apologies. That is meant to read 'England' not London.
Clearly I need to up my dosage of caffiene in the morning.
I'm going to go hide in a corner now.

My only experience with American Gods is a short story that is based on the novel. I only hope I do get to read more of his work.

As an American it always hurts me to know how people from the rest of the world belittle our culture, it also puzzles me because most of our culture our forebears brought with them when they came here. It didn't just drop down out of the trees, even if the trees have influenced it.

We are for the most part justified in being proud of our country. It is a blessed part of the world and people from all the rest of the world have helped it remain blessed. I would hazard a guess that parts of the rest of the world have even benefitted from those blessings.

It just completely pisses me off that people are having to remove their shoes and dump out their liquid toiletries because some ignorant creeps want to deal us another black eye. By the way, Thank your police force, Britains, for foiling the latest plot to blowup airliners headed to the States

**points finger and wimpers** The monkey can see [i:0c877be7e6]dead [/i:0c877be7e6]people !

I never knew you worked with acountants... (splg ? sorry, it's late and Kevin Costner's on TV, my brain is dead.)

[quote:d8972f8b1b="Katcal"](splg ? sorry, it's late and Kevin Costner's on TV, my brain is dead.)[/quote:d8972f8b1b]

Yeah, my brain has to be dead to watch him too. Then again, some parts of Neil Gaiman's writing probably anaesthetised them first. Other bits weren't too bad though.