|
Archonex posted:No, no, there isn't. Or at least, if you actually believe them being a black woman on the inside has anything to do with being trans or genderfluid it isn't. I'm serious, I had several classes with this person and nobody knew how to refer to this person as a he or a she, and one of my cisgender cisethnic black female friends told me she found it offensive but didn't want to cause a fuss by saying anything but every time they would talk like that I felt like she was humiliated and nobody knew what to say, if anything
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
Who What Now posted:^^^^^ That sounds like it could be a tone argument as well. In what contexts would you say you agree or disagree with the use of tone policing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:your analogy ... people aren't responding to it the way you want... Don't get pissy because you failed at getting through to people.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
^^^^^^ What's tripping you up? Commie NedFlanders posted:Is there any way we can talk about cultural appropriation and "transracial" identities as a (very) rough analogy for transgender identities, without being banned or probated for triggering emotions? Stop acting like a victim for one. When you constantly make little jabs about what you write being "too triggering" and being banned for "triggering emotions" and poo poo it makes you look incredibly insincere (which I think you probably are, but for the sake of argument I'll assume you aren't). To address your question, explain how you feel the two situations, "transracial identities" and transgendered identities, are related. Who What Now fucked around with this message at 19:12 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:09
|
|
and claimed he was a black woman on the inside
|
Archonex posted:Look at the definition of what a transgender person is. You see how it mentions stuff like gender dysphoria, issues with the gender they've had to present to society, etc, etc? That has nothing to do with someone who is white and thinks they're a black woman on the inside. There's no biological predisposition for that when it's come to studies of the brain. That's something else. Who the gently caress knows what, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of transgenderism. See now this is interesting and I appreciate you trying to spell it out for dumb ol thick skull me I am curious if you could elaborate just a little bit on the "biological predisposition" aspect of it. Frankly, I didn't think that kind of argument was kosher on this topic. If you could point me in the right direction, I would be glad to do more research on my own. I tried to google some stuff to see if I could find a sound and cogent argument which outlines the distinction between gender and and ethnicity such that transitioning in one domain is laudable but the other is considered always offensive. I got a LOT of results, many of them pointing out this conflict, but I wasn't able to find any solid arguments that would fit with an autistic brain like my own I'm genuinely curious about this, but I'm not trying to attack trans people, for the record I generally speaking support LGBT rights and I find these stupid bathroom laws to be idiotic quote:Maybe you can see why people in the thread that are talking about this stuff might get a bit offended if you used it to try to equate to someone with black face too. No yeah I get why that doesn't work because blackface was intended to be offensive, it was invented for the purpose of insulting people of that group. But I'm wondering about people who say things like "oh yeah I'm black on the inside" and use that as an excuse to throw the n word around
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Help me out please, Are you really asking for help? Really. Because if you were I would tell you to drop it and stop acting cute.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:12
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Look at the definition of what a transgender person is. You see how it mentions stuff like gender dysphoria, issues with the gender they've had to present to society, etc, etc?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:14
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:^^^^^^ I am insecure and also confused and also I want to have this discussion and I'm willing to learn and adjust to make it less offensive but I may need a little help and patience if that's okay quote:To address your question, explain how you feel the two situations, "transracial identities" and transgendered identities, are related. Gender and ethnicity are both socially constructed aspects of identity which are not directly anchored to biology, there is an element of privilege and domination inherent to both, they often overdetermine people, with people never feeling entirely comfortable in that aspect of identity, they both meet resistance from people trying to deny the legitimacy of such identities and they both have many cases of people feeling more "at home" in an identity other than the one hey we're born in To get a little personable with it, I grew up being accused of "acting white" all the time and frankly it's made me insecure about my ethnic identity Commie NedFlanders fucked around with this message at 19:20 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:17
|
|
|
