People really don’t understand these slogans. For example, we can look at “Black Lives Matter.” It was just a poetic way to say “black lives should matter.” The problem with replying with “all lives matter” is that they don’t all matter. (Especially in American society LGBT and Native tribes don’t always do so well either.) Which is the problem in the first place. These people are denying the issues.
Exactly. “Black Live Matter” is a statement of imperative, as in “look at these people you have been ignoring”, while “All Lives Matter” is saying “there is no problem, everything is fine”.
I don’t think that is what it is saying at all. I think that is what some people saying it want to pervert it into out of bigotry. To me it is obvious that when a disenfranchised demographic is disproportionately affected by violence and persecution, that demographic needs to have its collective voice heard and bring attention to an unfair societal imbalance.
Fundamentally there is nothing in a humanistic argument that would diminish that, just for the record, regardless whether some use it as a rhetorical device to spread hate. As a humanist there is no question to align oneself with Black Lives Matter, because everyone needs to and have the right to have their voices and grievances heard, especially when they cry out in unison and in pain. Everyone.
People have no idea how if feels for kids to be made to feel as they don’t belong or that there is something wrong with them. It infuriates me that schools can’t teach inclusivity due to terrorist groups like Moms for Liberty.
Given the amount of people that seem to base their whole personality exclusively using this list, it will be a long while before we can move away from these as a collective.
Overtly stating anything about your identity is one of the dumbest and most boring things.
I don’t care how you identify. It doesn’t tell me anything about you, and it doesn’t tell me anything about the thing. And generally, it’s considered rude to talk about a person’s identity.
You’d be better off telling me something you’re interested in.
John Doe (likes trains)
There are two kinds of people… No wait, three kinds of people that care.
people who are emotionally fragile, mentally ill, or otherwise can’t handle literally any friction of any kind in any of their interactions.
people who are excessively polite, virtue signaling, it SJWs. These people don’t care for themselves but they care SO MUCH because they think it makes to OTHER people.
people who are afraid of complaints or legal action (business, public figures, etc)
I can count on one hand the number of times identity has mattered in a human interaction I’ve had.
The amount of energy we waste of identity is fucking absurd considering the literal zero value or brings to the world.
You don’t care. LGBT people are not necessarily prideful because of you. They’re prideful because of the half of America that wants them oppressed, imprisoned or dead because of who they are.
If that’s not you, they’re not talking about you, but they are still facing a lot of homophobic people. Until that ends, pride is the correct reaction to those people.
Sometimes there’s basis for patriotic pride. As a specific example, I live next to Russia, in a free country that respects LGBT rights. I know for a fact that those rights would be completely eroded if Russia conquered us. Therefore it makes sense to take some pride in my country and the armed forces of my country who are strongly discouraging that from happening.
So your pride is defending what you find is right, and your nation happens to be aligned with it currently. If your nation became homophobic, you wouldn’t follow it, would you?
When people talk about “LGBT Pride”, they’re not talking about the “a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements” definition, they’re talking about the “confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized” definition.
It’s almost like words can have more than one meaning.
I would argue otherwise. Prides have always had a political aspect and part of that was a way to get a sense of numbers. Suppression of LGBTQ identities by early “support” groups encouraged narratives of it being rare, that it is natural to be lonely and shut away without a community. If you are small as a minority you tend to be meek and hide. Gay hook up spots were designed to hide people so true numbers were often impossible to have any notion of how many people were actually there. Some were just utterly flabbergasted by the numbers when police raids caused everyone to flee at once… But the news the next morning would make it sound like there was only a handful.
Consolidation and visibility, the understanding of strength in numbers has always been a factor of Pride. So to has been education and safety campaigns. While it has been a place to acknowledge the dead and bring hope to those who are afraid to be out it is absolutely for those at the festivities itself too.
I think of Pride as an acceptance of your sexuality, whatever it may be. The pride in question is a self esteem that comes from being comfortable in who you are.
Well when they have different meanings for everyone then what good are they? I often feel like when you point out things like the OP here, there’s a moving of the goal posts, or no true Scotsman-ing, what goes for one doesn’t go for the other. It’s an interesting question, why is it ok to be proud of your sexuality, which you have no control over, but not be ok to be proud of your color of skin, which you also have no control over?
Just redefining terms ad hoc depending on which side one happens to identify with makes the whole conversation suspect.
The last point could be argued, most people say/mean “proud of being their friend/brother/whatever”, and having mutual esteem with someone does take a degree of agency. It’s obviously moot if you have family ties with them but they hate you, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen people being proud of achievements of people who hate them.
The rest I agree, it feels weird unnecessary tribalism most of the time.
A bit of stretch but this why I don’t like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origin. It is supposed to guarantee quality, but why wouldn’t someone be able to make the same quality of cheese given the same cows and quality process anywhere else? It seems to be some kind of weird territorialist pride.
It’s a matter of economics and quality over time. These regions have chosen to tool up for making foods and commodities that are essential to the Euro Zone and arguably the world.
If they go out of business, the quality and availability of the product overall will certainly suffer. And it may not be so extreme as going out of business; if they miss out on a capital investment because some investor sees potential in a competitor making a product elsewhere, maybe it’s death by a thousand cuts.
So we protect their brands. Yes, it is technically anti-competitive, for the greater good. And at the very least, for the good of the Euro Zone.
If it wasn’t for the unfair advantage of the PDO, maybe other regions would be tempted to tool up too, which could encourage quality and/or optimizations that would reduce the price, that could benefit the people too.
It doesn’t seem fair for the people who weren’t born in one of those privileged regions which were given many PDOs. It reminds me of feudal birth rights in some way.
I’m not sure, it is for the greater good of everyone eventually.
Also, some PDOs are captured by industrial groups who keep buying the little producers who made the PDO, and it protects them from competitors. This articles translated from French describes the situation in France: https://www-lafranceagricole-fr.translate.goog/a-la-une/article/759488/contrls-par-les-gants?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
It’s not just for quality, but for authenticity too, I think.
Foods that are fermented or aged can take on a unique flavor profile, based on the unique blend of bacteria and mold and yeast in the area. Even using the same milk from the same cows and processing it the same way, cheese that is naturally aged in a cave in France might taste different from cheese that’s aged in a cave in West Virginia. Not necessarily better or worse, quality-wise, but different. Not authentic.
Weather patterns, seasonal changes, and soil conditions are also distinct and varied in different places. The same grapes grow differently in German soil than they do in Kansas. The grass that the cows eat grows differently in different places, and this can have a significant impact on the flavors of the milk and cheese.
I’m American, but I used to work in a fancy wine store that sold a lot of imported cheese and groceries. I imagine that in practice, PDO must seem like an annoying mix of over-regulation and jingoistic propaganda – especially to someone in Europe. But it does seem to serve a purpose, even if in an overbearing way.
I think being proud of local food culture is more like community spirit or neighborhood pride. It’s like saying, “here’s something ingeniously delicious we created using only our limited local resources.” I don’t think of that quite the same way as “pride” about race, gender, sexuality.
Pretty sure they could sell the bacteria/mold and produce the same climate conditions in controlled room. I’m not against quality labels, I just don’t like the territorial aspect of it. I think authenticity is a bias based on public image and imagination.
why wouldn’t someone be able to make the same quality of cheese given the same cows and quality process anywhere else?
They would, but the opposite wouldn’t be possible because of regulations. I feel like it’s more of a “this product has been made in a place which enforces good practices, so you can be sure it’s healthy (to a degree)”. It’s kind of like originals and bootlegs, bootlegs could be as good as good originals, but originals will never be as bad as bad bootlegs.
In the abstract, yes, but when a group of people is oppressed because of one of those identifiers, it stops just being a born trait. It also identifies that you’re oppressed. Celebrating who you are with regards to that kind of trait (sexuality, sex, race, etc) isn’t a celebration of being born a certain way. It’s a celebration of self acceptance, and an act of rebellion.
You aren’t proud of what you were born with, you’re proud of what you were born with, because some people have tried to punish you for that what.
We can add college in there. Choice of college means next to nothing about someone’s intellect and personality. Usually it’s just rich and/or “legacy” people getting into the prestigious schools. They are almost always pushed into it, or convinced into it by others.
deleted by creator
Nah. Queer pride is a good thing.
It’s not pride as in “I am proud of this painting I made.” Rather, it’s pride as in “rejecting shame for being queer”.
“Pride is not the opposite of shame, but it’s source. True humility is the only antidote to shame.” -Uncle Iroh
People really don’t understand these slogans. For example, we can look at “Black Lives Matter.” It was just a poetic way to say “black lives should matter.” The problem with replying with “all lives matter” is that they don’t all matter. (Especially in American society LGBT and Native tribes don’t always do so well either.) Which is the problem in the first place. These people are denying the issues.
Exactly. “Black Live Matter” is a statement of imperative, as in “look at these people you have been ignoring”, while “All Lives Matter” is saying “there is no problem, everything is fine”.
I don’t think that is what it is saying at all. I think that is what some people saying it want to pervert it into out of bigotry. To me it is obvious that when a disenfranchised demographic is disproportionately affected by violence and persecution, that demographic needs to have its collective voice heard and bring attention to an unfair societal imbalance.
Fundamentally there is nothing in a humanistic argument that would diminish that, just for the record, regardless whether some use it as a rhetorical device to spread hate. As a humanist there is no question to align oneself with Black Lives Matter, because everyone needs to and have the right to have their voices and grievances heard, especially when they cry out in unison and in pain. Everyone.
People have no idea how if feels for kids to be made to feel as they don’t belong or that there is something wrong with them. It infuriates me that schools can’t teach inclusivity due to terrorist groups like Moms for Liberty.
Given the amount of people that seem to base their whole personality exclusively using this list, it will be a long while before we can move away from these as a collective.
It’s the most interesting thing about some people, that’s why.
Overtly stating anything about your identity is one of the dumbest and most boring things.
I don’t care how you identify. It doesn’t tell me anything about you, and it doesn’t tell me anything about the thing. And generally, it’s considered rude to talk about a person’s identity.
You’d be better off telling me something you’re interested in.
John Doe (likes trains)
There are two kinds of people… No wait, three kinds of people that care.
people who are emotionally fragile, mentally ill, or otherwise can’t handle literally any friction of any kind in any of their interactions.
people who are excessively polite, virtue signaling, it SJWs. These people don’t care for themselves but they care SO MUCH because they think it makes to OTHER people.
people who are afraid of complaints or legal action (business, public figures, etc)
I can count on one hand the number of times identity has mattered in a human interaction I’ve had.
The amount of energy we waste of identity is fucking absurd considering the literal zero value or brings to the world.
You don’t care. LGBT people are not necessarily prideful because of you. They’re prideful because of the half of America that wants them oppressed, imprisoned or dead because of who they are.
If that’s not you, they’re not talking about you, but they are still facing a lot of homophobic people. Until that ends, pride is the correct reaction to those people.
Sometimes there’s basis for patriotic pride. As a specific example, I live next to Russia, in a free country that respects LGBT rights. I know for a fact that those rights would be completely eroded if Russia conquered us. Therefore it makes sense to take some pride in my country and the armed forces of my country who are strongly discouraging that from happening.
So your pride is defending what you find is right, and your nation happens to be aligned with it currently. If your nation became homophobic, you wouldn’t follow it, would you?
No, I would not. But I’m not sure if I could be able to translate that into any action that had effect.
When people talk about “LGBT Pride”, they’re not talking about the “a feeling of deep pleasure or satisfaction derived from one’s own achievements” definition, they’re talking about the “confidence and self-respect as expressed by members of a group, typically one that has been socially marginalized” definition.
It’s almost like words can have more than one meaning.
Removed by mod
I would argue otherwise. Prides have always had a political aspect and part of that was a way to get a sense of numbers. Suppression of LGBTQ identities by early “support” groups encouraged narratives of it being rare, that it is natural to be lonely and shut away without a community. If you are small as a minority you tend to be meek and hide. Gay hook up spots were designed to hide people so true numbers were often impossible to have any notion of how many people were actually there. Some were just utterly flabbergasted by the numbers when police raids caused everyone to flee at once… But the news the next morning would make it sound like there was only a handful.
Consolidation and visibility, the understanding of strength in numbers has always been a factor of Pride. So to has been education and safety campaigns. While it has been a place to acknowledge the dead and bring hope to those who are afraid to be out it is absolutely for those at the festivities itself too.
And then everyone clapped.
I think of Pride as an acceptance of your sexuality, whatever it may be. The pride in question is a self esteem that comes from being comfortable in who you are.
Well when they have different meanings for everyone then what good are they? I often feel like when you point out things like the OP here, there’s a moving of the goal posts, or no true Scotsman-ing, what goes for one doesn’t go for the other. It’s an interesting question, why is it ok to be proud of your sexuality, which you have no control over, but not be ok to be proud of your color of skin, which you also have no control over?
Just redefining terms ad hoc depending on which side one happens to identify with makes the whole conversation suspect.
The last point could be argued, most people say/mean “proud of being their friend/brother/whatever”, and having mutual esteem with someone does take a degree of agency. It’s obviously moot if you have family ties with them but they hate you, but I don’t think I’ve ever seen people being proud of achievements of people who hate them.
The rest I agree, it feels weird unnecessary tribalism most of the time.
deleted by creator
A bit of stretch but this why I don’t like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protected_designation_of_origin. It is supposed to guarantee quality, but why wouldn’t someone be able to make the same quality of cheese given the same cows and quality process anywhere else? It seems to be some kind of weird territorialist pride.
It’s a matter of economics and quality over time. These regions have chosen to tool up for making foods and commodities that are essential to the Euro Zone and arguably the world.
If they go out of business, the quality and availability of the product overall will certainly suffer. And it may not be so extreme as going out of business; if they miss out on a capital investment because some investor sees potential in a competitor making a product elsewhere, maybe it’s death by a thousand cuts.
So we protect their brands. Yes, it is technically anti-competitive, for the greater good. And at the very least, for the good of the Euro Zone.
If it wasn’t for the unfair advantage of the PDO, maybe other regions would be tempted to tool up too, which could encourage quality and/or optimizations that would reduce the price, that could benefit the people too.
It doesn’t seem fair for the people who weren’t born in one of those privileged regions which were given many PDOs. It reminds me of feudal birth rights in some way.
I’m not sure, it is for the greater good of everyone eventually.
Also, some PDOs are captured by industrial groups who keep buying the little producers who made the PDO, and it protects them from competitors. This articles translated from French describes the situation in France: https://www-lafranceagricole-fr.translate.goog/a-la-une/article/759488/contrls-par-les-gants?_x_tr_sl=fr&_x_tr_tl=en&_x_tr_hl=en&_x_tr_pto=wapp
It’s not just for quality, but for authenticity too, I think.
Foods that are fermented or aged can take on a unique flavor profile, based on the unique blend of bacteria and mold and yeast in the area. Even using the same milk from the same cows and processing it the same way, cheese that is naturally aged in a cave in France might taste different from cheese that’s aged in a cave in West Virginia. Not necessarily better or worse, quality-wise, but different. Not authentic.
Weather patterns, seasonal changes, and soil conditions are also distinct and varied in different places. The same grapes grow differently in German soil than they do in Kansas. The grass that the cows eat grows differently in different places, and this can have a significant impact on the flavors of the milk and cheese.
I’m American, but I used to work in a fancy wine store that sold a lot of imported cheese and groceries. I imagine that in practice, PDO must seem like an annoying mix of over-regulation and jingoistic propaganda – especially to someone in Europe. But it does seem to serve a purpose, even if in an overbearing way.
I think being proud of local food culture is more like community spirit or neighborhood pride. It’s like saying, “here’s something ingeniously delicious we created using only our limited local resources.” I don’t think of that quite the same way as “pride” about race, gender, sexuality.
Pretty sure they could sell the bacteria/mold and produce the same climate conditions in controlled room. I’m not against quality labels, I just don’t like the territorial aspect of it. I think authenticity is a bias based on public image and imagination.
They would, but the opposite wouldn’t be possible because of regulations. I feel like it’s more of a “this product has been made in a place which enforces good practices, so you can be sure it’s healthy (to a degree)”. It’s kind of like originals and bootlegs, bootlegs could be as good as good originals, but originals will never be as bad as bad bootlegs.
In the abstract, yes, but when a group of people is oppressed because of one of those identifiers, it stops just being a born trait. It also identifies that you’re oppressed. Celebrating who you are with regards to that kind of trait (sexuality, sex, race, etc) isn’t a celebration of being born a certain way. It’s a celebration of self acceptance, and an act of rebellion.
You aren’t proud of what you were born with, you’re proud of what you were born with, because some people have tried to punish you for that what.
We can add college in there. Choice of college means next to nothing about someone’s intellect and personality. Usually it’s just rich and/or “legacy” people getting into the prestigious schools. They are almost always pushed into it, or convinced into it by others.