Glurg?

[agentrosecotton]

So I found this treasure at the local Goodwill; a Clinton/Gore '96 campaign T-shirt. And I decided I had to have it. Honestly, when would I ever find another shirt like that? So I wheedled my mum into buying it for me (I was broke, thanks to the Delirious concert--more on that when I get my pictures uploaded). On the way out, the saleslady said,

Comments

[ramblin_rosie]

Actually, I think torture was the trigger word. Given the ever-shifting definition certain very vocal people have of torture and the difficulty in proving allegations of the same, and especially the difficulty of proving that torture is an official policy, those of us who support the GWOT get a little testy when people start their criticism of the President there. If you'd brought up immigration instead, he likely wouldn't have blown up at you (at least not right away), and you might actually have had a reasonable discussion without knee-jerk reactions on either side.
But yeah, best leave the political shirts at home. And I'd recommend that even if it were a shirt I agreed with. Club G'itmo gear can be as inflammatory as Clinton/Gore.

[ramblin_rosie]

I remembered after I shut the computer off last night that I've gotten death glares here in Bush country for wearing a shirt that says "Republicans Care." So... yeah.

[agentrosecotton]

Remember when it was possible to think of the other side of the bipartisan system without intense feelings of annoyance bordering on hatred? :)

[ramblin_rosie]

Oh, it still is--it's just harder at the national level. ;)

[runonmoonlight]

Heya :) I don't know you per sayyy =P But I wanted to ask you a question about something....

How is the definition of torture been changing? I mean, I would count torture as using physical and physcological torment/pain to get information out of a person. Did you mean that the definition of acceptable torture is changing? Or, I'm confused... Could you explain what exactly you meant for me?

:D

[runonmoonlight]

lol - I was tired when I wrote that =P But thanks (:

[runonmoonlight]

Thanks :)

Also, no worries - it's actually so one of mine when I'm more coherant - I don't even know how I managed to get out my other comment without mistyping/grammitically screwing anything up, but I wanted to comment before I forgot what I wanted to say.

[ramblin_rosie]

Well, the concept of what is and is not acceptable treatment of prisoners, given that they are not acting for a government and are thus not protected by the Geneva convention, seems to be wildly different between the two sides of the debate. To one side, playing loud rap music does not constitute torture; to the other side, it does. One side views psyops, including humiliation, as a legitimate means of getting information; the other views it as the moral equivalent of Uday Hussein putting people through a plastic shredder.
At least, that's the impression I'm getting from the squawks in the mainstream media.
I think everyone agrees that outright physical torture--the rack, etc.--is wrong and doesn't work and that those who practice it should be held accountable. Where the disagreement seems to come is in defining what other means of interrogation are acceptable, what are unacceptable, and what are considered torture.

[agentrosecotton]

Okay, I can kind of see that. To be honest, though, he was already acting very irritable and defensive before I mentioned torture, and when I did say it, he started yelling about evil Arabs and how even if we are torturing them it'd be okay because they're so evil. One of the things that really bugs me is that people are even ::trying:: to say that torture might sometimes be okay, or that the Geneva Conventions conveniently don't apply to some. Which I happen to think is never, ever, ever true. Ever. But that's another rant and I've already gotten into one tense political flamewar with you this week....

I shouldn't have worn the shirt, probably, but it's rather a self-preservation move. You're in the very vocal majority down here, you know, and those of us who aren't feel our minoritial status very acutely, especially since we believe we're right. :) We sometimes to express that by getting snarky and shoving our opinions down people's throats in retaliation for what happens to us. Classic victim mentality. ::tries to watch that::

[ramblin_rosie]

He does sound like the sort I don't want on my side, yes. (And I'll just say that the parts of the Geneva Convention that cover enemy combatants not fighting for a particular state are parts we never ratified and leave it there.)
Honestly, although I disagree with you on politics, I can understand your feeling attacked. I'd be sorely tempted to wear my "Proud to Be GOP" hat as often as possible if I were forced to live in, say, New York City. But you have to pick your battles. There's a time and a place for explosions, and there's a time and a place to politely disagree or tactfully change the subject. It's easier to discern online, but some of it just comes from painful experience.

[agentrosecotton]

I don't think you two would get along. You're much more reasonable than he was. :)

I know, I know I need to pick my battles, but to be honest, I wasn't intending to get into any kind of battle at all. I'd never had any seriously adverse reactions to any of myvarious expressions of politics before, including the 'Make tea, not war' shirt, the rainbow necklace, the hat covered in liberal pins with a very satirical and not-too-subtle one of George W., the bumper stickers, etc., and so I suppose I thought it might just bring up some interesting conversations and nothing more.

...

...

...silly republicans. ::grins, pokes, and runs away very fast::