Breaking the Spell: Rethinking queer community

[Ranger Butch Force]

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

[Slater]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

We pass judgement every day of our lives, wether we do it conciously or not.

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

[princessbelle]

Originally Posted by Slater

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

So true.

I also find that it depends on my demeanor at the time. As in...if someone was dissing my beliefs, which i hear quite often, I just step back and try and listen. I take a breath, and calmly respond in print or face to face and remember that everyone has a right to opinions and who am i to judge them for that.

But, if i am in a crabby mood or someone is posting or saying something in a mean spirited way, or seemingly so, my calmness escapes occasionally and judgement can lash out more harshly.

My mood or what is perceived to be intend of the other person has a lot to do with when i judge openly or continue to judge privately or not at all.

[Ranger Butch Force]

Originally Posted by Slater

Ah true, but the trick is be conscious and mindful and deliberate with our judgements, especially the ones we are going to act upon in some way. A fleeting and random judge-y thought does not always have to be unpacked and examined -- as long as it genuinely is fleeting and random.

For instance, I could think of someone walking down the street, "Holy hell, those are the most ridiculous shoes I've ever seen. Who wears those?" Now I probably wouldn't think that because I scarcely pay attention to what's on my own feet let alone anyone else's (with the notable exception of certain appealing femme footwear selections), but even if I did that's probably a benign, fleeting judgement that I don't need to bother myself with. But if the footwear is markedly favored by a particular demographic group then maybe I do need to examine where that judgement is coming from and what other baggage might be traveling along with it.

So I don't think the goal is to not have any judgements so much as to be careful and responsible and limited with them.

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with? Is it because it is not what a "normal" shoe looks like? At this point, we have been trained by society to recognize a "normal" shoe, so when we see something that is not "normal", we outcast it because it is strange or foregin. Instead of passing judgement on the shoe, or person wearing the shoe, try thinking in a positive manner. Maybe think, "oh wow, look at those shoes!"

If we, as a community, want diversity then we need to practice what we preach. I'm stating that in general.

However, I think there's a nontrivial difference between the example being given and, say, whether or not we have any grounds upon which to say that there are boundaries and actions beyond the boundaries. To give a few somewhat different examples where, in fact, I think we not only do but *should* reserve the right to make judgments:

1) Someone says something blatantly racist. I'll take two of my personal favorites I've had directed at me:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

Now, given the ethic of the community under discussion we should NOT judge the person speaking in such a manner. According to your example--and I'm not saying you are saying this but I am saying it logically follows from what you've said above in green--the better reaction would be to say "well, that person is giving me a compliment, backhanded as it is." This in the name of being nonjudgmental. However, there is *also* an ethic--I would say something approaching knee-jerk reaction--to call out racist statements (or statements perceived as racist, they are not always the same thing). We, as a community, have made a judgment that racism is intolerable. That we would very strongly prefer a community where racism is given no quarter to one where racism is tolerated either explicitly or tacitly.

2) A former boss, I'll call her Amy, was married to Donna. Colleen, who worked with Amy and I, started having an affair with Donna. Amy, thinking that Colleen was her best friend, started expressing concerns that Donna was having an affair. Colleen would sit and listen to Amy freaking out. Eventually Colleen and Donna were caught. Again, according to the *expressed* ethic in this community when next I saw Colleen I should have acted as if nothing had happened because to do otherwise would be judgmental. The thing is, Amy was my friend, as was Colleen. Amy had given both Colleen and me our big breaks. I could not believe that Colleen would screw over Amy like this. I thought (and still do) think that what Colleen did was one of the more truly fucked up things I've been witness to. But if I were to comply with the social norm here, I should have thought Colleen's actions not at all remarkable.

If what we were talking about were *either* situations where people are being judged not for what they do but for what they are OR something so trivial that to try to see it through a lens of morality would be to do violence to the entire concept of morality (say, wearing a pair of hideous shoes) then not taking a stance of judgment would be appropriate. However, the types of judgment we're talking about aren't those examples but far more weighty ones.

One more example:

3) Late last year, there was a NASA mission where a satellite was intentionally crashed into the Moon near one of the polar regions. On Huffington Post people were commenting and making all manner of truly bizarre predictions about what would happen. I'm not talking about predictions in line with what NASA was expecting (e.g. that there would be a great deal of lunar ice ejected which would then be measured to ascertain the approximate density of the lunar ice cap) but really weird things like the fact that this satellite--the part that would crash into the moon would be about the size of a modern VW Bug--would disturb the Moon's orbit which would effect the tides and, ostensibly, the menstrual cycles of every menstruating woman on the planet. No, I'm NOT making this up!

