Drivebyhaiku @ Drivebyhaiku @lemmy.world

Posts

1

Comments

773

Joined

2 yr. ago

Here's an example of putting ideology before people. I see on here regularly people who believe in the Christian god but are told that them looking at the doctrine of their holy books critically and trying to change the nature of their churches to be better is a useless endeavor and use the opportunity to snipe at people of faith.

During they holocaust while some Christian organizations were supportive of Nazis others assumed great personal risk and extracted hundreds of thousands of targeted people out of the country ro safety because of their faith. Their contributions were not small or easy and should not be ignored.

So often on here when trans issues come up people choose to use the occasion to put their personal religious trauma or prejudice before the needs of solidarity in the fight. They snipe at other trans allies for being "bad leftists" for believing in god. The trans community does not have the luxury of petty in-fighting, if choosing who our protectors will be. We cannot be choosing beggars for solidarity and help. Everything helps. There are trans people of faith who feel isolated in their need for community of other people of faith. There are churches that are key to changing people's minds, there are people of faith who need support and encouragement to keep fighting in their corner because creating an enduring culture of acceptance inside a religion can also create long term security. The needs of our community are varied. We of the trans community are not weapons to be weilded to score hits against our own allies so you can feel good. When you do so you are putting yourself first in opposition to the goals and needs of trans people. You want to hate on people of faith there are lots of people who could use the distraction but wearing out people who are actually empathetic and who we need fresh for the fight is not doing us a service.

Allies of faith, keep doing what you are doing. I may not personally believe in your gods but you have my respect and thanks because I have friends who are alive because of you.

It very much was! There were construction projects, games tournaments, arts... You'd think that the absence of clocks meant that people would be habitually miss things but I don't think people did more than usual.

Cleese is kind of a jerk sadly. I can't say I was personally introduced but I was in his vicinity for a spell in a professional capacity. I love his comedic persona but I can't say I would want to have an extended discussion with him... He's very... Acerbic in the not pleasant kind of way.

Yup, the ancients loved stars. It was strangely common for multiple cultures to create these weird observatories that were mostly for observation of a single star associated with different seasons.

Mechanical options were usually used by people trying for some form of efficiency either social or to mark distance. Marking time on ships was very important for accurate mapping for instance.

As for most of society meeting up at a given time just took longer as everything was more of a rough estimate. Some of the accounts have been guessed at as people didn't write details about how they approached time down. It's been hazarded that the day marked your doing productive stuff period and you set out your routine for days in advance so people knew where to find you if not exactly when you'd be doing it. Evening was your social planning time where you'd meet up and share details of your to do list with the people who needed to know.

I once spent a week with a whole bunch of people camping on a big property for a Medieval recreation event where we had volunteer work to do on the property and agreed to attempt to explore time as our ancestors knew it. We all ditched our watches for two weeks. It was actually generally fairly relaxing? Everything moved a little slower but not by that much. There wasn't any way to have much anxiety about not being precise so you just got used to people showing up during a wider span. If there was somewhere people needed to be around a specific time the person hosting the event just dispatched some runners to the places you knew people were going to be and people became more conversational as they passed along info. Actually very basic conversation had a lot more interest because passing along knowledge of what you knew was happening elsewhere became an actual topic of combined mutual interest instead of very boring comparisons of time tables.

Yeah I don't think upsetting those people who are fence sitting into opinions that make them more likely to further solidify their support for conservatives is worth it for cartoon penises personally.

They are hard enough to try and reach for serious mind changing heart to hearts without them feeling like the world is falling to general moral bankruptcy.

Mysogyny is the belief that women and the passtimes associated with cultural womanhood are less valuable, capable, worthy of resources and/or should have culturally different expectations or additional restrictions than men. Anything that places phenotypic female bodies or cultural "woman related stuff" on a heirachy beneath what is afforded to men is basic misogyny.

In practice a lot of mysogyny doesn't look like active hatred. It can be internalized by women themselves who don't on their face hate being female but still see womanly passtimes as being lesser. If are a woman who hates the women who wear pink, wear makeup and enjoy flirting with boys because you think their choice of expression of femininity is silly and purile... You are buying in to a heirachy based on cultural gendered lines that places the more feminine centric expressions as being lesser.

The targets aren't always women. Misogyny for instance can be seen when a gay or non-gender conforming person is riddiculed for being lesser for wanting to express the feminine as the underlying assumption is that the trappings of femininity is not a choice between two equally vaild options but choosing an option which is lower than what they should want. Meanwhile women emulating the masculine is not usually commented on because when the masculine is aspirational and the feminine is silly, trite garbage for inferior people it makes logical sense to ditch it.

Misogyny exists in our use of language. Examine for instance the word "pussy" which equates the female genetalia with cowardly behavior and "unmannly" inferiority. You are acting as a woman which is supposed to be insulting because women are not just categorically different but equal... They are implied to be an inferior state of being.

Furthermore some misogyny can be "benevolent" - CRITICALLY this does not mean it is good. Benevolent misogyny is harmful - but it means that the misogyny comes from a place of misplaced pity and assumption of inferiority. Treating a person as weaker, more delicate, in need of help and unable to make their own decisions or utilize their own capacity for handling things is also misogyny. Being treated as though you are a child who will never grow up will drive people to bite through solid steel levels of frustration and madness or worse injure their self worth, sense of independence and empower learned helplessness.

The companion peice to misogyny is misandry. The idea that men are all to some degree inherently violent, sex motivated and unsafe for women and children to be around and the idea that any choice of a man to express the feminine is abhorant limiting the options of men to participate in society in ways not outlined by traditional masculine expectations.

Unlearning misogyny is not an easy thing. It is a process of dismantling behavior based out of something you may not have given much consideration. Our society is generally kind of misogynist by default so reaching in and recognizing misogyny and choosing to leave it behind takes a lot of effort and willingness to honestly self critique.

Yeah the ethics of Japanese game shows and reality tv more generally particularly in the 1990's is a fraught topic. Some of them were quite cruel.

Nope, did not realize... But tell me that even my nice progressive Canada wouldn't have hordes of parents flipping the fuck out about little kids being exposed to cartoon porn and I wouldn't believe you.

To be clear it's not like I think there's any moral issue with an emoji set of genitals. I just don't think anybody wants to court that much bother for something already served by a cultural understanding about the eggplant emoji that already exists. In a vaccum of sex and penis innuendos an innuendo will always emerge. Even when we have the option to be explicit sometimes we opt for innuendo. I just don't see there being a lot of value particularly in a cartoon penis. Like okay, you have a cartoon penis, there's a moral outcry. Conservatives get mad and in the end... what exactly has been improved really?

The juice just doesn't seem worth the squeeze.

I would countee that wouldn't any single depiction of a penis set an unreasonable standard? Color, size, circumsized vs not etc? At least with a euphemism it is fairly abstract. I don't think anyone looks at an eggplant as a goal.

I suppose there are worse things to insert but an eggplant, particularly the type being depicted in the emoji doesn't seem like a particularly prime candidate. Seems like a good way to end up in hospital looking for a manual extraction.

Oh yeah... It was horrible. Dude was traumatized.

They are an all ages thing for some... But remember when I said international? I don't particularly like puritanical prudishness but the conservative held belief as those things being inappropriate for all points of society is also pretty common.

I doubt those who keep the emoji want any hassle of the conservative European diaspora middle East, the Americas, facets of Africa and China getting their knickers in a twist.

In the world of stockholder retaliation some things people count as just above their pay grade.

There's actually kind of a funny history behind the Eggplant emoji. Emoji are Japanese in origin and around the time they were taking off there was this Survivor like gameshow where one guy was confined to his apartment and he had to try and survive past the basics by applying for and winning sweepstakes items from various promotions from newspapers and magazines.

The participant's shortened form name was Nasu - which means "eggplant" so since the guy started the challenge with literally nothing including clothes they put a little Eggplant over his junk in post. That became a Japanese cultural meme that translated over once emoji became more widely adopted.

You probably won't see actual dick emoji in the actual set because emoji are an all ages access thing and exist on an international level. It's actually kind of funny how different cultures use the same finite set. Like in China how the angel emoji is construed as "I'm going to end you". One could see the things as becoming essentially a hieroglyphic set where they gain their own full individual linguistic meanings.