OwlFancier posted:All of the above. I do have an intuitive feeling, but I am looking for a logical framework, if someone asks why they should do that (like my parents) I'd like to have some force of logic, and not feelings. silence_kit posted:The answer is that in the social justice ideology there exists a cosmic scale of oppression of various social groups. Those who are at the top of the cosmic scale of oppression (most oppressed) get their concerns listened to and society is to kowtow to their demands. Those who are at the bottom's demands (least oppressed) are trumped by the those who are higher on the scale. Christians are lower on the cosmic scale of oppression than transexuals, so we that's why we kowtow to the transexuals and not the Christians. This is a super useful post. Thank you. I'll need to read up on intersectionality. This doesn't seem like a more/less oppressed question though, but that there is some threshold at which society should allow preferred nomenclature. This seems like a better framework, but still pretty arbitrary. Why is demi-wolf (or other animal identity) ridiculous? It seems like you might decide is not a sufficiently-oppressed group, but that doesn't make it ridiculous. Cingulate posted:... Thanks for this post. I guess where I might be getting confused is the difference between oppression being group-based, with a historical basis attached, and the individual perspective of oppression/offence. I guess this goes back to the cosmic scale of oppression. For example, I could totally see that Trump would perceive he was being oppressed, and want his terms used. I'm struggling with oppression being some universal obvious thing (which groups are oppressed and how much) whereas we are appealing to feelings of groups in other contexts. I think I need to think on this further.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:22
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm serious, I had several classes with this person and nobody knew how to refer to this person as a he or a she, and one of my cisgender cisethnic black female friends told me she found it offensive but didn't want to cause a fuss by saying anything but every time they would talk like that I felt like she was humiliated and nobody knew what to say, if anything Going to assume you're serious here. Edited my post with more info but i'll post it here since it got page sniped: Look at the definition of what a transgender person is. You see how it mentions stuff like gender dysphoria, issues with the gender they've had to present to society, etc, etc? That has nothing to do with someone who is white and thinks they're a black woman on the inside. There's no biological predisposition for a sense of internalized race when it's come to studies of the brain. Scans and studies have shown that people who have gender dysphoria often have brains and activity in the brain similar to the gender they identify as. Which is not same as the gender they appear to be. Imagine if you were a woman in a man's body. Or a man in a woman's body. That poo poo would honestly gently caress you up after awhile. And that's what the studies seem to be implying. That they literally have minds that are structured differently from the gender they visually appear to be. That's biological and a big loving deal due to the implications it has. Them assuming they're a "sassy" black woman is literally taking something cultural and applying it to themselves. Until someone finds a gene or does a comparative brain scan that shows that black women are predisposed to be sassy by nature then they're honestly kind of full of it if they assume that that has something to do with being trans. Long story short? That's on them, and it's something else. Who the gently caress knows what. I honestly can't say with any accuracy given the info you've given me. All I can do is wildly speculate. Maybe they're just using the actual medical diagnosis of being transgender as a shield (As some people used to and still do by claiming they self diagnosed themselves with aspergers to avoid being called out on being an antisocial jackass.) against being called out on something that literally doesn't exist. Or maybe they just are working through some poo poo now that they've admitted that they don't like how they are and just need time to get their head in order. Who the gently caress knows what it is, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of transgenderism or gender pronouns. Maybe you can also see why people in the thread that are talking about a serious medical issue (and the societal fuckery that goes with it) might get a bit offended if you used it to try to equate to someone with black face too. Archonex fucked around with this message at 19:34 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:23
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:^^^^^^
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:25
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:I do have an intuitive feeling, but I am looking for a logical framework, if someone asks why they should do that (like my parents) I'd like to have some force of logic, and not feelings. There probably isn't an objectively true answer anyways.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:27
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:What if the moon is made cheese and childrens' toys come to life when you aren't looking? Do you actually believe this to be true, and if so on what basis do you believe it? If you want to be perceived as other than you are, then do it. If you can't do it then that is your failure.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:34
|
|
|
Archonex posted:Going to assume you're serious here. Edited my post with more info but i'll post it here since it got page sniped: There are some big implications to this. This seems to suggest that the male/female gender binary structure is rooted in our biology and anchored to something tangible. This seems to reinforce the classic gender binary, and only suggests is sometimes one side gets biologically mis gendered. If we rely on neurological studies on gender differences in the brain, it would suggest that gender isn't as socially constructed as we thought, and it's just a biological fact that people with "male brains" are better at math or more prone to adhd or make brains are better at forming geographical cognitive maps than female brains. quote:Them assuming they're a "sassy" black woman is literally taking something cultural and applying it to themselves. Until someone finds a gene or does a comparative brain scan that shows that black women are predisposed to be sassy by nature then they're honestly kind of full of it if they assume that that has something to do with being trans. Long story short? That's on them, and it's something else. Who the gently caress knows what. I honestly can't say with any accuracy given the info you've given me. All I can do is wildly speculate. Sassy might just be a part of their unique personality, but how can someone open to transidentities tell a white male that they are incorrect when they say they feel like a black woman trapped in the wrong body? Can we deny their emotions? Should we just be polite and agree with them? Would it be rude to deny them of the identity they feel they are? quote:Maybe they're just using the actual medical diagnosis of being transgender as a shield (As some people used to and still do by claiming they self diagnosed themselves with aspergers to avoid being called out on being an antisocial jackass.) against being called out on something that literally doesn't exist. Or maybe they just are working through some poo poo now that they've admitted that they don't like how they are and just need time to get their head in order. Who the gently caress knows what it is, but it has no bearing whatsoever on the topic of transgenderism or gender pronouns. You know the DSM gets updated so often that its possible that in a few years entirely new problems are considered "serious medical issues" According to the same body of psychological literature and science, homosexuals were considered simply mentally ill people with sexual disorders
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:45
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:For years I dealt with a destructive alcoholic, who ended up in jail over a second DUI after almost running down a construction crew; who insisted throughout that they were very serious about wanting to get better and knew in the heart that their behavior was wrong, but who hedged every admission of there being a problem with the assertion that they had been failed by everyone around them. That person made me extremely wary of anyone who claims that there is something socially meaningful about a secret inner world that doesn't jive with how they behave. You are what you do, and only a broken, unwell and/or dangerous individual can generate such a yawning chasm between what they claim (with all their heart!), and how they present. I can't help but sneer at anyone who insists their feelings trump their community's perceptions, or that they are anything more than how they are perceived by others. I'm confused by the bolded sentence. Was the alcoholic saying that they wanted to change but couldn't because the people around them were failing (to keep them away from alcohol, I'm assuming?), or did the alcoholic not believe that the people around them were failing them (again I'm assuming by keeping them away from booze?)? Regardless, that seems like a very poor reason to take such a position considering that alcoholism is a disease that literally affects the brain in ways that make it extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, to work against. Your position also assumes that people always behave completely rationally at all times, which just isn't the case.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
It's never been clear to me how he/she/they would be insufficient. We don't use separate pronouns for other categories of being. That said, if I knew somebody personally who preferred xir (or whatever), I'd make it work, because it's not a big deal, even if I privately don't get it. No loss for me, some satisfaction for you, whoop de doo. Life's too short to make people unhappy through unnecessary arguments. Now, if in my daily life I was bombarded by more than a few different new pronoun sets, I'd might be irritated, but that has never happened to me, nor do I expect it to, so who cares. Like, has anybody been accosted IRL by a cacophony of novel pronouns?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:54
|
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:It's never been clear to me how he/she/they would be insufficient. We don't use separate pronouns for other categories of being.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 19:59
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:I'm serious, I had several classes with this person and nobody knew how to refer to this person as a he or a she, and one of my cisgender cisethnic black female friends told me she found it offensive but didn't want to cause a fuss by saying anything but every time they would talk like that I felt like she was humiliated and nobody knew what to say, if anything It sounded like the person in your example was making a light-hearted joke, and you live in a region where it's more commonly acceptable for someone to play fast and loose with stereotypes that are considered pretty regressive elsewhere. An equivalent would be if someone says they're Asian on the inside because they drive recklessly. Anyone can enjoy and participate in a culture that they weren't socialized under by their family and local community, and there are no people who feel like they can't be truly actualized for who they are without changing their skin color, because ethnicity is not a 'social role' that's performed passively the way gender is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:02