A colleague of mine and I crunched the numbers and determined that the amount of force that would be imparted by the part of the satellite that crashed into the planet, would be equivalent to a Hummer being caused to swerve because of the impact of a single bacterial spore from a mosquito hitting the vehicle while traveling 70 mph. In relationship to the mass of the moon, that satellite was like hitting a moving Hummer with a bacterial spore. Needless to say, Hummers and vehicles much smaller fairly swim through a sea of bacteria floating in the air without any ill effect every single day.

Yet, again, according to an ethic expressed in the community a truly openminded person would treat both the prediction that the Moon would be knocked out of its orbit by a small satellite causing tidal and menstrual problems and that it wouldn't be knocked out of its position but some mass would be ejected which would give us some interesting data, as being equally likely. In fact, we go farther and state that if two people are making one claim the one who is LESS likely to be moved by the evidence is the one who is being MORE openminded.

So, if one party said "this will cause catastrophe on Earth, I don't care what anyone else says" and another said "no, it won't but let's do this. Let's measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon now and do it again after the satellite crashes and if the distance has changed significantly* then we'll know I was wrong" the ethic in the community is such that we would say that the first person was openminded NOT because she was willing to have her mind changed but because she believed without any evidence and was unswerving in that belief and would remain so no matter what evidence was presented. Openminded, in this instance, appears to mean 'believing regardless of evidence'. On the other hand, the person saying they would change their mind if the evidence required it and even went so far as to establish what could be used as evidence is closed minded NOT because they won't change their mind but because they will only do so if certain conditions are met and these conditions have to do with presenting evidence, not emotionally compelling stories or evocative language given in personal anecdote.

*The Earth and the Moon are actually moving apart. It's at a very defined rate and we know what that rate is. There is also a very reliable way of determining the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. At several Apollo landing sites, reflectors were left. By aiming a laser at the site and then determining how long a round trip takes we can determine the distance between the two bodies because light moves at 186,282 miles per second in vacuum (a little bit slower in atmosphere but not appreciable for our purposes here). Round trip for a signal moving at light speed between the Earth in the Moon is a little over 1.5 seconds meaning the Earth is about ~250K miles from Earth.


Cheers
Aj

[Ranger Butch Force]

Originally Posted by dreadgeek

However, I think there's a nontrivial difference between the example being given and, say, whether or not we have any grounds upon which to say that there are boundaries and actions beyond the boundaries. To give a few somewhat different examples where, in fact, I think we not only do but *should* reserve the right to make judgments:

1) Someone says something blatantly racist. I'll take two of my personal favorites I've had directed at me:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

Now, given the ethic of the community under discussion we should NOT judge the person speaking in such a manner. According to your example--and I'm not saying you are saying this but I am saying it logically follows from what you've said above in green--the better reaction would be to say "well, that person is giving me a compliment, backhanded as it is." This in the name of being nonjudgmental. However, there is *also* an ethic--I would say something approaching knee-jerk reaction--to call out racist statements (or statements perceived as racist, they are not always the same thing). We, as a community, have made a judgment that racism is intolerable. That we would very strongly prefer a community where racism is given no quarter to one where racism is tolerated either explicitly or tacitly.

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.

2) A former boss, I'll call her Amy, was married to Donna. Colleen, who worked with Amy and I, started having an affair with Donna. Amy, thinking that Colleen was her best friend, started expressing concerns that Donna was having an affair. Colleen would sit and listen to Amy freaking out. Eventually Colleen and Donna were caught. Again, according to the *expressed* ethic in this community when next I saw Colleen I should have acted as if nothing had happened because to do otherwise would be judgmental. The thing is, Amy was my friend, as was Colleen. Amy had given both Colleen and me our big breaks. I could not believe that Colleen would screw over Amy like this. I thought (and still do) think that what Colleen did was one of the more truly fucked up things I've been witness to. But if I were to comply with the social norm here, I should have thought Colleen's actions not at all remarkable.

If what we were talking about were *either* situations where people are being judged not for what they do but for what they are OR something so trivial that to try to see it through a lens of morality would be to do violence to the entire concept of morality (say, wearing a pair of hideous shoes) then not taking a stance of judgment would be appropriate. However, the types of judgment we're talking about aren't those examples but far more weighty ones.

I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerend that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.

One more example:

3) Late last year, there was a NASA mission where a satellite was intentionally crashed into the Moon near one of the polar regions. On Huffington Post people were commenting and making all manner of truly bizarre predictions about what would happen. I'm not talking about predictions in line with what NASA was expecting (e.g. that there would be a great deal of lunar ice ejected which would then be measured to ascertain the approximate density of the lunar ice cap) but really weird things like the fact that this satellite--the part that would crash into the moon would be about the size of a modern VW Bug--would disturb the Moon's orbit which would effect the tides and, ostensibly, the menstrual cycles of every menstruating woman on the planet. No, I'm NOT making this up!

A colleague of mine and I crunched the numbers and determined that the amount of force that would be imparted by the part of the satellite that crashed into the planet, would be equivalent to a Hummer being caused to swerve because of the impact of a single bacterial spore from a mosquito hitting the vehicle while traveling 70 mph. In relationship to the mass of the moon, that satellite was like hitting a moving Hummer with a bacterial spore. Needless to say, Hummers and vehicles much smaller fairly swim through a sea of bacteria floating in the air without any ill effect every single day.

Yet, again, according to an ethic expressed in the community a truly openminded person would treat both the prediction that the Moon would be knocked out of its orbit by a small satellite causing tidal and menstrual problems and that it wouldn't be knocked out of its position but some mass would be ejected which would give us some interesting data, as being equally likely. In fact, we go farther and state that if two people are making one claim the one who is LESS likely to be moved by the evidence is the one who is being MORE openminded.

So, if one party said "this will cause catastrophe on Earth, I don't care what anyone else says" and another said "no, it won't but let's do this. Let's measure the distance from the Earth to the Moon now and do it again after the satellite crashes and if the distance has changed significantly* then we'll know I was wrong" the ethic in the community is such that we would say that the first person was openminded NOT because she was willing to have her mind changed but because she believed without any evidence and was unswerving in that belief and would remain so no matter what evidence was presented. Openminded, in this instance, appears to mean 'believing regardless of evidence'. On the other hand, the person saying they would change their mind if the evidence required it and even went so far as to establish what could be used as evidence is closed minded NOT because they won't change their mind but because they will only do so if certain conditions are met and these conditions have to do with presenting evidence, not emotionally compelling stories or evocative language given in personal anecdote.

*The Earth and the Moon are actually moving apart. It's at a very defined rate and we know what that rate is. There is also a very reliable way of determining the exact distance between the Earth and the Moon. At several Apollo landing sites, reflectors were left. By aiming a laser at the site and then determining how long a round trip takes we can determine the distance between the two bodies because light moves at 186,282 miles per second in vacuum (a little bit slower in atmosphere but not appreciable for our purposes here). Round trip for a signal moving at light speed between the Earth in the Moon is a little over 1.5 seconds meaning the Earth is about ~250K miles from Earth.


Cheers
Aj

In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

[Julie]

So what is our moral responsibility as a friend?
I had this conversation with a friend the other day.

If she were cheating on her partner, would I tell her partner, who is also an equally good friend?

It's a tough response. My initial response was... I would lose all respect for you, and could not be your friend - I don't believe I could tell X.

Her response to me, given the same situation - She would give me a time limit to tell my partner and if I did not, she would.

Then we asked her partner if he would want me to tell them. He said YES!

My father always said... When you are the savior - you become the victim. Be careful. Maybe he was referring to himself, knowing I had the knowledge he cheated on my Mom.

I learned my Dad was having an affair with his best friend. I realized it at my Dad's last birthday. He was Dying and *S* came to his party. I walked in on them embracing and then kissing. My heart filled. I cannot explain it, but my heart filled for my Dad and this Man *S*. The night before he died, he asked to get *S* on the phone for him - My Mother had gone out shopping (imagine that). I was privy to this most intimate conversation of a 30 year love affair. When my Dad died the next day - I called *S* and we cried together and he openly told me his love for my Dad. Both of them had wives and children.

What was my moral responsibility? Should I have told my Mom? Why did my Dad and *S* stay with their wives? I still have so many questions. Were they being moral by staying and supporting their families and not breaking them up?

He is gone now almost 10 years. I don't believe it would ever serve my Mom to know this truth of the man she loved and he loved her. He worshiped her and cared for her - yet, he also loved another.

Perhaps that is why, I have such strong STRONG issues about cheating. I do know the pain it can cause - on both sides.

Lots of personal stuff. But really... Where do you draw the line?

Julie

[dreadgeek]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.

See, this is almost *precisely* what I am talking about. You gave three reasons NONE of which come down to "this person thinks that black people are intellectually inferior to whites, this belief is racist". To me, the simple explanation is that someone who thinks that in order for a black person to be well-read, educated, and articulate *something* must have intervened in their life to make them not like other black people. Such a belief is, in fact, racist at its core. So let me ask you this question, what is the problem with calling the question out for the racist statement it is?

