|Thread title||Replies||Last modified|
|you fool||0||23:03, 29 December 2011|
|Splain something to me; something psychological||4||12:09, 29 December 2011|
|On the Eugenics article.||9||12:45, 21 December 2011|
|Ever considered a career in moderation?||1||19:58, 14 December 2011|
|Well, now you've got me curious||16||16:07, 13 December 2011|
|-pokepoke-||18||16:06, 13 December 2011|
|Hark! It is the sound of someone quibbling!||1||04:12, 13 December 2011|
|Your Post On My Page||5||22:31, 8 December 2011|
|Jews in Cordoba||4||13:19, 8 December 2011|
|Neb, you've got a job to do.||13||07:55, 8 December 2011|
|Comics||7||18:24, 6 December 2011|
|4||17:12, 6 December 2011|
|Heteronormativity||30||23:16, 1 December 2011|
|"Writing on the Body; understanding whitman and his use of personal identity"||10||21:55, 30 November 2011|
|"you've got mail"||4||01:54, 22 November 2011|
|Too much coffee||1||18:04, 20 November 2011|
|Calling BONs trolls is rude and ugly.||1||07:02, 20 November 2011|
|Sub space||41||18:34, 16 November 2011|
|ASL cognative linguistics||2||20:14, 15 November 2011|
|Assimilation||3||19:17, 15 November 2011|
How come, even knowing someone is likely a troll - or at teh very least, not going to read your well crafted (or crappy, whatever) rants, you still must rise to the challenge and answer that rant. someone, somewhere must have done a study on this. ;-) I feed trolls so/too well.
Maybe if there were a technical term for "troll-feeding," I could find out.
Right, must've had a brain fart not to think of that one.
But it's true isn't it? The need to assert dominance by correctness, it's like a more long-winded version of that reflex action people have to correct pronunciation if someone gets it wrong by slyly putting that word in their next sentence (even if it otherwise wouldn't be needed) and putting some emphasis on it. "I'm right, everyone else is wrong, if I don't tell them they're wrong, people will think that they are right and I'm wrong, which isn't true!"
I suffer from it horrendously.
You keep asking me to debunk things. Why do you always start with the assumption that they are false?
He wants you to remove the bunk.
Because you're a highly-trained performing seal, and your trick is to debunk things for fish. Now, I happen to have a juicy sardine here, and you're gonna have to earn it first :-)
It's true -- I've always subscribed to the adage that you can't debunk something unless it's already full of bunk. However, I'm not a seal. In any sense of the word.
I was observing that Osaka seemed to treat you less like a human being and more like a debunking machine that starts working when you pull a lever—"there's this thing I want you to do, so snap to it."
Oh, sorry for seeing something that seems out of place and asking someone who is knowledgeable about it.
No problem with bringing it to my attention. It just seems like you are expecting the comment to be wrong. I think the post does have a point, though it is largely a semantic argument IMO.
Hmm, lemme think. Well for starters, there's your whole civility campaign, which wouldn't be hypocritical in itself if you didn't tell people to fuck off and then call them idiots when you clearly have no idea what you're talking about.
Right. Civility. Well, I try to practice what I preach, but I'm not very good at it. I've said before that if any of the reforms I advocated were to be put in place, I'd get plenty of disciplining (idk why, disciplining sounds so naughty- I blame being on your talk page, you kinky bastard!).
Also, I'm staying away from that particular page, lest my temper get the best of me again and I re-hypocrite. Really, though, I try. And you'll see that I always try to be nice to new users, even unpopular ones like Talsley (until I figured out he was a parodist, then I just started ignoring him) and Heidelbergkid.
I always thought Talsley was a crazy old lady. o____o
Yeah, I seem to recall getting responses along the lines of "I won't do it again, pwomise" after cleaning up one or two of your previous messes. Maybe you should work on that.
One more thing, what messes, exactly? I believe you, it's just that my memory is failing me. The block rights stuff?
...Neeeebby. Quick question...out of simple curiosity. Do you nom on the oinks?
Not really. I'm not a big fan of ham or pork. I used to eat bacon occasionally, but I have to limit my consumption of red meat these days.
