![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More comments from elsewhere:
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
purplecthulhu wrote about Tony Blair's use of the phrase "evil ideology" in reference to the London bombings:
I do think there are evil ideologies: sets of beliefs that are profoundly destructive. That a large subset of the human species are not really people and do not deserve consideration is part of many (maybe all) of them: often it's nonbelievers, women, people of a different skin color or language, homosexuals, or sometimes all of the above.
I am interested in understanding the people who think such things to the extent that it will make it easier to convince them of their error, and to stop them from convincing others of these pernicious ideas.
I agree with you, though, that few if any people outside the pages of fiction set out to be evil for the sake of being evil rather than either because they honestly believe they are doing good, or for orthogonal motives. For example, some people have committed murder for money: many if not all of them would be quite happy to have the money without having had to kill.
firecat got an answer to her letter to the editor of a publication that seemed to be uncomfortable with the word "bisexual", and asked for opinions about the statement, in that letter, that "bisexual is an obsolete (if not insulting) descriptor because it assumes only two gender identities from which to choose."
What I think is that that statement is as valid, and as sensible, if you replace "bisexual" with "heterosexual."
I also am tempted to pursue a line of reasoning that says that, okay, if there are more than two significantly different gender identities, we may want another term to cover people who are attracted to people of all gender identities. However, there are people who are attracted to exactly two of those identities, just as there are people who are attracted to exactly one of them. So even if they're insisting on "exactly two" rather than "both" as the meaning of "bisexual," there are people who it fits and who would find it appropriate to describe themselves.
oursin wrote about people who tell her she should be writing about issues other than feminism, and noted that she's writing about what she knows and cares about. I agreed, adding
I also note that the people who say that you (or I, or anyone else) ought to be writing about their topic of interest instead of what we care about never say "I'd love to see you write about X, let's discuss a pay rate." To the extent that my writing is done on an amateur basis [1], it will be about what I love, or possibly about what someone I'm close to loves, not about what a stranger or casual acquaintance thinks I ought to care about.
[1] I am inclined to follow Le Guin here, and state that the distinction is that a professional gets paid--not a difference in quality--and that in a money economy, zir work is likely to be more widely distributed.
Laurie Edison asked (in a blog syndicated to LJ) "We all spend at least some time relating to our bodies as the source of other people's judgments; do you ever get away from that and into just being in your body as a source of sensation? If so, what helps you do that? And when you're there, do modesty and exhibitionism relate to what's happening to you, or not?"
Things that help me feel myself/my body as a source of sensation rather than an object to be looked at are exercise--not the result thereof, the muscles and such, but while I'm exercising, while I'm focusing on the weight I'm lifting or counting repetitions--and massage. Whether it's a professional massage therapist or my good friend who does massage, that focus is definitely on muscle and skin, not appearance.
Conversely, when I'm sick or injured, I tend to focus on the specific part of my body that is having difficulty: the knee that hurts or the running nose or the overall tiredness is an internal thing. (Although, when I fell some years back and hit my head on a concrete bench, I was very aware of the reactions to the matching black eyes I got from that.)
purplecthulhu wrote about Tony Blair's use of the phrase "evil ideology" in reference to the London bombings:I do think there are evil ideologies: sets of beliefs that are profoundly destructive. That a large subset of the human species are not really people and do not deserve consideration is part of many (maybe all) of them: often it's nonbelievers, women, people of a different skin color or language, homosexuals, or sometimes all of the above.
I am interested in understanding the people who think such things to the extent that it will make it easier to convince them of their error, and to stop them from convincing others of these pernicious ideas.
I agree with you, though, that few if any people outside the pages of fiction set out to be evil for the sake of being evil rather than either because they honestly believe they are doing good, or for orthogonal motives. For example, some people have committed murder for money: many if not all of them would be quite happy to have the money without having had to kill.
firecat got an answer to her letter to the editor of a publication that seemed to be uncomfortable with the word "bisexual", and asked for opinions about the statement, in that letter, that "bisexual is an obsolete (if not insulting) descriptor because it assumes only two gender identities from which to choose."What I think is that that statement is as valid, and as sensible, if you replace "bisexual" with "heterosexual."
I also am tempted to pursue a line of reasoning that says that, okay, if there are more than two significantly different gender identities, we may want another term to cover people who are attracted to people of all gender identities. However, there are people who are attracted to exactly two of those identities, just as there are people who are attracted to exactly one of them. So even if they're insisting on "exactly two" rather than "both" as the meaning of "bisexual," there are people who it fits and who would find it appropriate to describe themselves.
oursin wrote about people who tell her she should be writing about issues other than feminism, and noted that she's writing about what she knows and cares about. I agreed, addingI also note that the people who say that you (or I, or anyone else) ought to be writing about their topic of interest instead of what we care about never say "I'd love to see you write about X, let's discuss a pay rate." To the extent that my writing is done on an amateur basis [1], it will be about what I love, or possibly about what someone I'm close to loves, not about what a stranger or casual acquaintance thinks I ought to care about.
[1] I am inclined to follow Le Guin here, and state that the distinction is that a professional gets paid--not a difference in quality--and that in a money economy, zir work is likely to be more widely distributed.
Laurie Edison asked (in a blog syndicated to LJ) "We all spend at least some time relating to our bodies as the source of other people's judgments; do you ever get away from that and into just being in your body as a source of sensation? If so, what helps you do that? And when you're there, do modesty and exhibitionism relate to what's happening to you, or not?"
Things that help me feel myself/my body as a source of sensation rather than an object to be looked at are exercise--not the result thereof, the muscles and such, but while I'm exercising, while I'm focusing on the weight I'm lifting or counting repetitions--and massage. Whether it's a professional massage therapist or my good friend who does massage, that focus is definitely on muscle and skin, not appearance.
Conversely, when I'm sick or injured, I tend to focus on the specific part of my body that is having difficulty: the knee that hurts or the running nose or the overall tiredness is an internal thing. (Although, when I fell some years back and hit my head on a concrete bench, I was very aware of the reactions to the matching black eyes I got from that.)
Tags: