Pineapple Express: Someone Is Wrong on the Internet?

[TiQuinn]

It has been hard to come to accept that no one’s opinion regarding just about anything is remotely interesting. Including my own. But it’s true.

I think at certain times in certain situations, anyone’s opinion could be interesting but 99% of the time, we’re all just wondering what we’re going to have for lunch that day, or whether you forgot something at the house.

 

[TiQuinn]

It's not necessarily about resolving the issues. It's more about recognizing and analyzing them. You don't have to fix them in order to shine a light on them.

Mmmm…not what I mean. At least not with that book. I think he was failing to recognize his own really bad impulses there.

 

[payn]

SciFi has a history of amplifying a single societal issue, in order to examine it.

In general, thats true. With some authors who are really good at it, and some who are not so good at it.

 

[Mannahnin]

I love a lot of Heinlein, and he had some great and some merely thought-provoking ideas. But he definitely had some unexamined and sometimes very "yikes" personal issues which came out in occasionally ugly and disturbing ways. Farnham's Freehold is a bit of an aberration for its period, with more of that than usual. Most of his squicky stuff showed up in later books.

 

[TiQuinn]

I love a lot of Heinlein, and he had some great and some merely thought-provoking ideas. But he definitely had some unexamined and sometimes very "yikes" personal issues which came out in occasionally ugly or disturbing ways. Farnham's Freehold is a bit of an aberration for its period, with more of that than usual. Most of his squicky stuff showed up in later books.

So the reason that one comes up for me is because I happened to find a first edition in a bunch of books at a garage sale, and thought “Oh wow, that’s a cool find!” (And it is/was!) Then years later, I read it.

New Republic did an article on it a few years back that summed it up nicely: it’s an anti-racist novel that only a Klansman could love.

 

[Cadence]

I think at certain times in certain situations, anyone’s opinion could be interesting but 99% of the time, we’re all just wondering what we’re going to have for lunch that day, or whether you forgot something at the house.

I find what it takes to be interesting greatly depends on how much work I have (more work to avoid makes it easier for things to be interesting) and how close the deadline is (closer is harder to be interesting because I still have some survival instincts).

 

[el-remmen]

Here’s something that just popped in my head based on reading some threads. It is something I used to tell my college writing students.

Avoid using “most” as in “most people” unless you have some credible evidence/source that clearly demonstrates a majority of whoever you are talking about. Instead, try “many,” which is an indication of amount based on experience and speculation we can legitimately argue/discuss without making an assumption about statistics.

Yes, “most” is still arguable but unless we have some actual basis around which to argue “most,” “many” will probably serve you better.

 

[billd91]

Sometimes it's clear when someone really doesn't exist in the same universe as I do.

 

[el-remmen]

I like to go back and read old threads I started or remember contributing to quite a bit and see where my views (and others' views) were at that time, and as I way to try to avoid repeating myself (and noticing how often others repeat themselves). And when I do that I inevitable come across threads I forgot existed and/or that make me go, "wow, we really all went through that, huh?"

Like this one: D&D General - Woo-Hoo! Heading back to playing D&D in person soon! (for the first time since February 2020)!