But... I mean... ? 6 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
We have to ask the purpose of a label- a word. What does it do? The internet likes to talk about how other languages have words for things English doesn’t- people often lament that English doesn’t have some of the very specific words other languages like German fro example have to express feelings. Most of y’all probably couldn’t use them right anyway.
The term “feels” became a popular slang term. It has no meaning. It means whatever the speaker wants it to. It’s a word for when there isn’t an appropriate word to describe a feeling or more often, because the speaker lacks the vocabulary to express their feelings and/or doesn’t want to show the vulnerability or eloquence to do so. The term relies on the speaker and listener inferring meaning.
▼
The term “feels” became a popular slang term. It has no meaning. It means whatever the speaker wants it to. It’s a word for when there isn’t an appropriate word to describe a feeling or more often, because the speaker lacks the vocabulary to express their feelings and/or doesn’t want to show the vulnerability or eloquence to do so. The term relies on the speaker and listener inferring meaning.
But... I mean... ? 6 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Here is a simple example for those who are having trouble with abstract thought:
If something is labeled “poison” you will assume you probably shouldn’t drink it straight from a bottle right? But what if someone decided to put the “poison” label on anything they think doesn’t taste very good? Understand how that could cause confusion? Mushrooms are fungus generally right? But what if you throw a party and ask your friend to bring fruit juice and they brought mushroom juice because they think a mushroom should be a fruit?
The problem isn’t that people have started brining in genders and sexualities that warp the meaning of labels though- most of you were already misusing the ones we had which is amazing considering that it was mostly a binary system.
▼
If something is labeled “poison” you will assume you probably shouldn’t drink it straight from a bottle right? But what if someone decided to put the “poison” label on anything they think doesn’t taste very good? Understand how that could cause confusion? Mushrooms are fungus generally right? But what if you throw a party and ask your friend to bring fruit juice and they brought mushroom juice because they think a mushroom should be a fruit?
The problem isn’t that people have started brining in genders and sexualities that warp the meaning of labels though- most of you were already misusing the ones we had which is amazing considering that it was mostly a binary system.
But... I mean... ? 6 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Complicating things is that definition game. A “lesbian” in theory exclusively has attraction to women- but… when? if you saw a man and thought they were a manish woman and felt attracted, would you no longer be a lesbian ever again? And of course, even if two people aren’t attracted to each other they can engage in sexual or romantic activity with members of the same sex, which by definition in this case means one can engage in lesbian activity without being a lesbian.
In common speech these things often all get jumbled up or definitions get changed to suit an individual- “oh- well it isn’t lesbian to do XYZ…” and where a label exists to define attributes, that label is effectively useless if the definition is subjective.
▼
In common speech these things often all get jumbled up or definitions get changed to suit an individual- “oh- well it isn’t lesbian to do XYZ…” and where a label exists to define attributes, that label is effectively useless if the definition is subjective.
But... I mean... ? 6 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
It comes down to the ultimate flaws of labels.
Speaking on lesbians- look up the definition of lesbian. By the common written definition most women could be said to be lesbians at some point- or in a transient lesbionic state perhaps? And most lesbians could be argued to not be lesbians it depends on perspective. Consider that a label is generally only good for a given moment. Science suggests no states exist which are permanent but we can semi permanently apply a few labels- being dead implies strongly that one cannot become alive again for example. But many or most common labels are transient- applicable in a moment to a specific set of circumstances.
▼
Speaking on lesbians- look up the definition of lesbian. By the common written definition most women could be said to be lesbians at some point- or in a transient lesbionic state perhaps? And most lesbians could be argued to not be lesbians it depends on perspective. Consider that a label is generally only good for a given moment. Science suggests no states exist which are permanent but we can semi permanently apply a few labels- being dead implies strongly that one cannot become alive again for example. But many or most common labels are transient- applicable in a moment to a specific set of circumstances.
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Person A and B are biased and they are biased in opposing ways but neither is likely to budge for the sake of not being a hypocrite because they believe they are doing right. The point not being about what I do or do not support personally- the point is that we all have things that we assume should be human rights that if someone tries to argue shouldn’t we will dismiss them; and we all have things that regardless of the argument or our own views on other subjects that can be applied to a different topic, our personal bias is going to seem like the obvious answer or be the bulwarks that we usually won’t back down from.
▼
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Ok so now say person A and B meet. Person A believes in not legalizing all drugs and “open LGBTQ+.” Person B believes that we should legalize all drugs but “ban” LGBTQ+.
Both want to “ban” certain things they think are socially harmful and both want to allow certain things under the theory that people are smart and should be presented the world as it is and it is up to them to figure out how to navigate it.
