My journal is not a forum for political or social debate. I am pretty clear about that. The short reason for this is that I do not like debating. The other short reason is that this is my little corner of the LJ universe, and I get to say what is and isn't acceptable here. If you're interested in the long version, I invite you to read on.
Trust me, if I felt I had to be right about everything or that my views were the only worthwhile ones to have, I wouldn't post half the stuff I post even to friendslist level in this journal: I'm aware that like everyone else on earth, I'm capable of jumping to conclusions, getting the facts wrong, misanalysing and misunderstanding. There is, I've found, a fine line between what feels like a respectful fact correction and what feels like an attack with bonus insults. Because I know that I cannot explain where this line lies to you, I choose to note that I do not want to debate political points in my journal, particularly when I'm just presenting an article or link I found amusing or thought provoking.
I know that some of you enjoy engaging other people in arguments wherein you demand evidence of everything, up to and including the colour of the sky, and if your opponent cannot produce, that means he's wrong, a wimp, or unwilling to accept the fact that You Are Right--possibly all three. You may assume that I am using the male pronoun generically if you like: this kind of attitudinal, combative arguing is something I tend to associate with men, although I have seen some women engage in it from time to time. This kind of arguing makes me want to run and hide under a table, and I'm not interested in engaging in it, although I am interested in presenting things that I found interesting or thought-provoking. Now, I'm going to use an extreme example below the cut-tag, so be warned.
( Tell us what you *didn't* post yesterday, Harper.... )
![[profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
djtracy....