From a compass perspective for the most part I would say religion is vaguely conservative because it tends to create a hierarchy of people whom are influenced by a very specific historical tradition and designate people trusted to serve as it's custodians. Since people like power there is generally an incentive for people in those positions to enjoy the perks of being an authority.

But you know what... That doesn't matter.

I think that completely dismissing the idea of religion as a force for Progressive change in the sphere of Social Democracy is misguided. People believe in religions because the underlying concepts represent a framing device of the world that makes sense to them. Subscribing to a an organized power structure is actually kind of an independent factor.

Schisms in favor of progressive changes happen throughout history from time to time and their impact should be noted. While a lot of Churches signed on to assist in the brewing holocaust there did exist a distinct Christian resistance to Nazi persecution of Jewish people and political dissidents helped save hundreds thousands of people from the camps by organized evacuation. Many of the people did so because of their convictions of faith and some died for it.

The sharp dismissal of people of faith as potential allies in the fight or their conceptualization of their faith's teachings is to my mind misguided and selfish. It shows you place your own religious traumas and prejudices above the value of creating allyship to keep the people you profess to care about safe. Changing religions from the inside to more broadly embrace a kinder and enduring new interpretation of doctrine and tradition has value. Making other allies feel welcome and making use of what they have to offer is key to actually winning this fight. This should not be the time or place to puff out your chest and proclaim "I am more moral than they are!" we don't have time for petty squabbles about whether a belief in Christianity makes you a bad leftist. We of the trans community need help and this choosing beggar mentality of allies rejecting and scorning each other is against our needs.

Yeah, the unvarnished answer is usually about that ugly isn't it?

I have been privy to people's reactions to watching videos, even grainy distorted ones of executions or accidental death. While adults are generally fairly innocculated against depictions of death that are known to be fictional the same is not true of the real thing. There is good reason why even barely legible death caught on film is aired on news broadcasts with warnings and particularly graphic ones are not broadcast at all. While I think I sit somewhere on the less effected side (effected but very good at compartmentalization) a lot of the people I have personally witnessed veiw footage have been generally very perturbed to the point where the mental disquiet lingers for days after the fact.

Young children are generally perturbed by depictions of theatrical or even loosely conceptualized death in print. While some might seem brave in the face of fictional gore it's basically just playing brave and flouting their idea of being tough when what they are being tough against is a safe little fiction. People who like slasher movies aren't immune to being traumatically impacted when exposed to real death on film.

I find it very telling that there is this mental disconnect that children being "exposed" to the depictions of same sex relationships which are often depicted in the same chaste presentation heterosexual relationships are for age appropriate audiences is somehow "disturbing" while something legitimately traumatizing to the average adult is somehow something kids should be exposed to in the most graphic way possible.

I don't think this man should be permitted to be around children much less advocate for what constitutes an initiation into adulthood.

What the fuck are you talking about? I don't "want violence" I "wanted" examples of the type of thing I'm surprised isn't happening. Fucking Lemmy. I'm not looking for an instrument

You made a comment about admiring "self control" and then started talking about wanting examples for something that doesn't exist and then people started talking about the types of resistance that DO exist because it seemed you wanted examples...

I think where this breaks down is that A) self control has nothing to do with it and people want to correct that misconception and B) you are asking for something more fundementally basic than people expect. Very well. Here is political resistance theory 101.

Assassinations tend to sow empathy for and consolidate the power/positions of the groups who are targeted. For example we look at JFK rather more warmly in retrospect then people did when he was alive. The criticism for risky political moves and his extramarital affairs made the question of his Presidential campaign being successful kind of anybody's guess... But when election time rolled around LBJ won in a landslide victory the sort that is historic. Because all of a sudden his party had a martyr.

Assassinations don't work...or they don't work the way you think. Conservatives love cloaking themselves in the cosplay of being the oppressed. Nobody wants to fuel that delusion because they would use that to burn us all down.

