SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
My daughter just went to a Drag(on) party (sp???):
literally a pre-wedding party for two guys (and there was a stage drag theater contest).
My questions (being an old guy trying to fit into a new world)
1. Is it husband and wife or husband and husband (wife and wife for lesbians)?
2. Why do people do drag? and why don't they dress that way all the time if they like doing it so much?
3. I knew a 'flaming homo' in Toronto (did not know him well enough to ask questions like this): why do some guys act straight and some so feminine to outright flaming in yo' face?
Will probably remember some other questions later... does anyone have a primer?
Honestly asking.... this is all new to the guy who grew up (small town) saying "Ha...you're a homo!" without really knowing what that meant (when told about a 'circle jerk' i wondered why a bunch of guys would want to do that while thinking about women, lol).
Let the flaming begin!
**A side thought:
In the future there WILL be sex bots:
.....there will also be 'child sex bots' (and will/can child sex bots be made illegal?)... thinking about this is kind of disturbing, but i know it IS coming, sooner or later.
Will something like that take care of a pedo's needs or lead to something worse?
If you had a fully functioning sex-bot that looks/feels real with wonderful AI, would you consider never having a relationship (such as marriage) again or just stick with sex-bot?
If my wife died and i had a bot/AI that was acceptable, i might just stick with it, methinks.
Damn, my mind is going tonight!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @04:45PM (3 children)
Rubbish! If Donald Trump walked into the room and began demanding you address him as "God Emperor" would you do it? You cannot demand that someone refer to you as something you are not, that is the very definition of narcissistic intolerance. Where does this assumption that people are feeble minded enough to surrender their personal autonomy in acquiescence to the ego needs of others come from?
The fear of repercussions is worse than the reality. If someone wants to be silly, they can explain themselves to the court.
If you don't want your beliefs challenged, keep them to yourself. I explicitly mentioned creationism in relation to attempts to place it on the public school syllabus, the parallels should be obvious. [youtube.com]
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @06:15PM (2 children)
"demanding you address him as "God Emperor""
That's a bad analogy for a number of reasons (closer examples would be how some refuse to acknowledge him as president or don't consider him a "real" Christian) and the topic has too much baggage.
"Where does this assumption that people are feeble minded enough to surrender their personal autonomy in acquiescence to the ego needs of others come from?"
I don't really understand why you're making this such a big deal. There isn't some gender-identity Room 101 that will torture you until your feeble mind cracks and you truly believe that someone is really a "she", even if they were born with a penis. You don't need to change your mental definition in order to be polite around others.
This is about social interaction not beliefs and that's why I keep stressing how these decisions depend on the social repercussions. You don't avoid social consequences by arguing semantics, logic, or nitpicking the denotative meaning of words.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @07:11PM (1 child)
No, it's exactly the same but let's go again. Somebody walks up to you in the street and starts a conversation before insisting you respond to their imaginary friend? You wouldn't want to be rude would you?
What if my definition of myself includes not allowing others to manipulate me into telling lies on their behalf?
In order to socially interact with others, I should dismiss my own beliefs while appeasing theirs? To be clear, we're discussing unwarranted insistence that one party in a social interaction defers to the self-identity or persona [wikipedia.org] of the other. That's not how healthy social interactions work, it contravenes the unwritten assumption of mutual respect.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 27 2018, @08:24PM
"insisting you respond to their imaginary friend?"
Again not the best, but I'll try to run with this one. The answer depends on the social context and how much you care.
I'll give some examples to illustrate (in rough order from positive to negative repercussions) the consequences of not playing along:
1. You're with a group of like-minded in-group peers and come across a loner out-group person with an imaginary friend. You ridicule them because they're crazy and %rival sports team% sucks. +2 points for your social status among your group.
2. You're with a mixed group of peers and come across a single homeless person with an invisible rabbit friend named Harvey. You ridicule them and gain +1 from the less compassionate and -1 from the more compassionate peers.
3. You're with a group of peers and come across a child, who has an imaginary dog named "Red", and ridicule them. -1 point from your group and -5 from the kid's family.
4. With a mixed group, you come across a pastor with an imaginary friend called "Jesus". You ridicule the pastor and lose -3 from the Christians, -2 from the Muslims, -1 from the religious that don't believe in Jesus, and gain +1 from the former-Christian atheists.
5. You come across a friend walking with some family members. The friend's grandmother is with them, but she has dementia and believes that her dead husband is walking with them, though invisible. You ridicule the grandmother and she becomes a hysterical crying mess. You lose -20 points from the friend and family and an additional -5 from any within their social sphere.
"telling lies on their behalf?"
It's mainly a difference of definition and not fact.
For example, your definition of gender identity may be strictly limited to the outward presence of reproductive organs at birth, while theirs may depend on what reproductive organs they have now. Obviously, if they didn't have a penis at birth they wouldn't be considered a "he" to you no matter what happened afterwards. At the same time, even though they believe they are a "he", they don't dispute the fact that they didn't have a penis when they were born. If you argue with them about their identity and insist that they conform to your definition, then don't be surprised when you fail to change their view and only lose social points with them.