Both are likely to not support one of the others major beliefs though. Hard to reconcile that isn’t it? The logic isn’t really there. We can argue why one is true or not etc. but from each of their perspectives they are right and regardless of the details they both have internally inconsistent beliefs because… those beliefs are most likely window dressing for their biases. You can tell person A or B they are wrong and even show them data but if A or B are much like the average person, that won’t change their minds because it isn’t actually about that,
▼
Both want to “ban” certain things they think are socially harmful and both want to allow certain things under the theory that people are smart and should be presented the world as it is and it is up to them to figure out how to navigate it.
Both are likely to not support one of the others major beliefs though. Hard to reconcile that isn’t it? The logic isn’t really there. We can argue why one is true or not etc. but from each of their perspectives they are right and regardless of the details they both have internally inconsistent beliefs because… those beliefs are most likely window dressing for their biases. You can tell person A or B they are wrong and even show them data but if A or B are much like the average person, that won’t change their minds because it isn’t actually about that,
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Person A says that we shouldn’t legalize all drugs and remove any age or other restrictions on drugs being sold anywhere to anyone because it is up to adults to make those decisions based on their critical thinking and beliefs. Person B says that most drugs should be restricted because they cause social harm. Who is right? Ok. Now person B says we should enact strong laws to keep kids from being exposed to LGBTQ education or exposure- “don’t say gay bills” and bathroom restrictions and banning drag story time and LGBTQ education or depictions/interactions with or around kids or in public etc etc. person A says that we should allow it all and let parents and kids reconcile that to their wishes and values. Who is right?
▼
·
Edited 1 year ago
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
“Common sense” we impose on others? Of course that is relative. How can someone say that it is ok to criminalize one behavior and not another? How can we point to one thing as causing social harm and call it bad or forbidden if we believe it is up to adults to decide- and then point to something someone else says harms society and say no- that’s a good thing?
▼
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
If you defend the confederate battle flag on cars and clothes and federal buildings and say it is more complex than a symbol of hate or treason then you’d either defend the Taliban colors hanging next to it or you are a hypocrite and have proven to yourself you are misguided. A terrorist “freedom fighter” is a terrorist freedom fighter. Supporting such means you don’t condone terrorism, you merely only condone it when you support the cause of terrorists or oppose their victims.
So that is the divide. People are nuanced. History is nuanced. We also can’t and I argue shouldn't pretend that whatever our own values are don’t exist when we talk about someone from outside our values systems. That itself is nuanced. Where do you draw a line? In some countries it is legal or even common to marry children- so do we just say that is ok because who are we to judge others by our values? Isn’t that what laws are- a set of comunal values that generally don’t reflect everyone but are the
▼
So that is the divide. People are nuanced. History is nuanced. We also can’t and I argue shouldn't pretend that whatever our own values are don’t exist when we talk about someone from outside our values systems. That itself is nuanced. Where do you draw a line? In some countries it is legal or even common to marry children- so do we just say that is ok because who are we to judge others by our values? Isn’t that what laws are- a set of comunal values that generally don’t reflect everyone but are the
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
The Taliban seemed to regard him well. Many various civilians liked him and the Taliban. Hitler of course, Stalin, Pol Pot, etc etc. no one is universally hated or loved. So then roll out the statues right? Nothing wrong with a big old statues glorifying Hitler because people can decide what they think about the man right? That seems a bit daft unless perhaps you are a Nazi sympathizer or something. Osama Bin Laden was a terrorist responsible for a large number of deaths and suffering through the violence he employed against the United States for example, in what was ultimately a quest to create and strengthen his government and ideology. Like a Confederate General. You don’t think Osama didn’t have friends? The Taliban never taught anyone to read or build things or helped people?
▼
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Now- adults aren’t kids” even if many display the mental capacity and reasoning of kids at least circumstantially, every election cycle preschool teachers across the nation see the sorts of tantrums and name calling and sociopath like lack of empathy that must seem familiar for example- but adults aren’t kids. So then it is societies job to remove that statue of the former slave owner because it sets a bad example? Maybe. Maybe not. Regardless, if we approach it as “it is up to adults to inform themselves and decide if they want this statue or not…” well… yeah. If they want it, OR NOT. The snake eats its own tail. If it is up to people to decide for themselves who is good or bad, then you have to believe in “cancelation.” If you don’t believe in it then you support someone building a giant statue celebrating Osama bin Laden near ground zero. There is a man who in his place and time is not a strict villain.
▼
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Maybe he’s a functioning junkie and he is very musical. The kids live him. They sing together. He taught them their ABC’s and tutored them to pass math. He’s not total trash right? He has this one “tiny” thing- right? So maybe you don’t need to judge him and teach your kids to hate that person- but maybe you DO need to talk about their behavior from the lens of your values and such instead of using the values of their peers who all think it is 1976 and think heroine is great?
That’s one example.any more. Be creative. The point is that people can have things that align to our values and things that don’t. While there is room for live and let live, sometimes we do need to stop and discuss things.
