![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Weekend, here we come.
Feb. 18th, 2006 03:38 amRight. First order of business to remember - metaquoting someone else means all the comments come to your inbox - useful, mind you, in tracking how the things have been going (And it really did deserve to be metaquoted) but also meaning that a much higher volume of comments, from various places, go through one's eyes.
Anyway, weekend begins, spent some time doing a little work, watching hockey (shootouts and all), and then playing some games, because I feel like I might have actually deserved some time off. More work tomorrow - hopefully finishing the bit, then probably more games and television-watching, but also very special events that I must be reminded are happening at 8pm local time. Cannot fail on this regard, or there will be flagellation, both self- and other-inflicted.
An interesting game crosses one's path, made mostly of magnets and things to do when bored. But if one is trying to understand the Discordian mindset (good luck!), having a few rounds of Kallisti may move you further towards/away from enlightenment at the hands of Eris.
Speaking of slightly stranger stuff, there's this article about cops doing more than 'posing' as johns to catch prostitutes. I dunno - sounds more like a fringe benefit for the cops, and then the arrests happen when things are finished and the cop's got his jollies. I'm both nonplussed that the cops do those sorts of things to working girls, but also have to appreciate the beauty of how the whole thing works. Keeps the cops happy and lets them arrest everyone afterward.
Things that are much stranger than that are some things that, perhaps, one might not know about Scientology. If even half of the stuff's true, it only proves that it's a pretty whacked-out place in Scientology-land.
Of course, some of the more accepted religions aren't exactly on the sane side of a few issues. I was linked by a friend to a ministry that accepts that homosexuals can be Catholics in good faith and standing. I'd even go so far as to say that there's an implication that practicing homosexuals can still be good Catholics, on the virtue that persons who don't believe it to be wrong or sinful strongly enough may not actually be wrong or sinful when they do so. There's an analogy made there between practicing homosexuals and Catholic couples who practice safe sex with contraceptives, and how both can still be part of the Church. Go read. (Mucks a bit with the Papal bull, but American bishops have not exactly been tight with the Vatican when it comes to decisions.)
That was the first one. The second links to a hypertext of homosexuality and the Bible. It puts forward the historical-critical interpretation as the correct reading, and from that, points out that the prohibitions against homosexuality may have had more to do with the practices of the Gentiles around them and what was to be avoided so that the Jewish people could stay ritually pure (and perhaps Inherently Superior in their own eyes). In the Christian Foundational Writings, such things may appear not as moral wrongs, but as examples designed to prove other points, referencing back to things that a Jewish audience would get so they could understand where things were going wrong. It's an interesting conclusion drawn out of it, and one that I think more people could stand to adopt as their view.
Last bit tonight is something that may not make any sense at all to anybody, but is an observation: Definitions of art are where people can be their most offensive and defensive. The sheer amount of naked hostility thrown about in society and on the World Wide Web on matters of opinion is staggering. Can only reference half of the example I want to provide, because one-half of it is not a publicly-accessible posts. Zo, bear with me.
Part One is thus - A critique of a short animation. The critiquer finds the animation lacking in substance, and lashes out at some of the commentary the film receives. The argument about the lack of intelligence on the part of commenters hinges on their belonging to a fandom, and assumes that these members are blindly praising it because they feel kinship to the main character. In the comments section is where I see the displays of open hostility, people reacting (if you'll pardon the phrase) with fangs and claws bared, or in a dismissive sort of agreement with the poster that the members of the fandom are behaving irrationally and overreacting.
Part Two, which exists behind closed doors, is an angry retort that the definition of art varies by person, and that dismissing a piece of art because it appeals to a demographic is one of the worst forms of condescension. In the comments to that post, there is a taunting of the fandom and a declaration that its members should never be taken seriously (with more than a few references to the obvious lameness of the fandom, y'know, actually asking to be taken seriously. Whoops, bias showing).
In both of these, there's something thoroughly unnerving about the amount of raw hostility exuded. Maybe it's my naivete showing, but I don't understand. (Or it might be that I'm not applying principles correctly. Either way, I don't get it.) Might be having a foot and contacts in so many different places, or applying that since I'm a little weird, everyone's probably a little weird, and that it's not really my call to say anything about their weirdness except what I think about it. If I feel particularly strongly about it, I might find other people who think the same way or some sort of effective evidence to give my opinion more weight in trying to convince someone else to adopt my opinion. But there's still an understood part of the interaction that the other person has the option to accept or reject what I'm setting out in front of them. I may feel extraordinarily strongly, and have the evidence spread that I'm sure will convince them, and they still may tell me "Sorry, but no. I don't believe it." If they refuse, then it's my decision as to whether it is an acceptable difference and we can continue to interact, or whether it's an intolerable difference and we must part ways over the matter. It just seems silly to make summary judgment about an entire group and what they think without actually having interacted with some of them. (It still happens, and I'm sure that I do it out of shorthand and the inability to have enough meaningful interactions will all the groups that I may encounter. It doesn't necessarily make it right, though.) Is this another of my weirdnesses manifesting itself, further cementing me into a place that is hopelessly out of sync with the majority and dooming me to always being on the lunatic fringe?
