brin-bellway asked: Is “using handedness to introduce children to the concept of privilege” not a standard part of liberal upbringing? Was that just me? (I don’t think they used the word “privilege”, but that was clearly the idea. I think there was some social-model-of-disability stuff involved too.)

moral-autism:

moral-autism:

[no content in this post so that reblogs of this will be second-level reblogs]

I don’t remember it being used in my school.

It’s been long enough that I don’t remember the circumstances, but it was definitely not at school because I didn’t go to school. (I don’t *think* it was a schoolbook.)

It might have been from my parents: my dad’s left-handed, so *some* lesson on handedness would be bound to come up at some point†. Or media. Or maybe Girl Scouts (which is also kind of parents, since my mom led my troop). Or a combination of the above.

(When I dig through my brain, I get strongest associations with Girl Scouts, but that might just be from me *thinking* about previous right-handed-privilege stuff *during* Girl Scouts because of crafts using right-handed scissors.)

†And I suppose might not come up much in an all-right-handed family, so that alone would go a fair way towards making it not a Relatable Childhood Experience.


Tags:

#reply via reblog #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #Girl Scouts #my childhood #(I’m…I guess I could put it as ”right-handed but left-armed”) #(my right hand is better at finesse and my left is better at brute strength) #((I use my left hand to open jars)) #(apparently Mom’s dominant hand is also her stronger and she was surprised to learn mine were different) #(I wonder how common a difference is)


{{next post in sequence}}

Oh god, I’m seriously tempted to get into a fight with these smug idiots.

Somebody please stop me.

(*chants* “they’re the ones with all the power here, you can tell by how strenuously they insist that they’re powerless, they will beat you to an even bloodier pulp than they’ve already done and walk away without a scratch no matter *what* you do to them”)


Tags:

#just once I want somebody to look at me the way that I look at them #with paralytic terror #just once I want to win a fight #just once I want someone to grovel at my feet and beg me to stop hurting them #too broken even to fight back #I want the interactions I always have sooner or later with everyone #but I want to be on the *other* side of it this time #I’ll even be merciful enough to let them grovel openly rather than couching it in euphemisms #that’s more mercy than they show me #venting #vagueblogging #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #abuse cw #oh look an original post


{{next post in sequence}}

{{previous post in sequence}}


mugasofer:

brin-bellway:

justice-turtle:

biscuitsarenice:

Black and British: A Forgotten History 

Francis Barber’s descendant Cedric Barber [x] [x]

#kind of perpetually surprised that this is surprising #generations and genetics happen? #smaller phenotype populations are mixed into the larger ones #this doesn’t mean they magically disappeared #or were never there

I don’t know about the British perspective, but coming to it as a white USian raised in Southern culture, I think at least some of the reason this isn’t obvious to a lot of people is that we do have that history of blood quantum, of tracking whether someone was one-eighth or one-sixteenth black and refusing them civil rights, of basically forcing the black community to intermarry among themselves, so that they *didn’t* mix out and disappear this way. (Of course, there were also a lot more black folks in USia than there ever were in Britain, I’m not saying that’s the only reason. Just, I think that is a part of the perspective I’m personally coming from. *thinking out loud*)

As a white USian raised in *Northern* culture, I’m not surprised by the intermarriage thing, but I *am* surprised by this clip nonetheless. The surprising thing is that they portray *positively* this guy having an Emotional Connection to His Ancestral Culture because of someone from *five generations back*.

Once you get to smaller fractions than one-quarter or so, having Emotional Connections like that stops being Celebrating Your Heritage and starts being Failing to Stay in Your Lane. The “white person who makes a big deal out of being 1/32 Cherokee” is a *negative* archetype.

As it happens, I too have a black former-slave great-great-great-grandfather (and likewise no black ancestry more recent than that). I don’t have an Emotional Connection about this, but…like, you have no reason to believe me when I say that, because I would say it regardless of whether it were true. You bet your ass I wouldn’t dare openly claim a Connection: it would be seen as cheating, as trying to claim the advantages of being black while skipping out on the disadvantages.

That’s interesting; maybe I’ve been primed by the above, but I would not view you having an Emotional Connection to your former-slave ancestor …

… depending on the form of the connection, of course. It would be weird if you literally identified as nonwhite (I think this is the point of the “1/32 Cherokee” thing?)

Well, I *am* Schrodinger’s White†, but that’s not from the one-drop black, it’s from the one-half Ashkenazi.