|
|
|
Who What Now posted:I'm confused by the bolded sentence. Was the alcoholic saying that they wanted to change but couldn't because the people around them were failing (to keep them away from alcohol, I'm assuming?), or did the alcoholic not believe that the people around them were failing them (again I'm assuming by keeping them away from booze?)? "I know I have a problem, but I can't get better unless everyone does X." "What I'm asking you to do isn't enabling, it's helping me to get better." I don't assume everyone behaves rationally at all times. Most people, most of the time, are not methodically cognizing their behavior. However, most people are capable of rational thinking at some point. If you are consistently making negative, destructive decisions, despite constant warnings, despite constant offers of help, and you're taking no steps to get better, then it really doesn't matter how much you feel you want to get better 'inside'. If it walks like a duck and talks like a duck then it's irrelevant if it thinks its a tiger and wants to be seen as such.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:Inverse the situation and it makes more sense. It's not that special pronouns are somehow good and clear and obviously meaningful and well justified; it's that misgendering is oppression, and we should try and not do it. ...right, but "they" already covers that which is outside of he/she. Indeed, the idea that people only got he or she was because of a mindset in which gender is fixed, fundamental, and binary. "They" covers everybody. Some languages lack any gendered pronouns...must they introduce new, gendered pronouns? Either way, in person, I'm happy to accommodate others' needs. I don't need to study Islam in depth to not offer a Muslim pork.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:26
|
|
|
Nostalgic Cashew posted:This is a super useful post. Thank you. I'll need to read up on intersectionality. This doesn't seem like a more/less oppressed question though, but that there is some threshold at which society should allow preferred nomenclature. This seems like a better framework, but still pretty arbitrary. Why is demi-wolf (or other animal identity) ridiculous? It seems like you might decide is not a sufficiently-oppressed group, but that doesn't make it ridiculous. There's not a hard threshold. All of this stuff is a matter of opinion and not self-consistent. The entire point of social justice ideology is to improve the status of oppressed groups in society by almost any means necessary and not to generate an egalitarian or self-consistent morality. Once you recognize that, things will make more sense. Nostalgic Cashew posted:Why is demi-wolf (or other animal identity) ridiculous? It seems like you might decide is not a sufficiently-oppressed group, but that doesn't make it ridiculous. The reasoning in this case is that demi-wolves are just self-delusional and mentally ill individuals and not a real recognized oppressed group like transpeople. Maybe if enough demi-wolves come out and strongly assert their identity, social justice ideology will change its stance on this group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:41
|
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:...right, but "they" already covers that which is outside of he/she. Indeed, the idea that people only got he or she was because of a mindset in which gender is fixed, fundamental, and binary. "They" covers everybody. Some languages lack any gendered pronouns...must they introduce new, gendered pronouns? But, for the first part: the oppression is not using a certain pronoun. The oppression is ignoring the addressee's self declared identity and stated preferences (as in, society doing that since forever). It's obviously not that xir inherently correctly refers to what the person objectively speaking is; but that by using the term you're asked to use, you respect the wishes of a person belonging to a group that usually does not experience such respect, and by ignoring that preference, you're taking part in ignoring the preferences of members of this group. silence_kit posted:The reasoning in this case is that demi-wolves are just self-delusional and mentally ill individuals and not a real recognized oppressed group like transpeople. Maybe if enough demi-wolves come out and strongly assert their identity, social justice ideology will change its stance on this group.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"If only for X, then I would get healthy and be better." Do you know what addiction is?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
the trump tutelage posted:"If only for X, then I would get healthy and be better." Or perhaps what you should look for is the appropriate lever to allow the inner bit that wants to get better to connect with the rest of the person. While creating the required environment to allow that connection to strengthen. Lacking a sense of agency is not an unusual problem. I mean or you could just shoot the dude that works too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 20:53
|
|
|
