[004]
joeyjojojuniorshabadoo
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This \'\'sounds\'\' like a legit subversion, but I don\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure who\'s apparently revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\'m putting it here (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
to:
This \\\'\\\'sounds\\\'\\\' like a legit subversion, but I don\\\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure who\\\'s apparently revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\\\'m putting it (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This \'\'sounds\'\' like a legit subversion, but I don\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\'m putting it here (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
to:
This \\\'\\\'sounds\\\'\\\' like a legit subversion, but I don\\\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure who\\\'s apparently revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\\\'m putting it here (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
This \'\'sounds\'\' like a legit example, but I don\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\'m putting it here (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \
to:
This \\\'\\\'sounds\\\'\\\' like a legit subversion, but I don\\\'t really know enough about it to comment, and adding a figure revered in a major religion as a subversion might be a bad idea, so I\\\'m putting it here (and the conversation attached to it) in here for now:
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
** TheBible also has an aversion: When Sisera, a Canaanite general, was fleeing the field after being defeated by the Israelites, he spotted a nomad\\\'s tent; the woman in the tent, Yael, let him in, confirmed his name, gave him milk \\\"in a lordly dish\\\", and let him fall asleep on the tent floor. She then drove a tent peg through Sisera\\\'s head. Please note: this is considered heroic.
*** The Israelites always considered [[ProtagonistCenteredMorality any behavior that benefited them]] heroic. Many modern Jews disagree.
*** Not enough that [[CultureShock you don\\\'t get the passage about the heroism of the woman who betrayed her own city to slaughter by the Israelite army read at bat mitzvahs sometimes.]]
Changed line(s) 3 from:
n
In context there\'s no way to interpret this besides that you were \
to:
In context there\\\'s no way to interpret this besides that you were \\\"suspicious\\\" that she is sympathetic to eugenics. That is not to my mind reasonable, and lashing out in this paranoia is not condonable. I thought this was out of line completely:
\\\'\\\'No, that\\\'s only representing _your_ viewpoint. Just like _your_ viewpoint is that types I (moral versions of regular people, or [[UnfortunateImplications any idealistic persons with mental handicaps or illnesses]]) are worse than those who take the law into their own hands to perform castrations and bloodshed (although within limits).\\\'\\\'
\\\'\\\'I\\\'ve also said that the previous definition of type IV \\\'\\\'really did\\\'\\\' sound (probably unintentionally, but nevertheless came out this way in practice) like pushing together anybody with a handicap with hardened casual serial-killers.\\\'\\\'
As far as I can tell the only person who has made an issue of \\\"handicaps\\\" here is you. I can\\\'t go back to the original entry since the history doesn\\\'t go back that far, but I strongly suspect that if I did, I would not find Shinji\\\'s existence on the list being justified with a remark that he is handicapped (as in, someone included it with the notation that being handicapped is exactly the same as being a murderer), but rather that he\\\'d done something morally questionable. Further, in what way was the character in question handicapped, by which I mean explicitly the kind of handicaps you\\\'re talking about that are discriminated against? I\\\'m pretty sure PTSD doesn\\\'t fall on that list.
That\\\'s not to say someone suffering from PTSD who commits a morally questionable act is necessarily the same as a Type IV -- although they are by no means all \\\"hardened casual serial-killers\\\" -- since it\\\'s questionable under those circumstances how much control over/responsibility for their actions they have. But someone erroneously listing a PTSD character then, is not necessarily demonstrating \\\'\\\'bigotry\\\'\\\'. That\\\'s a totally different thought process. It\\\'s simply failing to take into account the extenuating circumstances, in much the same way a person who was listed as a Type IV who killed in pure self-defense would be.