But the ads tell me pork is the other white meat...
I'm a vegan, former meat lover, and I must say, I never really got the hubbub about white meat. It's white, who cares?
Bad roll of the genetic dice. Which, incidentally, leads me to eat a lot of shellfish.
Shellfish are an abomination. Rubbery little suckers...
Then again, I eat doves, rabbits, snakes, turtles, alligators, and squirrels so...
But without them, you can't eat like cabbages and kings!
Adding an entire "See also" section isn't what I'd call a "minor" edit :P
You said you were going to make a page on how women actually are superior.
Are you brain damaged? Seriously?
I never do. the macro, while sage, is so trollish, i never take him (is it a him? maybe troll girls look like that) seriously.
Jesus christ that's a lot of examples. I think I get it now, thank you.
Conflicting statistics, Bawney Fwank, and SDI, all in one single topic!
The BON's HNN article is more or less accurate as far as I'm aware. As for the "whitewash theory" of the financial crisis (per Krugman), tell them to start with the FCIC report and come back in a week or so.
So he's going to get away with saying that the Reagan MIC and arms race crippled the Soviet economy?
Er, no, the HNN article is consistent with the Wikipedia articles in noting that the USSR was already crumbling by the time he got into office. Reagan was lucky to a great degree, though he did capitalize on his fortunate circumstances to a great degree as well.
I'm fond of Superdickery's propaganda section: Superman says "You can slap a Jap!
Ah Superdickery! I finished that... ages ago. I need to reread it.
Good link by the way. Though I'm often very concerned when this sort of stuff seems to attack "heteronormative" ideas. Fair enough that we shouldn't enforce them and pressurise people into conforming (this being no different to religious freedom or any other intellectual freedom) but often it comes across that if you're heterosexual and gis-gendered you're automatically Evil And Responsible for All the Ills in the World Ever Because Your Very Existence Is Oppressive. In fact some of the literature really does come across like they're using "heteronormative" with the same spitting venom that you'll hear when "liberal" is used on Fox News.
That is nothing new at all; both queer-theory and neo-conservatism differ from their common ideological ancestor only in the precise identity of the Born Evil and Oppressive crowd.
Much if not most of feminism would see/has seen all things male as teh Big Bad Evil.
I'm sure most blacks saw all whitey as "the man".
When you are just starting to fight for your rights, the lack of rights are so systematic and endemic it is very literally "all of society" that is against you. Eventually, that changes of course... but it takes a while.
Funny thing about that. When the feminists were just starting to fight, those were the first-wave feminists, who did not blame the Big Nasty Overclass for everything in quite that manner.
I'm sure most blacks saw all whitey as "the man". An attitude that, fortunately for all of us, Martin Luther King, Jr. saw his way around.
Why wouldn't it attack heteronormative ideas? Normative ideas are prescriptive standards, which is the same thing as enforcing and pressuring people into conforming.
Because I get this extra connotation that, being heterosexual and cis-gendered myself, it's all my fault. It's a hard one to shake off.
I mean, I should clarify that I really think that those who create prescriptive beliefs and enforce conformity are wrong, it's just... I just plain and simply can't shake off that feeling. I feel I was born on the wrong side of the sexuality dynamic for my opinion to matter. It must be what that "white guilt" thing feels like.
Er, I'm also het/cis (just not in the "right" way). There's a difference between acting it and holding it up as a standard or ideal. It's not like everyone is out baiting gays, trans people, etc.
Yeah, but here's the thing; why do I feel guilty about it? And why do I seem to perceive it as my fault regardless of the fact that I don't actually push heteronormacy?
So you have this group, called "allies". Okay, fair enough. That effectively then transforms LGBT into LGBTIQQAHGOITEAJADOKJHELPIMTRAPPEDINANABSURDITYNVOADVNOAK, or "anyone who isn't a homophobic bigot club". I get it. But the implication seems to be that unless I explicitly identify as "allies" I'm not one. As this system seems set up to say that by default you are indeed a homophobic bigot, because you don't identify as allies by default because you must identify as one. This seems backwards to me, as if it's requesting I identify as something that I don't do. It's the same issue I think I have with being told that I must identify as feminist because I support gender equality.