Anyway, weekend begins, spent some time doing a little work, watching hockey (shootouts and all), and then playing some games, because I feel like I might have actually deserved some time off. More work tomorrow - hopefully finishing the bit, then probably more games and television-watching, but also very special events that I must be reminded are happening at 8pm local time. Cannot fail on this regard, or there will be flagellation, both self- and other-inflicted.
An interesting game crosses one's path, made mostly of magnets and things to do when bored. But if one is trying to understand the Discordian mindset (good luck!), having a few rounds of Kallisti may move you further towards/away from enlightenment at the hands of Eris.
Speaking of slightly stranger stuff, there's this article about cops doing more than 'posing' as johns to catch prostitutes. I dunno - sounds more like a fringe benefit for the cops, and then the arrests happen when things are finished and the cop's got his jollies. I'm both nonplussed that the cops do those sorts of things to working girls, but also have to appreciate the beauty of how the whole thing works. Keeps the cops happy and lets them arrest everyone afterward.
Things that are much stranger than that are some things that, perhaps, one might not know about Scientology. If even half of the stuff's true, it only proves that it's a pretty whacked-out place in Scientology-land.
Of course, some of the more accepted religions aren't exactly on the sane side of a few issues. I was linked by a friend to a ministry that accepts that homosexuals can be Catholics in good faith and standing. I'd even go so far as to say that there's an implication that practicing homosexuals can still be good Catholics, on the virtue that persons who don't believe it to be wrong or sinful strongly enough may not actually be wrong or sinful when they do so. There's an analogy made there between practicing homosexuals and Catholic couples who practice safe sex with contraceptives, and how both can still be part of the Church. Go read. (Mucks a bit with the Papal bull, but American bishops have not exactly been tight with the Vatican when it comes to decisions.)
That was the first one. The second links to a hypertext of homosexuality and the Bible. It puts forward the historical-critical interpretation as the correct reading, and from that, points out that the prohibitions against homosexuality may have had more to do with the practices of the Gentiles around them and what was to be avoided so that the Jewish people could stay ritually pure (and perhaps Inherently Superior in their own eyes). In the Christian Foundational Writings, such things may appear not as moral wrongs, but as examples designed to prove other points, referencing back to things that a Jewish audience would get so they could understand where things were going wrong. It's an interesting conclusion drawn out of it, and one that I think more people could stand to adopt as their view.
Last bit tonight is something that may not make any sense at all to anybody, but is an observation: Definitions of art are where people can be their most offensive and defensive. The sheer amount of naked hostility thrown about in society and on the World Wide Web on matters of opinion is staggering. Can only reference half of the example I want to provide, because one-half of it is not a publicly-accessible posts. Zo, bear with me.
Part One is thus - A critique of a short animation. The critiquer finds the animation lacking in substance, and lashes out at some of the commentary the film receives. The argument about the lack of intelligence on the part of commenters hinges on their belonging to a fandom, and assumes that these members are blindly praising it because they feel kinship to the main character. In the comments section is where I see the displays of open hostility, people reacting (if you'll pardon the phrase) with fangs and claws bared, or in a dismissive sort of agreement with the poster that the members of the fandom are behaving irrationally and overreacting.
Part Two, which exists behind closed doors, is an angry retort that the definition of art varies by person, and that dismissing a piece of art because it appeals to a demographic is one of the worst forms of condescension. In the comments to that post, there is a taunting of the fandom and a declaration that its members should never be taken seriously (with more than a few references to the obvious lameness of the fandom, y'know, actually asking to be taken seriously. Whoops, bias showing).
In both of these, there's something thoroughly unnerving about the amount of raw hostility exuded. Maybe it's my naivete showing, but I don't understand. (Or it might be that I'm not applying principles correctly. Either way, I don't get it.) Might be having a foot and contacts in so many different places, or applying that since I'm a little weird, everyone's probably a little weird, and that it's not really my call to say anything about their weirdness except what I think about it. If I feel particularly strongly about it, I might find other people who think the same way or some sort of effective evidence to give my opinion more weight in trying to convince someone else to adopt my opinion. But there's still an understood part of the interaction that the other person has the option to accept or reject what I'm setting out in front of them. I may feel extraordinarily strongly, and have the evidence spread that I'm sure will convince them, and they still may tell me "Sorry, but no. I don't believe it." If they refuse, then it's my decision as to whether it is an acceptable difference and we can continue to interact, or whether it's an intolerable difference and we must part ways over the matter. It just seems silly to make summary judgment about an entire group and what they think without actually having interacted with some of them. (It still happens, and I'm sure that I do it out of shorthand and the inability to have enough meaningful interactions will all the groups that I may encounter. It doesn't necessarily make it right, though.) Is this another of my weirdnesses manifesting itself, further cementing me into a place that is hopelessly out of sync with the majority and dooming me to always being on the lunatic fringe?