I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerned that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.

Again what is wrong with saying "you don't fuck over friends"? What is wrong with having an saying there are things that are wrong and having an affair with the spouse of your best friend is on that list? What would be so terrible as to say "this is not acceptable"? Would *you* want people to take a neutral stance if the woman you loved fucked you over like that? I'm going to bet that if any of your friends said "well, whose to say whether it was right or wrong for her to do you like that" you would take a dim view of that statement and might even wonder where their moral compass got misplaced.

In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

I'm curious, what relationship do you believe the beliefs in people's heads have with their behavior in the real world? What I'm driving at is that, in fact, the beliefs in people's heads actually matter because the beliefs in people's heads effects how they behave in the real world. I think that there is a fairly high degree of correlation between what someone believes about the world and how they behave. I know people who claim, quite legitimately I presume, that their belief in some kind of divine being is what makes them behave in a loving and civilized manner. They believe, with apparent sincerity, that if they were to lose that belief in a divine being they would undergo a profound shift in how they treat other people. I take them at their word because it seems to me that people are probably stating what they actually believe about themselves and the nature of the world.

Right now, in the United States of America, there are people who believe things that are manifestly untrue. Demonstrably, provably, untrue. The fact that these things are untrue makes absolutely no difference what-so-ever and their epistemic closure is so perfect that even though they are not in an entirely hermetically sealed environment they simply write off conflicting information as proof of a conspiracy of the so-called 'lame-stream media'. Next year, the electorate will go to the polls and about a *third* of the electorate in one of the two major parties will vote believing that cutting taxes *always* raises revenue (it doesn't), that cutting taxes is the most direct and efficient way to create jobs (it isn't), that there is a serious effort for Sharia law to be enacted in the USA (there isn't), that the President of the United States was born in Kenya (he wasn't) and that he is a Muslim (he isn't). I would think that given the last 11 years of American history and the kinds of tragically stupid decisions that were made at the highest levels, with massive popular support, based upon absolutely false information we would not have to question whether or not the beliefs of other human beings matter. Yes, they do!

Is there *anyone* here who believes that had their been strong majority opposition (upwards of 75%) to the invasion of Iraq that the Bush administration would have gone ahead and started such a war? Does anyone think that the 62% of Americans who supported the war at its start would have done so if they had not believed that Saddam Hussein's Iraq had direct involvement in the 9/11 attacks or that he had an *active* nuclear and biological weapons program and, quite possibly, one or more nuclear weapons? Because that is what people said that they believe and those were the reasons they gave for supporting the invasion of Iraq. Eight years after it was demonstrated, conclusively, that there was no active WMD program there are *still* a nontrivial number of the voting public who believe that Iraq had the Bomb and/or that it was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks. So what does it matter what beliefs people have in their heads? It matters quite a lot, actually.

What's more, the kind of behavior you describe is almost precisely *not* how people behave. Your description of people holding strong beliefs suddenly changing them on new evidence is exactly the opposite of what has been observed. When millennialist cult leaders predict an exact date for the end of the world and then the world obstinately continues to exist one would think that their followers would pack up and leave and stop believing. Instead, they believe *harder* and simply accept whatever explanation is necessary to keep the cognitive dissonance to a minimum.

People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

That's a nice sentiment until a plurality of people in your state vote to ensure that you cannot marry the woman you love because they believe that homosexuality is a sin, that marriage equality would spell the end of heterosexual marriage and that their divine being will be terribly upset and *therefore* they must vote against marriage equality and only vote for people who share that view. It's all fun and non-judgmental games until someone loses an eye.

If you don't see any relationship to how people believe and how they behave, then how do you propose effecting social change if we *don't* change people's beliefs about the real world?

Cheers
Aj

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.

I have a question. And I am not trying to be an ass, I just really am bothered by this. Do you not see how the part I bolded in your post might be problematic? I guess I am not sure that that line of argument is the right one to be made against the racist and completely untrue notion that "only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate."

I mean, I can just see if one were to make that kind of argument with a right wing racist tea partier, that said person would just say, "well Obama's an idiot so that proves nothing."

The truth is that there are intelligent and articulate people of every race, and there are some really stupid people of every race. Pointing to one particular person to make that point isn't a good way to do so.

Annnnd, given Aj's examples, it seems that the person saying:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

would be acknowledging, in a very icky way, that she is smart, however the implication is that, on the whole, black people aren't smart. So pointing to the president wouldn't really dispute that claim. I guess after all this rambling that is really my point. lol

[DapperButch]

Originally Posted by atomiczombie

I have a question. And I am not trying to be an ass, I just really am bothered by this. Do you not see how the part I bolded in your post might be problematic? I guess I am not sure that that line of argument is the right one to be made against the racist and completely untrue notion that "only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate."