\\\'\\\'As for the wider frame of reference, I realise that it may come across as odd, and apologise for that, but I genuinely do have encountered plenty of outright statements (nothing implied about it) in media that people who have brain disorders should be tortured and executed with a Catch Phrase or Dead Baby Comedy treatment on principle.\\\'\\\'
I can\\\'t say I\\\'ve encountered many, myself. They\\\'re in the very extreme minority. Characters like Fred Phelps exist but I don\\\'t start to think someone who perhaps includes a homosexual character on this list thinks exactly the same way he does. There might be some UnfortunateImplications there -- although there might not be -- but those would be the absolute end of the spectrum. It\\\'s incredibly unlikely you\\\'re going to run into someone here who is \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' reactionary.
\\\'\\\'Still, I really am Literal Minded, which in combination with plenty of outright statements in conversations over the years has given me a trigger about this sort of thing.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'m sorry for that trauma, but yes, I would say that trigger is hypersensitive in this particular environment.
\\\'\\\'Regarding the longwindedness, that\\\'s also basically regrettably \\\"just the way I am\\\", when making natural conversation. I stray a lot and have troubles summarising. It is not intended to be offensive or annoying, but tends to make things awkward. My apologies again. \\\'\\\'
I mentioned you being long-winded to contrast with cclospina, who is of very few words. You can probably guess that two people, one of whose average post is 15 words long, and another whose average is 5-10 \\\'\\\'times\\\'\\\' that length, would either form a wacky comedy duo or else clash due to not being able to understand one another. In particular, I have a hypothesis that someone who explains all of their actions in detail, to the point of thinking in full view of others, might be more \\\"suspicious\\\" of someone who isn\\\'t as loquacious, as it might seem to their perspective that they are likely \\\"hiding something\\\". But it is only a hypothesis.
\\\'\\\'I do however state that we should not try to excuse or make that kind of gorn behaviour into something good and idealised as a practical point.\\\'\\\'
I don\\\'t see that the page was ever doing this. It was never particularly kind to the Type V. So given that, I don\\\'t think the mission of the page should be to try and \\\"reverse\\\" any excuses for that type of behavior that might be found elsewhere. It\\\'s not about teaching people to think the right way. I am sorry, I just feel very strongly about this. {{Anvilicious}}ness, even in support of a message that \\\'\\\'[[DontShootTheMessage I agree with]]\\\'\\\', turns me off. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s even effective. I think people are far more receptive to a point you allow them to reach on their own.
\\\'\\\'On the other hand, I just don\\\'t get the whole \\\"I have standards that \\\"justify\\\" my dead-serious torture-orgy ideals into system\\\" so that automatically saves me from being a Complete Monster bnotion \\\'\\\'
You don\\\'t have to \\\"get\\\" it in that you have to find it a realistic or compelling rationale. You just have to be able to recognize it and know how that effects classification.
As ever, no disrespect is intended. I have noticed I sometimes mean to sound \\\"dispassionate\\\" but wind up nearer to \\\"acerbic\\\", so my apologies if something goes over hard or sounds insensitive.
\\\'\\\'No, that\\\'s only representing _your_ viewpoint. Just like _your_ viewpoint is that types I (moral versions of regular people, or [[UnfortunateImplications any idealistic persons with mental handicaps or illnesses]]) are worse than those who take the law into their own hands to perform castrations and bloodshed (although within limits).\\\'\\\'
\\\'\\\'I\\\'ve also said that the previous definition of type IV \\\'\\\'really did\\\'\\\' sound (probably unintentionally, but nevertheless came out this way in practice) like pushing together anybody with a handicap with hardened casual serial-killers.\\\'\\\'
As far as I can tell the only person who has made an issue of \\\"handicaps\\\" here is you. I can\\\'t go back to the original entry since the history doesn\\\'t go back that far, but I strongly suspect that if I did, I would not find Shinji\\\'s existence on the list being justified with a remark that he is handicapped (as in, someone included it with the notation that being handicapped is exactly the same as being a murderer), but rather that he\\\'d done something morally questionable. Further, in what way was the character in question handicapped, by which I mean explicitly the kind of handicaps you\\\'re talking about that are discriminated against? I\\\'m pretty sure PTSD doesn\\\'t fall on that list.
