<Annie> No hangover, I'm pleased to report. But, uh, I seem to have jumped straight back in ... any idea how many hits it takes for hair-of-the-dog to become an actual addiction?

I'm listening simultaneously to Irish talk radio ... massive blame game going on, people comparing the government to a cancer, financial meltdown, polls, fury, a looming winter general election ... weirdly resonant.

One ever-recurrent theme here is the fear that 'we' have become an 'international laughing stock'. Many people find this idea extremely painful, and a mere mention in the European or American media triggers waves of insecurity.

Heheh... I don't see much danger of addiction here, as you may be disappointed to hear. ;)

But, generally speaking, the <debate hangover> sets in when the <debate energy> runs out, so as long as you're still going back for more, you're not there yet. :p

However, this may be one of those times when things just settle down, so you may be spared the reaction phase altogether. That's probably because you're just too darn nice. ;)

<One ever-recurrent theme here is the fear that 'we' have become an 'international laughing stock'. Many people find this idea extremely painful, and a mere mention in the European or American media triggers waves of insecurity.>

Wouldn't worry about that "laughing stock" business. Most other nations are too busy with their own internal issues to spare the energy to stop and have a proper larf about something as remote as some furriner country's news. Let that be a consolation... ;)

<Your lot appear more robust, I'll say that much for 'em.>

Oh, stereotypes. Quite a funny one in yesterday's observer showed Dave Cameron comforting a distressed leprechaun.

There's a smug entity, once known as 'emigrants' or 'the Irish abroad' but now called the Diaspora (wonder where they nicked that from, eh?). I find it amusing to see the Irish Times letters page full of angry missives from Sydney, Singapore, Dubai, Frankfurt, Vladivostok (and maybe an old-timer from Boston) ... all shouting about 'our' government and what 'we' need to do with it. And unlike certain other jurisdictions, these far-flung buggers neither vote nor pay tax here.

<too darn nice>, eh? I've had the same complaint in RL, which is slightly disturbing.

Anyhoo ... I caught myself using smileys in t'bearpit recently. You have effected one change in my behavior. That's rather nice too.

Innaresting word, ackshully. In the 18th century it meant something like 'exact' or 'precise', which survives in 'a nice distinction' and other phrases. But, earlier still, it meant 'foolish', and the original root is the Latin 'nescius', or *ignorant*. How did that drift into 'vaguely pleasant, good-natured, agreeable' ...?

To be precise, my pleasant side is just foolish ignorance. Nice, nice, nicely observed niceties.

Heh!

<<too darn nice>, eh? I've had the same complaint in RL, which is slightly disturbing.>

Whyzdat? :p But <I> didn't mean it as a complaint, rilly. More an observation. A compliment, if you like. ;)

<But, earlier still, it meant 'foolish', and the original root is the Latin 'nescius', or *ignorant*. How did that drift into 'vaguely pleasant, good-natured, agreeable' ...?>

To quote one of Banks' nasty spaceships (in humanoid avatar form) ...

<"Conscience can be a terrible thing." He smiled. "So I hear." He shrugged. "Unless you're something like me, of course," he murmured. "I don't give a fook.">

Srsly, Rowling said so. Or something like that, rather.

Anyhoo, I hadda abruptly hit the hay last night (and now the hay is suing), so sorry I went without saying. ;p

Nice to see new developments anyway. Rxa8!

I trust the Law will see your side of things.

;p

OK, I was gonna get back to the Rowling thing - didn't have time to look up a reference earlier. So here's a source:

http://www.jkrowling.com/textonly/e...

<Sunday 15 August 2004

<J K Rowling at the Edinburgh Book Festival>

Q: Also, will we see more of Snape?

A: You always see a lot of Snape, because he is a gift of a character. I hesitate to say that I love him. [Audience member: I do]. You do? This is a very worrying thing. Are you thinking about Alan Rickman or about Snape? [Laughter]. Isn’t this life, though? I make this hero - Harry, obviously - and there he is on the screen, the perfect Harry, because Dan is very much as I imagine Harry, but who does every girl under the age of 15 fall in love with? Tom Felton as Draco Malfoy. Girls, stop going for the bad guy. Go for a nice man in the first place. It took me 35 years to learn that, but I am giving you that nugget free, right now, at the beginning of your love lives.>

That's an innaresting possibility. My initial somewhat knee-jerkish reaction was to pooh-pooh it, based mainly on having watched at close range for a dozen years while the behavior of student-age humemes - abundant in my vicinity - grew worse every year. More noise, less empathy, more drunken idiocy.

Of course this is a very small observational subset. I've seen similar behavior curves elsewhere, mostly within Ireland and the UK. Not in Denmark, which seems very good at civilising younger elements.

Plus, I have to factor in (a) my own increasing age-distance and attendant lack of empathy with the juvenile delinquent type, despite having been a (less blatant, more stylish, naturally) former example of same, and (b) the unusual cultural conditions created by an unprecedented boom followed by an unprecedented bust.

And it's not as if thuggishness is hardwired in, is it? To a degree, perhaps, among males of a certain age. Nothing that a spot of, heh, military service wouldn't smooth out. Much as I may disapprove of it in other ways.

Next: are there previous examples of societies where such niceness was the norm? Or is this meant to be an actual evolutionary improvement?

Most societies where young folk are 'well-behaved' seem to have *some* kind of implicit authoritarianism, or at least strongly-enforced behavioral norms.

Anthropologists - famously Margaret Mead - have generally been wrong whenever they've claimed to find a blissful, peace-loving, sexually sane society.

Not much, though, is known about the pre-Indic and very ancient society of Harappa and Mohenjo-daro, in what is now Punjab and Sindh. Going by the ruins, they seem to have had no wars, no need for fortifications, no priestly caste. Maybe their young folk were nice too. But they were probably as xenophobic as practically all premodern societies.

Well, I think the "HP generation" hasn't really hit the campuses yet - not the kids that actually *grew up* with HP... they may be starting to arrive about now, but give it another 5 years or so until they not only have a foot in the door, but populate the student age bracket in force - in significant numbers to a majority. Then we'll see. :)

<And it's not as if thuggishness is hardwired in, is it? To a degree, perhaps, among males of a certain age. Nothing that a spot of, heh, military service wouldn't smooth out. Much as I may disapprove of it in other ways.>

Hmm. Military service has various effects. It indeed has a maturing effect on many youngsters. On the other hand, it <teaches> brutality to others - and in particular one should note the high rate of spousal and child abuse by officers, who can't handle not being obeyed.

Not sure about the hardwiring question, btw, one way or the other.

<Next: are there previous examples of societies where such niceness was the norm? Or is this meant to be an actual evolutionary improvement?>

I think that, if it will actually work, then it will be something new. But I do think that it *may* work. :)

Of course HP and its first generation won't exist in a vacuum - these are also likely to be kids brought up by the internet, the global village. What effects can be attributed to what influences, may not be so easy to tell apart.

<Most societies where young folk are 'well-behaved' seem to have *some* kind of implicit authoritarianism, or at least strongly-enforced behavioral norms.>

Agreed. That *has been* the pattern.

<Anthropologists - famously Margaret Mead - have generally been wrong whenever they've claimed to find a blissful, peace-loving, sexually sane society.>

Or at least their interpretations are highly speculative. Though I've heard more about Marija Gimbutas than Mead.

<Maybe their young folk were nice too. But they were probably as xenophobic as practically all premodern societies.>

Heh... likely, but then again, xenophobia was perhaps not so much of a problem in societies whose members could go their whole lives without ever meeting anybody to practice it on. ;)

<D'you think Rowling's influence will persist? Enid Blyton was popular for quite a long time ...>

Yes. Rowling is an instant classic, and also a classic for the ages. I haven't read Blyton, but I think you may be putting Rowling in the wrong league. Try Tolkien, maybe. And she may be better yet. I don't really know, since I only finished the Hobbit (and wasn't very impressed with it), and <started> LoTR... several times, and I may get back to it yet. I've *heard* a lot about it, and I'm willing to believe it gets better than the beginning, I just didn't get around to it yet. ;)

But if it *is* as good as "they" say it is, ;) then you may have a good match for Rowling there.

I have had a number of conversations recently about that phenomenon. The world is full of self pitying woe is me, alas, forsooth, alas, women of 30 who realize that the bad guy aura really wears thin in a short period of time.

But I think - maybe - the lure is in that it's a sort of "challenge": there's this idea that they are "diamonds in the rough" and a "special enough" girl/woman can transform them into polished gems. Nonsense, mostly, but some ambitious girls believe it, and can't resist trying to prove (to themselves, mainly) that they are the "special" one who can succeed where all others have failed.

So basically these girls want a nice man too, only they also want to tame him themselves. ;) This is, I believe, why Rowling phrased it as "Go for a nice man <in the first place>".

I saw... but I think these retards are typically somewhere in their late teens, running on no-brain-engaged testosterone autopilot. So don't insult real children... and read somebody less depressing, maybe. ;p

Nite! :)

I see our immature and homophobic troll chum got deleted, along with the copy I pasted here. No objection from me. Consign it to the flames.

<It absorbs the energy of incoming missiles and neutralizes them, where a brittle hard carapace might shatter. Or even hurt innocent onlookers with bits of shrapnel.>

I'm reminded of a guy I knew during my schooldays of whom *somebody* said: "Puberty hit him hard - and missed."

<Why do I keep saying that?>

But I suppose we have a kind of sentimental attachment to kings, queens, castles and the like. Can't have the pawns demanding votes, refusing to be sacrificed.

Stupid wiff. I only have a sub-personality here this evening: the primary is reading print. I'll reintegrate later and wish I'd deleted this.

Maybe the reading *is* the hangover. One thing often manifests as another.

Incidentally, the last 20-odd posts here have emanated from cats (the white fluffy one and the one in the hat), Elvis the once and future King, and the ever-seeing Eye. Perhaps we are humemes: elements in a metamessage. An old proverb scaled up to unimaginable proportions and phatically repeating that <A cat may look at a king>.

I'm afraid they had that backwards.

Meow.