Reassurance

[mrissa]

Sometimes I have reactions like I did just a minute ago and think, do I hate everything? And then I think, No. Just everything stupid.

I've been reacting that way more lately, though, and I'm not sure I'm entirely pleased with it.

Comments

[redbird]

Pointing out elementary flaws in someone else'w world-building isn't the same as hating everything.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

No, but I didn't used to be so cranky about it all.

[lexiphanic.livejournal.com]

The frightening bit is just how large a portion "everything stupid" is of "everything."

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

Yeah, too heavy a load of hate and contempt starts to become unpleasant after a while. Pity isn't a whole lot less corrosive, so that isn't much of an alternative.

I dunno.

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

I think this is where your "not reading as many new things" comes in, perhaps?

I don't even feel like a large percentage of my reading is this level of sucky. It's just that it bothers me more when it is.

[dd-b.livejournal.com]

I can keep the load down from books by not reading those books, yes. And don't mind so much not being current on the stupid edges of the field.

On the other hand, in political discourse....

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

It's amazing how talented people are at dividing up an issue into two sides, both of whom are wrong. I can't tell whether this would be better or worse in a system that isn't set up to favor two large political parties.

About the same

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

See the English-language versions of Google News for other countries: the UK, Canada (which also has a French version), Australia, New Zealand, and India.

You do get more sides. But I don't think three, four, five, or nine sides, all of them wrong, are an improvement over only two sides.

Going in the other direction: Minneapolis has one major party, one minor party (the Greens), and a bunch of parties too small to be concerned with (including the Republican Party; it may be strong in places a few miles away, but in Minneapolis the only reason it's not a joke is that it's too boring.) And this doesn't lead to great decisions, either.

Want to lure suburbanites to downtown? Make it harder for them to get there by restricting traffic and raising the price of parking. Oh -- and reroute buses to make that alternative less convenient. Want to give them something different from the suburbs? Get the national businesses which are all over the suburbs to open branches in downtown.

Re: About the same

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Be very careful on whose lj you go sneering at suburbanites, please.

Signed,
Eagan dweller

You misunderstood

[dsgood.livejournal.com]

I was sneering at the Minneapolis city government.

For thinking that the way to attract suburbanites to downtown Minneapolis is to 1) give them the same stores, restaurants, etc. they have closer to them and 2) make it more difficult for them to reach downtown.

Of course, if they thought clearly, they would realize that city downtowns will never again be what they were before the late 1940s. It's much more comforting to be certain that the next time they reinvent the square wheel, they're going to get it right.

Re: You misunderstood

[mrissa.livejournal.com]

Ah, I see.

You should not read Lost Twin Cities or Twin Cities Then and Now, then. The author hates my Minneapolis in his passion to restore the Minneapolis of the 1940s. He is convinced, for example, that skyway foot traffic is an unhealthy downtown, but sidewalk foot traffic is a healthy downtown.

He is an idiot.