![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More saved comments.
![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
serenejournal was talking about fat politics and body image, which led me to write:
Not settling is good, isn't it?
At the same time, while the phrase "differently straight" is silly at best, I think the writer has a point about how narrow the expectations of "straight" can be--which are a lot narrower than either "with a partner of the other [1] sex" or "only attracted to people of the other sex."
Also, one of the places we are going to find allies on queer issues is among people who realize that yes, their relationships are legally accepted and/or they can pass, but they aren't quite considered normal. Not the only place, of course, but one of them. If he wants to call himself "differently straight" and it leads him to work for same-sex marriage rights and anti-discrimination laws, I think that's a win. (Then again, it would probably be a win if the whole concept of "straight" collapsed.)
[1] There is no room in that model for the idea of more than two genders.
After talking about a class she's taking,beginning added "Speaking of which, explain the Thirty Years' War survey course-style. Three brief sentence limit, of course. Best entry gets a pony." So I commented:
The French were trying to juggle European power politics and religious orthodoxy, and thus funded all sides at various times. The Germans were fed up with everyone. In the end, Paris got a Mass, and the Lutherans got the Treaty of Augsburg.
[The pony probably belongs of right to Larry Gonick.]
[Also, "Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about…"]
[No context, I was commenting to a friends-locked post, in which the poster was talking about phase changes as a metaphor for relationships:
Running with metaphors: maybe some relationships have triple points, conditions where the same people could move to, or stay in, a friendship, a romantic connection, or drift apart. From outside, or maybe even from some inside analyses, there'd be no obvious sign of which way it would go: the shapes of conversation, daily activities, and so on could be very similar.
Talking about spoilers, people who objected to spoilers or requested spoiler warnings, and people who complained about such requests,nancylebov wrote:
Quite.
You, or I, or anyone, have the right to walk away from a conversation. (There may, of course, be consequences, depending on the topic and people--but there can be consequences to remaining and conversing, for the same reasons. Consequences are not always bad.)
I've had friends thank me for listening to them vent, and the thanks are not inappropriate: that sort of interaction is part of close friendship, and a favor given, not a right, not something they can expect from everyone they know. (And they return the favor, if I need to vent: were the balance not there, the friendship would be far weaker, if indeed it lasted.)
One, in comments to a post byelisem that I've pulled out on its own, but am putting here as well:
Doing the right thing from inferior motives is still doing the right thing.
Someone who doesn't steal because she believes it is inherently wrong, or thinks about the potential victim, may be a better person than someone who doesn't steal because she's worried about being sent to jail. But either is better than someone who figures what the hell, he'll steal because it's what he wants to do and there's no point suppressing his impulses.
The point of challenging racism isn't that it makes me a better person. It's that racism is evil and destructive and should be challenged, whether I do it from compassion, abstract belief in justice, or even guilt. It's not as though feeling guilty and not challenging racism helps anything.
wild_irises noted that she wants to post more openly in her journal, and asked people who do so why we do. This is my answer:
I like keeping in touch with people. I'm reaching for a bit of the good stuff that I once upon a time got from apas (yes, we have one) and Usenet. There's no reason not to make a lot of my posts open--the books and food and gym stuff come to mind.
Sometimes it's useful for me later--trying to sort out meals last week in Montreal, I took a look at my posts about the previous year's Farthing Party because I didn't remember the names of places where I'd gone for nice breakfasts.
Occasional things that are too private to share at all go in my paper journal, as do things I want to write about while the net isn't handy. (That book also has notes like "550 Sixth Avenue, 2:00," book recommendations from random places, and what my doctor said at the last visit, or what I want to ask her about.)
This was in response topolyfrog's post saying "Anyone — regardless of age — who is wearing a Ramones t-shirt in 2007 is a poser.
Discuss." and related mention of convention t-shirts:
Thesis: if you don't believe in wearing shirts after the event in question, you're wasting money to buy them at all. If you do believe in doing so, there's no specific point at which I can evaluate whether it's "too late" for you to be wearing that shirt.
This is in response to a post bypegkerr about not putting or throwing things away:
I see the point of putting things away, and throwing away some other things, but I'm not very good at it. There are some practical/logistical aspects to this, to do with two people in 600 square feet for 20 years, but it's also true that I really am not good at it. But I do see the point, and am pleased when I orcattitude manage some of it.
A large part of why I've been mostly getting library books lately is that they have a defined place to be put away: they go back in my bag, and the library finds a place to put them, rather than me having to do so.
serenejournal was talking about fat politics and body image, which led me to write:Not settling is good, isn't it?