The current ID system for accessing government services is sort of like that as I understand it... But the Conservatives haven't really been very forthcoming about how they actually intend to enforce a digital id legislation on a bunch of privately owned digital vendors from multiple countries that are already slippery. They haven't really outlined what active enduring measures would be required to keep up this sort of digital regulation for it to be maintained in perpetuity. It all feels like trying to stop a river by installing a net...perhaps maybe closer to Trump's "building a wall" move politically.

Passing something without outlining any specs or plan on how they actually achieve their ends is very much the regular Conservative MO. I don't even nessisarily think they want it to pass it to be honest. I think they just want something that sounds easy to your regular joe but is fraught with practical and logistical issues so they can make the incumbent government look like it is obstructionist or morally bankrupt. If they actually passed this it would be a dog who caught the car senario but as is they know the incumbent government absolutely does not want to be on the hook for making a big messy new department that would take time off the floor for other issues while it's hashed out, require a massive expense to explore options and then further budget to create a government service in perpetuity all while their opposition gets to whine about how the incumbent government are too far over budget and too slow to get things done. The Conservatives know their constituents have the memories of goldfish and won't seriously ask why the things the Conservative party seemed to care about so much when they were opposition will be completely dropped when they are elected.

Then you very obviously did not read the last half of my post which explains why the community is largely fairly beaurcratic and how we went from very punchy to fairly tame forms of resistance. The reason the movement works in rhetoric and democracy is tied up in a mass die off of the more revolutionary actors due to the AIDs crisis.

You literally cannot understand how the relationship of organized resistance for the modern movement is without recognizing the massive heelturn in strategic planning that the events of Stonewall and the AIDs crisis represented. You have to understand the psychological and social engineering of why people didn't rise up earlier before that turn and the lessons that were learned and expanded upon to create a more aggressive approach. You can throw a tantrum about how people keep mentioning Stonewall when they talk about culture shifts or you can read past that and realize it for what it was. A massive shift in tactics that marked an actually very aggressive fight which changed again when the community started dropping like flies and other more subtle groups inside the movement became the ones keeping the lights on.

Stonewall as a riot isn't as notable as an outburst as it was a starting point. What would become the LGBTQIA+ of the time were underground. There were frequent police raids of establishments and there was violence all the time but none made the news. It was swept under the rug. Stonewall was noisy and it got a lot of the cis hetro folk actually talking about things that had previously been relegated to innuendo or silence.

In the aftermath of the riots the Queer community noticed and organized. There had been nice quiet liberation marches in the past where people dressed in their Sunday best and tried to look respectable or ride the line so people could be confused about who might actually be breaking some laws in bed. But they devised something noisier than a riot. Taking all the stuff reserved for the clubs and spilling them onto the street. Pride was conceived as an Independence day style celebration with "the Battle of Stonewall" as it's memorial date. It was conceived at the time as a type of violence, not against people but against the silence. To keep people talking by being unabashed and even they were surprised how many queer people actually existed. The community due to external threat had been anonymized, atomized and carefully concealed so nobody had any clue how many queer people were actually out there. It was always just assumed to be a very few. Prides were hardcore shows of force where people courted arrest and police violence. One could see the continued Pride societies as being a safety measure. They are an organized entity, yes they are largely organizing parades and municipal events... But they are also highly socially connected and technically mobilizable. It's a measure of keeping in touch and having an internal structure of people who know how to organize.

It's also important to remember that the community has a continuity problem. There's not as many queer elders as there should be because AIDS survivorship selected for those who were closeted, lived an exclusive heteronormative life style except for partner or just weren't out having a good time in public. Those who remained to steer the ship were the quiet and mild mannered who were tangential to the violence. Everyone was slow to move on AIDS because it was thought to be a scourge on the obcene and it mowed down the community in the thousands. The crisis created a stunning loss of experienced liberation fighters at the same time it forged the survivors into a harder core of seige style organization with lesbians at the fore who used primarily beaurcratic means to fight. That beaurcratic framework is what survived and currently endures. It is quieter and fairly peaceable now but technically speaking you need a certain level of hardship and something that makes enough people angry to do violence to cause people to be primed to fight. The LGBTQIA are generally just invested in being happy and living their lives and their strongholds are cities. It's harder to be queer in a smaller town when people like you are scattered over a distance because those connections are harder to maintain.