(But even then I try to avoid doing anything that even *suggests* claiming non-white-ness, partly because I suspect I would lose the ensuing argument over whether I deserve the privileges (so to speak) of that rank (I pretty much always collapse to white, since I’m pretty much always observed by people for whom that’s the lower-status answer), partly because–as someone who has literally never experienced anti-Semitism–playing the Jew card feels dishonest and distasteful, and partly because I think encouraging the idea of Judaism as innate is counterproductive (I want religion exit rights, mostly on general principles but with a side of “if I ever somehow *do* fall into the hands of people who think Judaism is a disease, I want them to think it’s a *curable* disease so I can let them cure me and survive”).)

“Oh, but it’s a different *form* of connection” reads to me as an excuse from someone who *was* trying for a best-of-two-worlds power-grab and is backpedalling now that they’ve realised they aren’t going to get away with it. Mind you, I *am* fairly paranoid and *do* have a tendency to see power struggles where they may or may not actually exist.

†When I am observed, the waveform collapses into whichever answer is lower-status by the observer’s standards.


Tags:

#*knocks on wood* #reply via reblog #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #racism cw? #anti-semitism cw? #Judaism #inb4 someone blames my hierarchical thinking on my germophobia #(also tbh I don’t *like* talking about Judaism pretty much at all) #(even mentioning it can feel like encouraging people to see it as a Big Deal) #(when really I want it to be at most a Little Deal)

justice-turtle:

biscuitsarenice:

Black and British: A Forgotten History 

Francis Barber’s descendant Cedric Barber [x] [x]

#kind of perpetually surprised that this is surprising #generations and genetics happen? #smaller phenotype populations are mixed into the larger ones #this doesn’t mean they magically disappeared #or were never there

I don’t know about the British perspective, but coming to it as a white USian raised in Southern culture, I think at least some of the reason this isn’t obvious to a lot of people is that we do have that history of blood quantum, of tracking whether someone was one-eighth or one-sixteenth black and refusing them civil rights, of basically forcing the black community to intermarry among themselves, so that they *didn’t* mix out and disappear this way. (Of course, there were also a lot more black folks in USia than there ever were in Britain, I’m not saying that’s the only reason. Just, I think that is a part of the perspective I’m personally coming from. *thinking out loud*)

As a white USian raised in *Northern* culture, I’m not surprised by the intermarriage thing, but I *am* surprised by this clip nonetheless. The surprising thing is that they portray *positively* this guy having an Emotional Connection to His Ancestral Culture because of someone from *five generations back*.

Once you get to smaller fractions than one-quarter or so, having Emotional Connections like that stops being Celebrating Your Heritage and starts being Failing to Stay in Your Lane. The “white person who makes a big deal out of being 1/32 Cherokee” is a *negative* archetype.

As it happens, I too have a black former-slave great-great-great-grandfather (and likewise no black ancestry more recent than that). I don’t have an Emotional Connection about this, but…like, you have no reason to believe me when I say that, because I would say it regardless of whether it were true. You bet your ass I wouldn’t dare openly claim a Connection: it would be seen as cheating, as trying to claim the advantages of being black while skipping out on the disadvantages.


Tags:

#reply via reblog #racism cw? #our roads may be golden or broken or lost


{{next post in sequence}}

chill

nostalgebraist:

There is something really wonderful about the word “chill.”

Long long ago, I was telling a friend that I didn’t like certain of my parents’ behavior patterns, and doing so in very formal nerdy language full of phrases like “behavior patterns,” and after a lot of verbiage he just replied, “you wish they were more chill.”  And I said, “huh, yeah,” and he said something about how it’s great that colloquial language can be so efficiently expressive, and I nodded along, and it seemed like one of those feel-good sentiments that’s true but not all that deep, and that was that.  But maybe it was deeper than I gave it credit for?

So, a few things about “chill.”  First, the boring one: it’s a positive thing.  Describing someone as “chill” is almost always praise, and when someone tells someone else to “chill out,” they are telling them “do this good thing you aren’t currently doing.”  So far, so obvious.

But “chill” is unusual as terms of praise go.  It has a certain contextless quality; it doesn’t feel like something you can discard the moment some other value becomes more important.  Sure, you can have arguments about whether being chill is appropriate – if your house is on fire and someone tells you to chill out, you’ll probably say this isn’t the time for that.  But the very concept of “chilling out” contains the notion that we are frequently less chill than we should be – that there are lots of times when our minds are telling us our houses are metaphorically on fire, and we need to see them for the liars they are.

I’m not just talking about anxiety here, although it’s a clear-cut example of the dynamic.  The bigger point is that by treating “chill” as a generically good thing – by taking “they’re chill” as praise even if nothing else is said about “them” – we’re acknowledging that stepping back, taking a wider perspective, asking whether you maybe should chill out, is a good thing to do in virtually any situation.  Sure, sometimes you ask the question and the answer is “nope, my house is on fire.”  But you don’t get to circumvent the question entirely because the matter at hand is just so serious; that itself is un-chill.

Compare this to something like “kindness.”  Kindness is also a “generically good thing.”  But while we have the concept of kindness as generally good, we don’t have the concept of “making sure to ask whether you ought to be kind, even if it seems like you shouldn’t” as generically good.  (We could have a word like “chill” for this, but I don’t think we do.)  Chill isn’t just a state of relaxation, it’s the trait of being able to notice when relaxation is called for, even though we didn’t realize it at first.  Hence “chilling out”: if it were just a matter of having a high average level of relaxation, we wouldn’t have this special associated verb for becoming more relaxed, because there would just be relaxed people (who never have to “chill out”) and non-relaxed people.  (Back in the kindness comparison, there’s no analogous term like “kinding out.”)

This is all pretty abstract, so I should give you the concrete example that got me thinking about it, which was this @porpentine​ post:

the most important advice i give to people who write me about being in abusive activist cults / hot allostatic load situations is to dis-identify with their language and leave their universe …getting invested in that po-faced neo-1950′s pious language and the culture makes you a huge target…i don’t know if i made that clear enough in the original but yeah…then resist the urge to join some polarized faction that vaguely hates the thing that hurt you but for different stupid reasons, and make friends who are real people and know how to chill the fuck out lol

And like, I can imagine a version of this post that ends with some theoretical language about why it’s important to value a certain kind of “asking whether one should relax” in all contexts even highly fraught contexts because you see etc etc, and ends up sounding like it’s taking some “political” “position” … but porpentine just says “know how to chill the fuck out,” and we all know what that means.

…I don’t think I’m familiar with this usage of “chill”.

Or, I mean, I *am*, but I associate it strongly with trolls, the kind of people who think that people who have ~opinions~ or ~emotions~ about things deserve only contempt. In my own experience, “chill” has a positive connotation mostly among assholes (and even then, only a certain subtype of asshole).

Like, I was kind of nodding along with the advice in that quote *until I got to the part about chilling the fuck out*, at which point I recoiled, went on my guard, thought “this is likely not a person I want to be taking advice from, I ought to be more suspicious of what they said”.

I guess if starting from high levels of anxiety, it could be *useful* to try to inhabit the mindset of a “lol who cares” troll in an attempt to counterbalance that. But I’d want to be cautious about doing so.

(To me, “they’re chill” doesn’t connote pure praise, but rather a mixed bag: they’re good as a casual conversation partner, because they won’t drag you into a political debate or anything like that, but don’t let them see you upset or passionate, because they will respond with at best incomprehension and at worst contempt.)

(This was originally a tag ramble, but I think it should remain part of the thread if reblogged, so I will convert it to a suitable format.)

I suspect it’s relevant that I hail from a culture that generally errs *heavily* on the side of giving too many fucks. But like, IME “people who use phrases like ‘chill the fuck out lol’” are *themselves* a polarised faction that vaguely hates the thing that hurt me but for stupid reasons. I’m not gonna backlash straight to the other end of the fuck-giving spectrum: the goal here is to allow my own choices and/or inclinations to determine what I care (and don’t care) about rather than forcing myself to care about things because I was ordered to, not to ~chill the fuck out lol~.

(although I suppose it might be *mistaken* for ~chilling the fuck out lol~ by an outside observer, given how many passionate subjects I’ve had to fake over the years)


Tags:

#our roads may be golden or broken or lost #reply via reblog #language #I’m not sure this *exactly* fits but it feels close enough that I’m going to include it: #is the blue I see the same as the blue you see #discourse cw? #(I’m not trying to Start An Argument here) #(but I worry it might turn out that way) #([wryly] possibly I should chill)

acemindbreaker:

This is the second quiz from Fetish and You chapter 3.

Picture transcript:
Let’s look at some of the thoughts of an evolved fetishist. How many of these do you believe right now? How many of them would you like to adapt as your own?

Fetish Quiz #2 – An Evolved Fetishist’s Perception:
1. My fetish means that I have “out of the box” proclivities.
2. My fetish is a little quirky, but it’s just one part of my sexuality.
3. My fetish is sexually based. The only person who ever has to know is my partner. Even, then, disclosure is solely my choice.
4. I’m a good person based upon my behaviors, interactions and values. Fetish has no bearing on my character.
5. I accept that I have a fetish.
6. I am respectful of the fact that my partner or future partner may not initially understand my fetish. I can make a mindful decision about whether or not I want to tell my partner about my fetish.
7. My thoughts can never hurt anyone. I’m lucky to have something to think about that reliably helps me to orgasm.
8. I don’t believe I’ll be judged based on my fetish. By accepting myself, I can use my energy to be the best person I can be.
9. The more I learn, the more I know that I’m okay.
10. I’m in control of my fetish. It doesn’t control me. I incorporate fetish into my life in a safe, sane, balanced way.

How to Score
How many of the modified statements did you agree with? If you agreed even once, you have an open mind. It’s my hope that by the end of this book, you’ll not only agree with every statement but that you will be living every statement.

My response:
I agreed with 1*, 4*, 9 and 10*. I rewote them in my diary as:
1. My fetish makes me unique, and that’s OK.
4. I can’t help what turns me on. I’m a good person because I have morals.
9. The more I learn, the better I feel about it. Eventually I’ll be OK with it.
10. I can incorporate my fetish in my life in a balanced, healthy way. I can learn what’s appropriate and how to fit my fetish in.

* shaky belief, falls apart when I’m upset

…is it just me, or does this list conflate a healthy fetish with an unimportant fetish?

#2 and #3 are views that get imposed on me as part of the price of being a Respectable Member of the LGBT+ Community, not goals I aim for myself. I guess #6 could work for some people, but I can’t have a sexual* partner and not tell them about my fetish; what are we even doing sex-wise if not that?

(#1 evokes the stereotype of kinky people being sexually ~adventurous~, but to be fair I suspect she didn’t mean it that way.)

*I’m guessing from context that this is supposed to be the case.


Tags:

#reply via reblog #sexuality and lack thereof #I don’t fit the narrative of #”your sexual-attraction patterns are an Integral Part of Your Identity but everything else sexual is a minor sideshow” #(not either half) #but I’ve seen enough to be scared of what will happen if I don’t *pretend* that I do

Banana Ripeness Tiers

guardians-of-the-food:

How do y’all eat your bananas?
1-5 anything else is gonna be baked or ice cream or smoothiefied

 

ainawgsd:

1-6. 7 or 8 maybe if I had a strong craving. Anything past that is inedible unless mashed and used as an ingredient in something

 

bilbo-swwaggins:

Noah fence but 1-5 is unripe you ignorant fucks

 

faun-songs:

4-7, 8 is pressing it.

 

absua:

White culture is eating unripe bananas.

 

artgroupie:

1-5?! i don’t go anywhere near under 8 unless it’s my only choice. ideal is 9-12

 

valsdas:

“8 is pressing it” i am… disgusted.gif

 

poison-liker:

i exclusively eat unripened bananas, on pizza

 

zephronias:

8,9,19. You all are weak.

 

captaindibbzy:

5 to 10 is my ideal.

 

xserpx:

8-11. They’re only good when they start getting little brown spots.

 

apprenticebard:

6-11. 9 is ideal.

Supposedly I had a great-grandfather who ate one entirely black banana every day, and who lived into his nineties, so I don’t think the overripe ones will hurt me, but after a certain point they taste weird. So once you get to 12, you have to make banana bread.

 

tchtchtchtchtch:

6 is the perfect sweet spot where it’s a nice vibrant yellow and perfectly ripe and doesn’t have any brown yet. So, that if I can, otherwise as close to it as possible.

 

another-normal-anomaly:

3-7, unripe bananas for the win. Also as per upthread I would be fascinated to find out if this is correlated with a) race or b) national origin. I mean, enjoyment of capsaicin and enjoyment of lots and lots of sugar are both correlated with national origin IIRC, so maybe banana preference is too.

Ideal banana: 11

Good banana: 10, 12, 13

Tolerable-but-I’d-rather-not banana: 9, 14, 15

Inedible banana: 8 and below

If it still has even the faintest trace of green, it’s not ripe enough.

Race: White*

National origin: United States (northeast)

Enjoyment of capsaicin: no

Enjoyment of lots and lots of sugar: not nearly as much as I used to, maybe just one “lot”

*Your mileage may vary. Some terms and conditions may apply. Your whiteness may be revoked at any time without notice.


Tags:

#food #survey #reply via reblog #(tbh ”is Brin white” has much the same answer as ”is Brin queer”) #(nobody can agree on the object-level answer but everyone agrees that I’m low-status) #our roads may be golden or broken or lost #(tangentially) #racism cw? #home of the brave

The Germ Theory of Democracy, Dictatorship, and Your Cherished Beliefs

{{Title link: https://psmag.com/social-justice/bugs-like-made-germ-theory-democracy-beliefs-73958 }}


(hat-tip to @slatestarscratchpad‘s link post, though I’d been hearing off-hand mentions of this for a while and had been meaning to look into it)

“The pathogen stress theory is also hard to swallow in a way that evolutionary psychology arguments often are—especially for those who fancy the idea that we are in control of our thoughts, emotions, and behaviors.”

I don’t know, I don’t really feel upset by “the reason you don’t grok liberal mindsets is because you’re a germophobe”. It sounds a little weird, sure, but not upsetting. I think I just file it under “interesting if true”.

(It’s not like it’s going to cause germophobia to become low-status: it’s already low-status, as I am reminded every time sick people act like [me wanting to arrange things so we don’t touch the same objects] is an unreasonable burden on them.)

Mind you, I mostly don’t feel subjectively in control of my political beliefs, so perhaps that makes it easier to swallow.


Tags:

#my brother and father had a cold recently so the unreasonable-burden thing is fresh in my mind #why no I do *not* want to play Go Fish with you #especially not during a dinner to be eaten with one’s hands #this post technically qualifies as #oh look an original post #but is closer to the spirit of #reply via reblog #illness tw #(and for link picture) #needle tw #bugs #oh and one more category tag seems relevant #our roads may be golden or broken or lost

{{previous post in sequence}}


brin-bellway:

Red Panda reaction-blogging update:

I listened to “Death From Above” and “The Judas Boats” on my traditional Saturday afternoon walk yesterday.

First of all, while I miss the primeverse*, I think I am starting to warm up to this one, or maybe it’s starting to warm up to itself and I’m sensing that. The Red Panda is starting to feel more…himself, in spots, and I’m not sure if that’s a character thing, or if Taylor’s gotten more confident at voice acting in later episodes, or what.

Also…okay, look. For my readers who have not listened to the Red Panda Adventures, and who–like me–are often very sensitive to authors’ politics shining through in their fiction, I want to assure you that it is pretty subtle. There’s no anvils, there’s almost no pressuring even by the standards of someone who can hear SJ dogwhistles a little too well.

That being said, there is nevertheless a clear sense, while listening to the primeverse Red Panda Adventures, that a liberal wrote this. Not enough to be pressury, just enough to be…home-y. I get the feeling that, while I may not know what makes this author tick (I often have trouble with grokking what makes a given liberal tick), I do know what he considers socially acceptable and what he doesn’t, and I can trust him to stay within those bounds as much as he can given the setting, and to provide a sense that the narrative disapproves in those times he can’t.

The pilots don’t feel like a liberal wrote them. They feel like…like an apathetic centrist wrote them. Someone whose birth subculture has not much overt bigotry but a lot of low-level background stuff, who might very well come to the conclusion that this was still horrible if he ever gave it some serious thought, but who never has given it that thought. There’s these little moments in the pilots of…other people might call them “microaggressions”, but I think of them as culture shock. Those little off-balance moments where you realise that your interlocutor’s standards of social acceptability are different from yours, that you can’t predict (can’t trust) what they’re going to do and say as well as you thought you could.

It’s not my place to ask**, but I wonder if maybe Taylor was an apathetic centrist at the time, and moved to liberal-land sometime in the mid-00’s. If he did, it’s fascinating that it shows so clearly. If not, it’s still very interesting that it feels like he did.

Alternatively, maybe it feels apathetic-centrist because it was intended to be played on mainstream radio for a “mainstream” (thus presumed apathetic-centrist) audience, and in podcasts he could be more himself. I think I’m going to have to listen to the Season One Spectacular again, particularly the bits about how the Red Panda came to be.

*I was going to switch to some other podcast for my walks for a while once I was done with Red Panda ones, but I think I might have to go straight into a re-listen.

**I don’t really want other people to ask, but it occurred to me that somebody might take it upon themself to ask anyway. If so, please do not link me to him. There’s some stuff in my Red Panda tag that would be very awkward for the author to see.

(Okay, upon reflection I can think of one anvil: the Chinese-laundromat bit in The Crime Cabal. But it was short, and also in a book rather than the main audio series.)

Also, @theshadiertwin, I wouldn’t have noticed the hurt/comfort-ness and Red/Baboon/Anna potential on my own, but I think I can see what you mean.


Tags:

#oh look an update #Red Panda Adventures