The problem, as I see it, is failure to accept those who are not normal as full members of society – not the mere existence of a concept of normality.
I think not being heteronormative goes further than just a passive acceptance of GLBT people in the community or of legal equality for them.
It also comes down to a more personal level. Someone has children. Do they do anything to show them the reality of GLBT people? Or "oh no, they are too young for that". But they aren't too young to be fed a constant diet of Barbie&Ken heterosexuality. Yeah, so this person could support marriage equality, etc., but they haven't really got heteronormativity either in my book.
Do they tell their children, "when you grow up you could have a boyfriend or a girlfriend, a husband or a wife (or two boyfriends, or two girlfriends, or one of each, to throw a polyamorist angle in there)"? Do they say, "Sometimes people who are born boys feel like they are really girls inside, or people who are born girls feel like they are really boys inside, and if you ever feel like that, that's a perfectly valid way to feel..." Or do they think, "oh, my children will not be like that" (only other people's children are gay/bi/trans). Even if someone's parents aren't actively homophobic, there is a sort of passive homophobia/transphobia which is harmful to GLBT children/adolescents too.
Only when we overcome in raising children the default assumption that everyone is cisheterosexual (and the mainstream media we feed children, storybooks and barbie dolls and Disney Princesses pining after their Prince, assumes everyone is cishet and has almost zero representation of GLBT people), then we still haven't overcome heteronormativity.
"Writing on the Body; understanding whitman and his use of personal identity"
So - When I was in grad school I noticed that there were these "buzzwords" that seemed to be all the rage every year or two. When you were researching a particular topic, if it was 1982 the word "movement" would be in every title; in 84, it was Body. "the Body and East Asia", "Embodying the sound and fury" "Understanding the Body in Feminist philosophy". "Dialogics" and "dialectics" were the big thing in the early 90s. And it didn't matter who or what you were writing, if that was the "in" thing, you got it into your title somehow. I never really understood the whole "othering" part of literary criticism, Bahktin, Tracy, Pierce all deal with the theory of teh "other" in literary criticism and religious criticism - and i never understood it at all. I just think it was a way to get "hits', back before google.
I don't know anything about lit crit, but "nano-" seems to have peaked as a tech buzzword in the last few years. The trendy thing in the social sciences currently seems to be to slap "cognitive," "neuro-", or "evolutionary" in front of everything (good timing for me). "Game theory and x" is also popular.
And sometimes, it's fully appropriate. Cognitive linguistics is probably a perfectly valid term. But I can see some pseudo-scientific Art Historian who needs to "publish or parish" and decides to write "Cognitive approaches to the analysis of Art" or some such. It was that kind of "use a term just cause" that made me giggle. My own thesis had "Storytracking" as its buzz word - but in my defense, the author of the concept was on my committee.
I'm sure there's a webcomic tracking the use of terms throughout time and shows "nano" technology peaking and being slowly replaced by "pico" technology. I thought it was xkcd but can't find it, might be Piled Higher and Deeper, but to be frank that's a more difficult one to search.
I sent you a reply to an old email that I didn't see. (I don't check this accont's email often. I wasn't ignoring you back then, i just ... well... it got lost. :-)
Did you come down with an aphasia while you were away?
I'm betting he was making fun of something i typed. I have the brace for the broken finger bone off, and sometimes it hurts so i don't edit - heh
What it says on the tin. Now, also, undelete what you removed from my talk page. That is all. ħuman 05:10, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
THATS what I'd like to see a scan of. it feels so different than just orgasm. but... you know.... "no comment".
whether because of pain, or drugs, or deep meditation, there is a place that the mind slips into that is often a launching point for mysticism. Some people have compared the feelings that a sub in a BDSM scene recieves creates that same "space".
"Some people" eh? Don't tell me you're still hiding in the closet when we could be turning this place into PervWiki. :P
If you'll allow me to speculate for a moment, I think it's all related to what the Buddhists call anatman (or the "not self"), the now-trendy psych concept of flow, or, in plainer English, what drugged-up hippies call ego death. Having tried all those experiences myself, they are all different of course, but similar in the way they are based on the destruction of the "self."
