Yeah, but the fandom can be expressed in different ways with different sports, different eras, different teams. I don't think it's a stretch to say that being a fan of Arsenal in the 70s and 80s is quite different from being a Red Sox fan in the 00s.

ON ANOTHER TEAM'S FIELD, no less. Of course, as a Cardinals fan, I'm just bitter (bitter AGAIN, actually), but y'know what? Your suspicions are correct, that "best fans in baseball" stuff is bullshit, we'd shiv a couple motherfuckers like that.

Oh, I thought you were talking about some broader, harsher "society wide" assessment, not just a few guys who like different music than you. I'm afraid I'm not really interested in discussing the latter. Everyone can like what they like!

…is it? I always thought the CW was that the Beatles were basically an inoffensive pop act until '66 or so.

Apology accepted, just don't let it happen again.

I'm always a fan of "The reviewer doesn't actually like what he likes!" arguments.

Fine, "a man who's made some mistakes."* We needn't pretend those mistakes didn't happen just because someone else made some mistakes, too.

Definitely. I think I'm just trying to explain why the Baldwin storm was so weird.

Yeah, not sure what you want to hear. Sometimes people say the dumb.

The thing about Baldwin is that he's at the front of so many cultural liberalism parades, you kinda assume he'd be the first one to condemn, say, Gary Oldman, if Gary Oldman did that. But getting into hypotheticals like that is tricky.

And even if "you" did…well, you should stop, and until you do, you should get some shit for it.

It's also like, I think he's got the "what should we do about it?" backwards. Yeah, the folks you're talking about are hypocritical if they condemn Gibson, but that doesn't mean Gibson shouldn't be condemned, it means THEY should be, too.

Wow, that's not how I read the quoted material at all. I thought he was saying that the actor's bland screen presence is the disqualifying factor, and that a similarly-bland Arabic actor would have at least had the virtue of being something new on screen.

I…didn't know anyone who says that until now.

Like I said, it's a genuine question, not an attack. I find I'm often pretty well able to imagine how people who disagree with me would respond to my questions (for example: I've always wondered what Randians would say about someone who rationally believes that they would benefit the most from a society with a strong…

"Society could be self-organizing."

"Debt coercively imposed on someone who did not contract for it is all moral dimension."

"I blanch at the notion of raising taxes to compensate for debt because it won't help. To a government willing to outspend its income at an ever increasing rate, how much income is enough?"

Yeah. And that's cool, but arguing the relative debt of red and blue states isn't necessarily the best front to open up in the battle for anarchy, y'know? It's like Theon capturing Winterfell, even when you got it, what have you got, really?

This is an honest question, by the way, not a cross examination. I'm honestly curious as to where anarchists draw the conceptual line between "voluntary coops" and "government". And I've never gotten the chance to ask!