That\\\'s not to say someone suffering from PTSD who commits a morally questionable act is necessarily the same as a Type IV -- although they are by no means all \\\"hardened casual serial-killers\\\" -- since it\\\'s questionable under those circumstances how much control over/responsibility for their actions they have. But someone erroneously listing a PTSD character then, is not necessarily demonstrating \\\'\\\'bigotry\\\'\\\'. That\\\'s a totally different thought process. It\\\'s simply failing to take into account the extenuating circumstances, in much the same way a person who was listed as a Type IV who killed in pure self-defense would be.
\\\'\\\'As for the wider frame of reference, I realise that it may come across as odd, and apologise for that, but I genuinely do have encountered plenty of outright statements (nothing implied about it) in media that people who have brain disorders should be tortured and executed with a Catch Phrase or Dead Baby Comedy treatment on principle.\\\'\\\'
I can\\\'t say I\\\'ve encountered many, myself. They\\\'re in the very extreme minority. Characters like Fred Phelps exist but I don\\\'t start to think someone who perhaps includes a homosexual character on this list thinks exactly the same way he does. There might be some UnfortunateImplications there -- although there might not be -- but those would be the absolute end of the spectrum. It\\\'s incredibly unlikely you\\\'re going to run into someone here who is \\\'\\\'that\\\'\\\' reactionary.
\\\'\\\'Still, I really am Literal Minded, which in combination with plenty of outright statements in conversations over the years has given me a trigger about this sort of thing.\\\'\\\'
I\\\'m sorry for that trauma, but yes, I would say that trigger is hypersensitive in this particular environment.
\\\'\\\'Regarding the longwindedness, that\\\'s also basically regrettably \\\"just the way I am\\\", when making natural conversation. I stray a lot and have troubles summarising. It is not intended to be offensive or annoying, but tends to make things awkward. My apologies again. \\\'\\\'
I mentioned you being long-winded to contrast with cclospina, who is of very few words. You can probably guess that two people, one of whose average post is 15 words long, and another whose average is 5-10 \\\'\\\'times\\\'\\\' that length, would either form a wacky comedy duo or else clash due to not being able to understand one another. In particular, I have a hypothesis that someone who explains all of their actions in detail, to the point of thinking in full view of others, might be more \\\"suspicious\\\" of someone who isn\\\'t as loquacious, as it might seem to their perspective that they are likely \\\"hiding something\\\". But it is only a hypothesis.
\\\'\\\'I do however state that we should not try to excuse or make that kind of gorn behaviour into something good and idealised as a practical point.\\\'\\\'
I don\\\'t see that the page was ever doing this. It was never particularly kind to the Type V. So given that, I don\\\'t think the mission of the page should be to try and \\\"reverse\\\" any excuses for that type of behavior that might be found elsewhere. It\\\'s not about teaching people to think the right way. I am sorry, I just feel very strongly about this. {{Anvilicious}}ness, even in support of a message that \\\'\\\'[[DontShootTheMessage I agree with]]\\\'\\\', turns me off. I don\\\'t think it\\\'s even effective. I think people are far more receptive to a point you allow them to reach on their own.
\\\'\\\'On the other hand, I just don\\\'t get the whole \\\"I have standards that \\\"justify\\\" my dead-serious torture-orgy ideals into system\\\" so that automatically saves me from being a Complete Monster bnotion \\\'\\\'
You don\\\'t have to \\\"get\\\" it in that you have to find it a realistic or compelling rationale. You just have to be able to recognize it and know how that effects classification.
As ever, no disrespect is intended. I have noticed I sometimes mean to sound \\\"dispassionate\\\" but wind up nearer to \\\"acerbic\\\", so my apologies if something goes over hard or sounds insensitive.