The thing about mystical experinces (induced pain, ehm, included) is that no matter what religion the person stems from, or what they did to get into that state, they all describe the same damn thing; "near death" shares that experience as well. "ego death" sure describes what I've felt on peyote, or on "vision quest" (i wish i could say anything less "new agey" there...). I've never actually been in real subspace. the pain part is not enough my thing to get there. but yes, i'm my own little (or big, as the physical case is) perv. ;-)
Yeah, "religious" experiences are at base the same cognitive mechanism filtered through culturally relevant beliefs, which is the case for many other things as well. In fact, people attempting to graft their religious beliefs onto BDSM is not uncommon (it's just like "real life," but pervier!), in my experience, though when it happens it tends to be some New Age nonsense, pop Eastern mysticism (Jebus, Yahweh, and Allah frown upon kinky sex), or "sacred feminine"/goddess-worship guff (I blame it on the female supremacists). Which is why I'm grateful that my mistress is an even bigger atheist thumper than me -- nothing ruins kinky sex faster than quantum woo! (Now there's a sentence that should never have to be typed.)
Anyway, "subspace" and BDSM in general is not necessarily related to pain, that's just a misconception based on pop culture stereotypes. I'm actually fairly boring for a pervert -- D/s is the only essential element of it for me, though pain can amplify it, but it's not the central point for me most of the time. Some people need pain -- the technical term for them is "pain sluts." If you're serious about trying it, though, thumb through the RW-Recommended Wipipedia and see what sounds like fun. I wasted quite a bit of time not recognizing my own kinky proclivities because I thought BDSM was just about people in gimp masks beating the shit out of each other. I hope that image changes as it becomes more acceptable, but it's still pretty rare to see a depiction of BDSM in the media that's not totally cartoony.
I approve of this message, for reasons I won't go in to, because some people just don't understand.
...are we slowly discovering that there isn't a single "vanilla" person editing this wiki?
I don't think that anyone is "vanilla" I just think most of us are smart enough to not discuss it too often. ;-)
I'm sure someone, some where just really likes face to face sex, with pretty words, and lots of touching - and nothing else. But how boring!
I swear it's a conspiracy to make us all feel awkward as fuck.
Sex? yeah! I sware to god, if it didn't feel good, no one would ever fucking do it.
Do you know how stupid looking real actual "I have ten mintues before we fall asleep or wake the kids' type sex looks?
God fucked up there, man.
I'm with WfG on this one. :-) Add in the faces we make during sex and you have to ask what God was thinking?
I honestly think that one of the great things about RW is the level of acceptance. OK, maybe not for those wishing to push their made up religions, but, when it comes to sexuality we can all be what we are. At this point I think we discover that, amongst us rats, that, yes, no one is vanilla.
Now look what you've done, there's a whole coming out party for pervs on my talk page. I never asked for this. I just wanted good, clean, family-friendly fun.
Giggling out loud in my office. My coworker just stared at me.
"comming out of pervs on my wall".
you deserve it!
Hey, if in your reading and writing you come across anything interesting on Cognitive linguistics and asl or deaf people in general, would you point me that way? I've lots of books on the complex grammar of ASL (which is wackadoo fun!), but people like Pinker "grace" that "asl is a language" and "deaf studies are important" then leave the topic and never touch it again.
It's a fucking visual language, people. It's non temporal; non liner; non-word ordered --- you'd think someone in cognitive linguistics would say "fucking cool as subject to study!"
Check out the possible crankery I left on your talk page (analogical modeling). I don't know much about ASL -- here is a study that I think I've given you before, and here is some relevant info at the Salk Institute. I need to learn more about linguistics -- actually, my knowledge of it is embarrassingly superficial considering that it would be relevant to my field.
Yeah, i saw it. I havn't marked it as "read" so that I can remember to read it (the info, not the post).
I just figured you're around the stuff more than me, so just if you see something, let me know. Somewhere, there is a gem of a book that is written; or a hell of one waiting to be written. ;-)
Counter-productivity is my name. Or it would be if I didn't already have a name.