You can have the most brilliant piece of writing ever and then lose it all to a simple sig, former opinion editor. I completely fail to see how this could be true in any way shape or form. It stands up on its own or it doesn't.
That's just hubristic to use the sig "former opinion editor" to the current one. Why? And if this is true, how does calling yourself enlightened compare?
And deserves to be treated with bigotry. I find this to be an odd statement for someone claiming not to be a bigot. You sound like you at least condone it.
So sometimes you have to take the opposite tact and act like a bigot to prove that you're enlightened. So you're basically saying that behaving like something to prove you're the opposite is a good tactic. In other words you can prove somebody wrong by confirming his believes about you. How does that work?
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2006-01-25 11:29 am (UTC)I completely fail to see how this could be true in any way shape or form. It stands up on its own or it doesn't.
That's just hubristic to use the sig "former opinion editor" to the current one.
Why? And if this is true, how does calling yourself enlightened compare?
And deserves to be treated with bigotry.
I find this to be an odd statement for someone claiming not to be a bigot. You sound like you at least condone it.
So sometimes you have to take the opposite tact and act like a bigot to prove that you're enlightened.
So you're basically saying that behaving like something to prove you're the opposite is a good tactic. In other words you can prove somebody wrong by confirming his believes about you. How does that work?