▼
That’s one example.any more. Be creative. The point is that people can have things that align to our values and things that don’t. While there is room for live and let live, sometimes we do need to stop and discuss things.
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So maybe you don’t need to judge them but you do need to judge their behavior? Maybe all their friends and/or family belong to a belief system- a religion/cult or they are all very “free” with boundaries and sexuality and partners or they hood certain values and maybe that person- your brother or friend or cousin or ex or the kids grandparents etc- maybe they have some things about them that are fine to them, they are fine among their Ike minded peers- maybe your uncle the heroin addict shouldn’t be judged by the standards of our time or your personal standards and maybe his junkie pals and his dealer think he’s doing nothing wrong- but maybe you don’t want him yo be a role model or a hero?
▼
Judgement should be reserved until context is understood 10 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
There’s truth to it. Some things are right at a time or for a perspective but not right to us. Humans are complex. We don’t even need to discuss history- we have enough trouble figuring out who is or isn’t an asshole or whatever day go day. Who is all “bad” or “good”? Who has no one who dislikes them?
So sure. But there is also a question of purpose. Why are we judging this person? To what end?
So, real world example- you and your ex have a kid and your ex sleeps around/dates different people pretty frequently. Not something we can or should really judge someone else for- their life their choice. I’m sure the people they sleep with probably think it’s a good trait and maybe people who worry about them or want a monogamous uncomplicated relationship with them think it’s bad etc. So do them right? Who are we to judge. Except… what about the kid? It’s is the general consensus that having a parent who brings home “musical partners” all the time is generally harmful to a child right?
▼
So sure. But there is also a question of purpose. Why are we judging this person? To what end?
So, real world example- you and your ex have a kid and your ex sleeps around/dates different people pretty frequently. Not something we can or should really judge someone else for- their life their choice. I’m sure the people they sleep with probably think it’s a good trait and maybe people who worry about them or want a monogamous uncomplicated relationship with them think it’s bad etc. So do them right? Who are we to judge. Except… what about the kid? It’s is the general consensus that having a parent who brings home “musical partners” all the time is generally harmful to a child right?
Fathers are the ultimate hypocrites 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
So by no means am I saying people should blindly follow their elders advice, but it is generally best to have some respect about it and the whole “you did this” thing doesn’t really work. I mean- isn’t that a major comeback we talked about for younger people? To tell their parents “things were different in your time, you don’t know how it is today..” well yeah. Sometimes- but things being different now also means they were different than dingus. So what you could do or what might be ok maybe isn’t the same as what was ok for them, that’s sort of the inherent logical course of that very argument. Again- inherently as much as your parents may not understand the world you live in, you not only do not have the ability to understand the world they came from- but they’ve been your age and you haven’t been theirs. They lived in the last and today but you didn’t live back then did you?
Fathers are the ultimate hypocrites 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
To the flip side of course older people make mistakes or can be wrong. Sometimes older people pass their regrets or unfulfilled wishes on to younger people wether they want them or not. They try to get you to make the decision they wish they made not because they believe it is best for you but because they believe that the outcome will suit THEM better. Sometimes things do change- maybe the long hair or tattoo that they are certain will prevent you from getting a job isn’t a big deal in the world today or might even HELP you fit in where you want to be and will prosper.
Fathers are the ultimate hypocrites 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
They probably did a lot of things that they regret or would have done differently with perspective and wisdom. Probably a lot of things that they once were upset or rebellious about from their elders but one day understood.
So here is the duality- just because your parent did something risky and it bit them doesn’t mean you’ll meet the same fate. Maybe they drank too much at a party and something bad happened and they don’t want you to drink- but maybe you can control your drinking better, have more trustworthy friends who look out for you etc?
By the same token just because tikes have changed and you aren’t them doesn’t mean that prudent isn’t prudent.
So here is the duality- just because your parent did something risky and it bit them doesn’t mean you’ll meet the same fate. Maybe they drank too much at a party and something bad happened and they don’t want you to drink- but maybe you can control your drinking better, have more trustworthy friends who look out for you etc?
By the same token just because tikes have changed and you aren’t them doesn’t mean that prudent isn’t prudent.
Fathers are the ultimate hypocrites 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Perhaps, but in classic child logic which many adults sadly never move on from-
Your father may have reached a point of wisdom and maturity to realize that he did some “loser” things. It’s quite a silly argument- the teenager calling their parent a hypocrite for telling their child not to drink or do drugs when they did, or to do well in school when they didn’t or so forth. Trends and fads change, technology and society change, but so much about humita does not. A modern fad is not so different than one through history. Pressures for social acceptance, hormonal changes in adolescence- your parents probably have a picture with a stupid haircut in a stupid outfit that you think is stupid and so do they- but when the photo was taken- they thought it was cool.
Your father may have reached a point of wisdom and maturity to realize that he did some “loser” things. It’s quite a silly argument- the teenager calling their parent a hypocrite for telling their child not to drink or do drugs when they did, or to do well in school when they didn’t or so forth. Trends and fads change, technology and society change, but so much about humita does not. A modern fad is not so different than one through history. Pressures for social acceptance, hormonal changes in adolescence- your parents probably have a picture with a stupid haircut in a stupid outfit that you think is stupid and so do they- but when the photo was taken- they thought it was cool.
A quick brown Fox jumps over the lazy dog 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
If you have a job like this, wether it is menial labor or some form of “middle management” that basically exists as a way to retain or appease long time or hard workers who don’t quite have what it takes to go to the “next level” but expect something in their career…. Yeah. Work can be pointless and humiliating. How many people find their sense of purpose or fulfill their passions or need for intellectual stimulation by mindlessly sorting things or filling out paperwork or giving status reports on work they didn’t do to bosses who’s main work function is giving status reports to their bosses?
It doesn’t HAVE to be that way. So much depends on us too- but society at large and business certainly have cheapened passion and excellence.
It doesn’t HAVE to be that way. So much depends on us too- but society at large and business certainly have cheapened passion and excellence.
A quick brown Fox jumps over the lazy dog 2 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Well… often, yeah. I mean, we long ago reached a point where automation was a serious threat to jobs. It has largely been lobbying and social resistance or fear of the entire system collapsing that have kept automation as at bay as they have been coupled with cheap under regulated labor (outsourcing.) chances are you do a job that probably doesn’t need done. Either your job could ge handed off to a machine etc, or your job essentially exists as a form of “unemployment” to keep you occupied and justify paying you. There are exceptions to this- but the jobs that represent the highest slice of the career field tend to be jobs that could be automated away, completely erased, or are basically at the end of the spectrum where they don’t provide enough benefit to justify the cost of automation and it is cheaper or easier to use a human.
I guess he had it coming 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Another note is that the way at least the US justice system works, it doesn’t matter if an attorney thinks you are guilty or not more or less. Attorneys do not decide who gets convicted. A judge, or a jury of their peers do. It is a legal and ethical duty of a lawyer to present their case for their side- defense and prosecution. The lawyer has an obligation to do their best. They represent the system not themselves. This is sort of critical to the concept of “justice is blind.” Who WANTS to defend an accused child molester? Most people would want to see that person punished and wouldn’t want to get their side of the story or sit with them and talk to them or try to help them. A justice system that respects human rights believes two things at least.
1. Until proven guilty you are innocent and should be treated innocent but under suspicion.
2. ALL people deserve an advocate for their rights no matter what they have done.
1. Until proven guilty you are innocent and should be treated innocent but under suspicion.
2. ALL people deserve an advocate for their rights no matter what they have done.
I guess he had it coming 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
Regardless, there are times where the attorneys office needs to be mindful of various factors. And sometimes that involves an aspect of “cover up.” Again- ethics debate, but some public offices will potentially try to assist police in avoiding scandal or loss of public trust and others won’t. So there are lots of politics for sure that can swing cases and how they are worked but ultimately most of the time money is less the direct result of criminal prosecution.
I guess he had it coming 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
The DA is an elected position and part of what tends to win elections is a strong record on crime. Being able to say “under my office 500 murders were locked up…” things like that. Sometimes it isn’t about the DA but the mayors office or city hall. If the downtown area business district is getting known as “unsafe,” the merchants and donors and general public might pressure leaders, the mayor or various city offices. Then they pressure the police and DA to “fix it.” Which a good deal of the time involves crock downs and going for many convictions and harsh sentences. There is also a relationship between the attorneys office and the police. Many with a mind to ethics will say those offices shouldn’t ever be too friendly while others will say that a good relationship between them is a key lubricant in the system of justice.
I guess he had it coming 4 comments
guest_
· 1 year ago
I can only speak for the US legal system and similar ones when I say that to be sentenced to death it would need to be a criminal court case, and criminal prosecutors rarely if ever get rich directly off of convictions. Criminal defense attorneys can get rich from winning. Now, a criminal prosecutor, a civil servant, doesn’t get paid a whole lot in general compared to higher end defense lawyers, but a solid conviction record can help their stats when it comes time for promotions or if they later decide to run for District Attorney or get into politics else wise. It can also help them to sell books, or to get paid speaking arrangements and prosecutors seeking the “beach house”generally have better odds of going private if they have a good win record. That said- politics at the office plays a role. So even if the attorney isn’t angling for a conviction for their own gain- their bosses might put pressure on them.
It is generally sufficient in conversation to refer to a four wheeled vehicle as a car or truck as suits. It may be a van or SUV or cross over etc- but it is usually fine to say a general term.