Cingulate posted:What is the fundamental difference in your opinion? E.g., what is the difference between a sexual or identity condition (e.g. being cis or trans or whatever), and being mentally ill (e.g. believing one is some sort of wolf, spiritually speaking)? I don't think tumblrites claiming to be demi-wolves are mentally ill, they're just doing what people have done on the Internet in one way or another since it began, which is role play, and taking it to a new level because the Internet affords an escapist means of self-identification for people who still live under their parents' house and rules. If Tumblr were around when I was growing up, I'd probably have identified as part Sneasel from Pokemon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:07
|
|
|
Stinky_Pete posted:I don't think tumblrites claiming to be demi-wolves are mentally ill, they're just doing what people have done on the Internet in one way or another since it began, which is role play, and taking it to a new level because the Internet affords an escapist means of self-identification for people who still live under their parents' house and rules. If Tumblr were around when I was growing up, I'd probably have identified as part Sneasel from Pokemon. Couldn't it be argued that all identities are fundamentally just role play?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:26
|
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:...right, but "they" already covers that which is outside of he/she. Indeed, the idea that people only got he or she was because of a mindset in which gender is fixed, fundamental, and binary. "They" covers everybody. Some languages lack any gendered pronouns...must they introduce new, gendered pronouns? So if you cooked a meal with pork and a Muslim guest showed up and rejected it, I suppose you would be understanding even if you are not a Muslim or an Islamic scholar yourself? What if a Muslim rejects your creative usage of gender pronouns and tells you that his idea of gender is grounded in his religious beliefs? Is that acceptable also or did he cross the line?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:45
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So if you cooked a meal with pork and a Muslim guest showed up and rejected it, I suppose you would be understanding even if you are not a Muslim or an Islamic scholar yourself? I'd ask for his justification for those ideas so we could discuss them.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:47
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So if you cooked a meal with pork and a Muslim guest showed up and rejected it, I suppose you would be understanding even if you are not a Muslim or an Islamic scholar yourself? Are you pork?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:48
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Couldn't it be argued that all identities are fundamentally just role play? If you're just dying to have a nice discrete taxonomy, maybe, but because the social impacts are so different (we can say with pretty strong certainty that 'demi-wolves' are not feeling denied their place in society by teachers who don't call them by their wolf name), that categorizing that way won't be very useful. Some aspects of identity are more tightly bound to a person than others, and gender is the only one that seems to come up as far as people disputing someone's identity, entirely because it's the only aspect of social identity that has, let's say, "audience participation." I don't really understand what it means when someone "discovers" they're a woman after 50 years performing "man," but I'll give the benefit of the doubt, as it could be that the concept wasn't available to them for a long time, the social climate caused them to attribute symptoms of gender dysphoria to other things, etc.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 21:55
|
|
|
I think one of the (maybe the singular?) reasons Spivak pronouns will not be taken seriously by the public at large is that it's really, really difficult for a binary-gendered person to empathize with feeling outside of the gendered binary. It's a totally separate thing from straight people empathizing with gay people - it's easy to imagine how it would feel if you weren't allowed to love your spouse/significant other/whoever. It's also different from empathizing with trans* folk within the gender binary: It's not hard to imagine how uncomfortable you'd be if you suddenly found yourself in a body of the opposite sex. Imagining yourself being outside the gender binary is a whole different thing, and I'm not sure it's possible for someone who is secure in their gender to actually, meaningfully get it. I know I certainly can't. If this thread is any indication that seems to be pretty common. I mean if someone wants you to call them 'xir' it doesn't cost you anything to do it, even if you think it's silly, so you should. On the other hand though, I can't really see society adopting these pronouns. I think "they/them/their" might be as far as English gets, at least in our lifetimes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:09
|
|
|
Onion Knight posted:I think one of the (maybe the singular?) reasons Spivak pronouns will not be taken seriously by the public at large is that it's really, really difficult for a binary-gendered person to empathize with feeling outside of the gendered binary. I don't really see what's difficult about the concept apart from perhaps a degree of mental conservatism getting in the way. I can see why people would feel uncomfortable or be unwilling to contemplate the concept but the idea of just... not really wanting to be either one or the other, or not wanting to be limited to one or the other, or liking parts of both or even wanting to explore the concept of just not having a gender, that's pretty easy for me to get my head around personally.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:15
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Couldn't it be argued that all identities are fundamentally just role play?
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:34
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:Couldn't it be argued that all identities are fundamentally just role play? Sure! Now stop being your gender.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:So if you cooked a meal with pork and a Muslim guest showed up and rejected it, I suppose you would be understanding even if you are not a Muslim or an Islamic scholar yourself? I would be utterly unsurprised that a Muslim would not eat pork. I'd be pretty mortified if this person was my guest, but I had no acceptable food for them. I would apologize and produce something else. As to the second set of questions, that can take us into hinkier territory. People need to be able to define themselves. If someone says that they're a she, then they're a she. If somebody I knew said that they were a xie, then I'd accept that, and I would work with that. Life is too short to give people a hard time. However, pronoun usage is nonetheless a different concern on some levels. "He" and "she" come from a worldview in which sex and gender are not only the same, but also fixed and innate. However, if gender is indeed socially constructed and non-binary and fluid and so on, which is a sentiment I more or less agree with, then why would each gender need its own pronoun at all? If gender is not fixed and innate, then it's just another quality people possess. In English, we don't use different pronouns for members of different races, or adherents of different religions. Instead, we have "he", "she", and "they", plus "it" for inanimate objects. "They" is already in place as a gender-neutral pronoun. It is not a gender unto itself. That's somewhat similar to where I was going with my earlier question of, "some languages lack any gendered pronouns at all...must they adopt them?" Nobody's answered that one yet. And to clarify, in the real world, I'd be happy to use somebody's preferred pronouns. I'm talking about this topic in this way because this is a thread on the internet designated for that. In the real world, I'm not interested in bogging down anyone's day, let alone my own, in some grand interrogation of others' identities. Life is way too short to make other people feel bad for no good reason, let alone to waste their time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:39
|
|
|
It does get tricky when it comes,d to religious beliefs. I agree that it would be polite and also understanding to recognize that a Muslum would not want to eat pork even if not doing so might be considered rude Suppose a Muslum was hosting a dinner for some friends and everyone shows up some of them bring their significant others, including Bertrand and his husband Ernest. Suppose our Muslum friend welcome Ev'rybody to the table but you notice that when talking he specifically refuses to call Bertrend and Ernest "husbands ". Suppose our gracious Muslum host is welcoming enough to have everyone over for a meal, but makes a conscious decision not to refer to them as "husbands" or even "married", because doing so would be validating and tacitly supporting a concept of marriage which is explicitly contrary to the teachings of the Quran Should the homosexual couple be open-minded and understanding enough to recognize the religious beliefs of their Muslim friend and allow him to use the language which fits his belief system? Or should or Muslim friend contradict his firmly held religious beliefs to accommodate the social norms of the people around him? Is it more rude to refuse to validate the deeply held emotions and identifications and relationships of other people because of your own religiois beliefs? Do you guys think there is a clear and obvious answer to this or perhaps is the situation a bit more complex and nuanced than a one sided solution can answer? Commie NedFlanders fucked around with this message at 22:55 on Mar 29, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:53
|
|
|
Commie NedFlanders posted:It does get tricky when it comes,d to religious beliefs. It's hard to say because whenever I read or hear a leading question, like Proust with his madeleines in tea, I flash back to law class, and by the time it's completed I usually have forgotten what it was in the first place.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 22:57
|
|
|
Brainiac Five posted:It's hard to say because whenever I read or hear a leading question, like Proust with his madeleines in tea, I flash back to law class, and by the time it's completed I usually have forgotten what it was in the first place. Sounds like law school is full of pseudo aspie contrarian assholes, I bet i would love it
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:01
|
|
|
Law school was fun. I was actually about to bring up how one of my mentors back in law school was a hardcore Catholic of the old school - socially ultraconservative, economically basically distributist. One of his other mentees was (and is) a big LGBT rights activist. He was proud of her, even though he disagreed with much of what she stood for, and vice versa. People are complicated. Doesn't mean you have to accept every bigot, but it does mean that individual situations and relationships are often complex. Proust's famous madelines cause the narrator to launch into a huge, long story. Kinda the opposite of simply spacing out? Either way, leading questions are allowed on cross-examination, honk honk.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Apr 29, 2024 06:16 |
|
|
TheWeepingHorse posted:Law school was fun. I was actually about to bring up how one of my mentors back in law school was a hardcore Catholic of the old school - socially ultraconservative, economically basically distributist. One of his other mentees was (and is) a big LGBT rights activist. He was proud of her, even though he disagreed with much of what she stood for, and vice versa. People are complicated. Doesn't mean you have to accept every bigot, but it does mean that individual situations and relationships are often complex. I can completely believe that you went to law school from this post, actually.
|
|
#
?
Mar 29, 2016 23:17
|
|