Nichael posted:

I don't know. How does he?

NoNotTheMindProbe posted:

Did you know that Lin Manuel Miranda fell into a vat of fermenting tofu when he was a baby?

Nichael posted:

https://i.imgur.com/GyzwwDj.mp4

luv2shit posted:

SgtMongoose posted:

Cool that Hamilton's Miranda's Hamilton's wife is still white in the play. Wouldn't want the race swapping to remove the important race relations.

Rochallor posted:

pretty problematic, LMM

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

I was just at a conference where someone presented a paper on spiritual care in hospitals, and said he was surprised that the hospitals' policies adhere to the written doctrine of their faiths, the argument being that we have to take people just as seriously when they believe in idiosyncratic volkish woo woo because they had an incomplete catechesis, as opposed to providing care their faith proscribes.

My opinion was that if someone is an Anglican, and we're taking their spiritual care seriously, we have to adhere to the Anglican Church, and not someone who has confused their yoga practice with the actual doctrine of their faith. I don't like the Book of Concord, but if we're taking the metaphysical perspective that spiritual care matters, we need to be thorough in its administration. A physician does not prescribe what the patient thinks they need, he provides them with the correct medication, in consultation with a pharmacist. So, I said, cuius regio, eius religio. Whatever religion you claim to profess, will be taken seriously, and thoroughly, and you ought to receive the best, and that means most correct, as we've accepted the premise that your soul is on the line, spiritual care possible.

This led to a whole thing about respecting people's beliefs, but again, if people believe they are Anglican, and believe they are dying, or otherwise need to work through the spiritual care team, then to take their belief seriously, it needs to be engaged with as a serious ideology and practice, and correctly, so that they receive the unction of the sick - not (just) allowing their relatives to all hold hands in a circle or whatever, because that's Anglicanism as they understand it. Cuius regio, eius religio, the Ottomans figured this out with the Millet. To incorporate religious practice and the law, the state needs a system to work though.

My argument was, it's more respectful of their beliefs to take those beliefs more seriously, and administer care more correctly, than the patient themselves understands. The only rebuttal I got was, "well what about their feelings?", "Different people believe different things", "you have to agree to disagree" etc etc. I don't want you to think I was taking a stance "theology doesn't care about your feelings". I think I'm going out of the way to honour people's feelings here. I'm genuinely confused about why it's better to condescend to people by humouring them, rather than actually doing the best we can to engage with their belief system.

Okay, while apply that to discussing any political issue with a liberal. Am I supposed to care how they think or feel the economy works, or am I supposed to discuss the economy in material terms, which means rejecting their priors and anecdotes, and cutesy stories, and half understood talking points? If they want to discuss the economy, isn't it important to establish that we're thoroughly describing a real system of resources and labour, which is guided by political and ideological decisions rather than something that is just-so?

"Gosh, who can say how the economy works? I guess we each have our own perspectives." is useless to actually describing, and so discussing, the socioeconomic system of a nation. We can say, and what we say can be disputed. If we're treating these as descriptions of reality, or informed by reality, they need to be challenged. I realize in the context of dinner parties I've had to be more flexible. I don't like it, but my wife says being relentless is my "best and worst quality", which is awfully kind of her to say, but doesn't resolve the issue.

is pepsi ok posted:

Why is this poo poo always the same

All he does is meet those goddamn sisters and talk about going to war.

Grapplejack posted:

here's lin manuel miranda to do a fun rap about slavery

Ytlaya posted:

I didn't realize this play was quite this excessive with its praise of Alexander Hamilton

It's not enough that he's a heroic politician - all the women also want to gently caress him.

DJJIB-DJDCT posted:

lol why are democrats like this?

Nichael posted:

If Biden had a platform page (he does not), a centerpiece of it would be his signature policy of "Access to Hamilton".

Secretary Pete in 2028 will run on "Hamilton for All (who want it)".

Ytlaya posted:

For some reason my mind keeps trying to fit this to the melody of the "Worthless" song from The Brave Little Toaster

Is this musical ever even slightly critical of Hamilton? It seems like everyone just talks about how awesome he is constantly.

Uncle Boogeyman posted:

https://x.com/EoinHiggins_/status/1783860713426977220

gradenko_2000 posted:

https://twitter.com/lodgepolepines/status/1784240957090570579?t=Sewy0Xij7BuSW2JMw39gmw&s=19