I mean, I can just see if one were to make that kind of argument with a right wing racist tea partier, that said person would just say, "well Obama's an idiot so that proves nothing."

The truth is that there are intelligent and articulate people of every race, and there are some really stupid people of every race. Pointing to one particular person to make that point isn't a good way to do so.

Annnnd, given Aj's examples, it seems that the person saying:

"You are really smart for a black woman."
"Were you raised by a white family? I mean, you're so smart, educated and articulate."

would be acknowledging, in a very icky way, that she is smart, however the implication is that, on the whole, black people aren't smart. So pointing to the president wouldn't really dispute that claim. I guess after all this rambling that is really my point. lol

Exactly.

and

a side note:

You don't have to be any of those things to be President (George W., anyone?)

[dreadgeek]

Ranger:

One other question. Given what you've posted below which would you prefer in the following scenario.

It's nearing Election Day 2012. Someone is really only now making their decision. Let us say that there are three matters to be decided that could have direct bearing on how your life may be going forward. They are:

1) The Presidency
2) One of your senators and your representative in the House
3) An omnibus gay rights law (protection in job and housing along with marriage equality)

Now, this person is fair minded but perhaps not the most informed person around. They have two people talking to them about the election. One believes that the President is a Kenyan-born, Marxist Muslim who hates America. They are supporting the two right-wing candidates who have made clear their opposition to all things related to gay rights. They will vote to do away with Social Security and Medicare. The other person believes that the President is an American-born Christian who is a more-or-less center-left Democrat. They are supporting two center-left Democrats who will vote against any attempt to dismantle Social Security and Medicare and who have expressed full-throated support for gay rights. The first person is telling the first-time, low-information voter that gays and lesbians are a threat to the family and that Barack Obama wants to destroy America from the inside and is a tool of Hezbollah. The second person is telling the our low-information voter friend that gays and lesbian couples are subject to all manner of discrimination because of who they love.

Are you going to try to suggest that it really doesn't matter which set of memes takes hold in this person's head? Are you going to say that you do not have a preference for how that little thought experiment would turn out in the real world, given the stakes? Or do you honestly believe that there is no relationship between how any of the parties believe and how they will actually vote?

Cheers
Aj

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

But why would they say that in the first place? At that point, to me from my me space, I would think that either A) they don't know you very well, B) they may, in their mind, think that it's ok to ask such a question to you for whatever reason or C) they are narrow minded in thinking that only white people can be smart, educated, and articulate which is obviously not true given that the US president is not white.



I, too, have been in such a situation before and it was not pleasant. Because having the affair in the first place was wrong (I don't care what the reason was), I told all of them that I didn't want to hear it anymore and that they needed to figure out what they wanted to do with the situation. All three are good friends of mine, and still are to this day. Yes, I was concerend that one of my friends was going to be hurt in the end. It was not healthy for me to get in the middle of that.



In this instance, I would have let the menstrual believe what they want to believe. Their mind is made up. But then, when what they believed in didn't happen, then maybe some people in that group would make up their own minds and say "Hey, you know in the end, that all sounded pretty silly that our menstrual cycles would get out of whack". Live and learn.

People need to make up their own minds. Even if the proof is right in their face and they choose not to see it with their own eyes, that's their decision.

Let it be.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by Ranger Butch Force

True, however, why would you find the person's footwear "rediculous" to begin with?

Ridiculous shoes:


Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

[atomiczombie]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Ridiculous shoes:


Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

OMG these pictures of shoes are making me giggle so hard my belly hurts!

[dixie]

Originally Posted by SecretAgentMa'am

Ridiculous shoes:


Okay, I'm taking the piss a bit, but really, I think this is kind of what's being discussed. Societies have standards, and yes, it's okay to challenge those standards. But those standards also aren't always universally wrong. Societal norms exist for a reason. We need them to function as a culture. I see no value in pretending that the above shoes aren't patently ridiculous even though I'm sure someone, somewhere, thinks they're genius.

Case in point: I would actually wear the ones in the middle.

[SecretAgentMa'am]

Originally Posted by dixielady

Case in point: I would actually wear the ones in the middle.

I knew someone would say this. I was actually looking for a picture with just the ones on the ends but I was having trouble finding one with a link that would show up in my post. I promise I don't think you're a bad person for liking them. I would be afraid I'd fall off of them and kill myself, but I'm sure you could rock them like nobody's business.

The really strange-looking ones are apparently getting really popular because Lady Gaga wears them.