At the same time, while the phrase "differently straight" is silly at best, I think the writer has a point about how narrow the expectations of "straight" can be--which are a lot narrower than either "with a partner of the other [1] sex" or "only attracted to people of the other sex."
Also, one of the places we are going to find allies on queer issues is among people who realize that yes, their relationships are legally accepted and/or they can pass, but they aren't quite considered normal. Not the only place, of course, but one of them. If he wants to call himself "differently straight" and it leads him to work for same-sex marriage rights and anti-discrimination laws, I think that's a win. (Then again, it would probably be a win if the whole concept of "straight" collapsed.)
[1] There is no room in that model for the idea of more than two genders.
After talking about a class she's taking,
beginning added "Speaking of which, explain the Thirty Years' War survey course-style. Three brief sentence limit, of course. Best entry gets a pony." So I commented:The French were trying to juggle European power politics and religious orthodoxy, and thus funded all sides at various times. The Germans were fed up with everyone. In the end, Paris got a Mass, and the Lutherans got the Treaty of Augsburg.
[The pony probably belongs of right to Larry Gonick.]
[Also, "Proust in his first book wrote about, wrote about…"]
[No context, I was commenting to a friends-locked post, in which the poster was talking about phase changes as a metaphor for relationships:
Running with metaphors: maybe some relationships have triple points, conditions where the same people could move to, or stay in, a friendship, a romantic connection, or drift apart. From outside, or maybe even from some inside analyses, there'd be no obvious sign of which way it would go: the shapes of conversation, daily activities, and so on could be very similar.
Talking about spoilers, people who objected to spoilers or requested spoiler warnings, and people who complained about such requests,
nancylebov wrote:You don't have to like my emotions. I don't have to pretend that yours aren't getting on my nerves.
Quite.
You, or I, or anyone, have the right to walk away from a conversation. (There may, of course, be consequences, depending on the topic and people--but there can be consequences to remaining and conversing, for the same reasons. Consequences are not always bad.)
I've had friends thank me for listening to them vent, and the thanks are not inappropriate: that sort of interaction is part of close friendship, and a favor given, not a right, not something they can expect from everyone they know. (And they return the favor, if I need to vent: were the balance not there, the friendship would be far weaker, if indeed it lasted.)
One, in comments to a post by
elisem that I've pulled out on its own, but am putting here as well:Doing the right thing from inferior motives is still doing the right thing.
Someone who doesn't steal because she believes it is inherently wrong, or thinks about the potential victim, may be a better person than someone who doesn't steal because she's worried about being sent to jail. But either is better than someone who figures what the hell, he'll steal because it's what he wants to do and there's no point suppressing his impulses.
The point of challenging racism isn't that it makes me a better person. It's that racism is evil and destructive and should be challenged, whether I do it from compassion, abstract belief in justice, or even guilt. It's not as though feeling guilty and not challenging racism helps anything.
wild_irises noted that she wants to post more openly in her journal, and asked people who do so why we do. This is my answer: I like keeping in touch with people. I'm reaching for a bit of the good stuff that I once upon a time got from apas (yes, we have one) and Usenet. There's no reason not to make a lot of my posts open--the books and food and gym stuff come to mind.
Sometimes it's useful for me later--trying to sort out meals last week in Montreal, I took a look at my posts about the previous year's Farthing Party because I didn't remember the names of places where I'd gone for nice breakfasts.
Occasional things that are too private to share at all go in my paper journal, as do things I want to write about while the net isn't handy. (That book also has notes like "550 Sixth Avenue, 2:00," book recommendations from random places, and what my doctor said at the last visit, or what I want to ask her about.)
This was in response to
polyfrog's post saying "Anyone — regardless of age — who is wearing a Ramones t-shirt in 2007 is a poser.Discuss." and related mention of convention t-shirts:
Thesis: if you don't believe in wearing shirts after the event in question, you're wasting money to buy them at all. If you do believe in doing so, there's no specific point at which I can evaluate whether it's "too late" for you to be wearing that shirt.
This is in response to a post by
pegkerr about not putting or throwing things away:I see the point of putting things away, and throwing away some other things, but I'm not very good at it. There are some practical/logistical aspects to this, to do with two people in 600 square feet for 20 years, but it's also true that I really am not good at it. But I do see the point, and am pleased when I or
cattitude manage some of it.A large part of why I've been mostly getting library books lately is that they have a defined place to be put away: they go back in my bag, and the library finds a place to put them, rather than me having to do so.
Tags: