I've just worked out an answer to the square root of minus one.
No I haven't.
My friend Sir duff and I wre talking about the effects of mass marginalization.
(also somewhere in there I remember helping a friend move and throwing up in a Dennys bathroom, This is relevant, because the following is the verbal equivilant of that glamours moment (
) )
I completely don't understand people who believe that through homoginization equaliity will be achieved. In theory I'm forced to admit that if there is absolutely no distinction, there should be means for contest.
For abolishing terms of gender inequity, racial bias, crisis of nations etc, that really even if the physical differences were knifed and pushed aside, it would put a strained pretense forth that would be easily disturbed - peace until anything changed. ( this is totally an assumption of mine, but considering time passes and theres no way of repeating things, I think everything constantly changes.)
Believing being uniform is a viable solution relies entirely on is the one that emphasises tolerance as a means of dealing with stimulous people don't understand, or refuse to understand, or have to much bias to try to overcome to understand. The point is there will be no standing .. under. OF ANY KIND.
Therfore tolerance to me implies a strained endurance of something - its insulting to be tolerated: it means no one has to understand you, accept you, or know a fucking thing about you, or things that motivate you as lomg as they can sit in the same room, and manage not to lash out no matter what they think of you tolerance wins the day.
So back to the main point - I think marginalization - much like tolerance, is a fucking joke. Its somewhere between surface, and reality, but fails to address either. A lack of identity might cease hostility, but it kills diversity, it means people can't accept other for differing ideologies, so much so that all must be similar enough that no one is challanged to try to understand something out of thier focus.
(this is where Duff agrues from a national standpoint, banding together is the only way to oppose larger nations - which is fine, and might even be accurate, minus that only accounts for banding together as uniting as basically one entity, Induviduals can collecitvize against shit. There are more than accepted means of doing things..)
While there are loads of cultures I know of that I'd like be the culture police over - though its only because those cultures stifle thier people: I think these cultures should exist and be appreciated for all the good they bring - provided everyone within them is given right to accept or deny or rebuild, or removie themselves from the group.
My reasoning behind believing that tolerance is failed is primarily it trys to address the physical (people, boudnries, laws... ect), while thats really the sruface of one big motherfucker of an iceburg of an issue. People need to accept shit. I sometimes think if any sort of political revolution were to ever occur, it would have to preceeded by some sort of behaviour socail revolution.
In closing "arm yourself cause love is in the air tonight, tonight we shoot it down, we can't turn back now, we're too lost to be found." (Filmmaker might have some pretty bad moments in song writting, I'm pretty sure I'd still sleep with most of them.)
In other news, I was working my mechanicing job the other day, and got paid to drive a lawn tractor down the street, and to wash it. Nobody wanted to race.
3 points if your still with me.
No I haven't.
My friend Sir duff and I wre talking about the effects of mass marginalization.
(also somewhere in there I remember helping a friend move and throwing up in a Dennys bathroom, This is relevant, because the following is the verbal equivilant of that glamours moment (
) )
I completely don't understand people who believe that through homoginization equaliity will be achieved. In theory I'm forced to admit that if there is absolutely no distinction, there should be means for contest.
For abolishing terms of gender inequity, racial bias, crisis of nations etc, that really even if the physical differences were knifed and pushed aside, it would put a strained pretense forth that would be easily disturbed - peace until anything changed. ( this is totally an assumption of mine, but considering time passes and theres no way of repeating things, I think everything constantly changes.)
Believing being uniform is a viable solution relies entirely on is the one that emphasises tolerance as a means of dealing with stimulous people don't understand, or refuse to understand, or have to much bias to try to overcome to understand. The point is there will be no standing .. under. OF ANY KIND.
Therfore tolerance to me implies a strained endurance of something - its insulting to be tolerated: it means no one has to understand you, accept you, or know a fucking thing about you, or things that motivate you as lomg as they can sit in the same room, and manage not to lash out no matter what they think of you tolerance wins the day.
So back to the main point - I think marginalization - much like tolerance, is a fucking joke. Its somewhere between surface, and reality, but fails to address either. A lack of identity might cease hostility, but it kills diversity, it means people can't accept other for differing ideologies, so much so that all must be similar enough that no one is challanged to try to understand something out of thier focus.
(this is where Duff agrues from a national standpoint, banding together is the only way to oppose larger nations - which is fine, and might even be accurate, minus that only accounts for banding together as uniting as basically one entity, Induviduals can collecitvize against shit. There are more than accepted means of doing things..)
While there are loads of cultures I know of that I'd like be the culture police over - though its only because those cultures stifle thier people: I think these cultures should exist and be appreciated for all the good they bring - provided everyone within them is given right to accept or deny or rebuild, or removie themselves from the group.
My reasoning behind believing that tolerance is failed is primarily it trys to address the physical (people, boudnries, laws... ect), while thats really the sruface of one big motherfucker of an iceburg of an issue. People need to accept shit. I sometimes think if any sort of political revolution were to ever occur, it would have to preceeded by some sort of behaviour socail revolution.
In closing "arm yourself cause love is in the air tonight, tonight we shoot it down, we can't turn back now, we're too lost to be found." (Filmmaker might have some pretty bad moments in song writting, I'm pretty sure I'd still sleep with most of them.)
In other news, I was working my mechanicing job the other day, and got paid to drive a lawn tractor down the street, and to wash it. Nobody wanted to race.
3 points if your still with me.
VIEW 4 of 4 COMMENTS
anyways, I'm not entirely convinced its inherently part of most political systems to have organized upheval, I think limited control, and fienged feedback control more serve that role.
It seems more stability is created (especailyl in recent history) through adapting to a platuea of values, and reform is a psuedonym for pascifism / literal amendment without any real change
I was also more focused on the socail side effects of policies that use tolerance, over understanding...
(thanks btw for the request and the implication I'm somewhat interesting. I've been arguing that case for years, your #3 to buy in. )
That's why the USA was so successful for so long, despite all their huge problems, and that now that they have less scope for real change,do to the concentration of wealth, media, and political control, they are just flushing themselves down the toilet.
We in Canada are staring to see the same thing here, but we are decades behind them...