ysabetwordsmith | Morality of Culture

I was looking up moral references to something completely different when I stumbled across an article with this line:

"A rock has no moral status: we may crush it, pulverize it, or subject it to any treatment
we like without any concern for the rock itself. A human person, on the other hand,
must be treated not only as a means but also as an end."

It's such a very wašíču way of perceiving the world, as something without moral value, something to used and destroyed at whim. Which is exactly what they are doing, and the results of this include a great deal of harm along with the things that people like.

There are whole other ethical systems out there, one of which is framed as mitakuye oyasin. In this philosophy, everything is alive and everything is connected. What we do to the world around us, we also do to ourselves. This is factual in two ways: 1) We are all made out of the same elements: stars, planets, rocks, plants, animals, humans, came from the same source. 2) We all share the same biosphere here on Earth, and unbalanced destruction spreads whether you realize it or not. And so the tribal philosophy reminds us that we are part of a very large, very tight-knit family; that we must not do things on a whim, but think first whether it is needed, because other beings and things have a right to their own existence. The hunter would look for an animal ready to die, not a mother with young. The knapper would look for the knife within the stone, not a rock that was busy being something else.

To see the world as full of life and meaning and rights is to walk through a very different world indeed. But at least that one does not lead to lighting the biosphere on fire because driving cars seems like fun.

Times like this, it becomes obvious that I may have fair skin, but I'm not really white. I don't think like they do. The best description of my ethnicity, I got from a black friend in college: "Yeah, you can pass for white ... until you open your mouth."

What are some of your ethical principles or observations?

Current Mood: thoughtful
Crossposts: http://ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com/4043641.html

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

From:

alatefeline

Content Note: discussion of race, glancing mention of LBGTQIA+ and disability issues, discussion of privilege, power, and oppression

I don't define "being white" as feeling connected to white culture. I define it as being afforded white privilege. This is a stance that has been years in evolving for me, because I was in elementary school when I started reading extensively about African American history. My American girl doll was Addy, the Civil War era escaped slave character; I wanted to be brave and real like her. (I see the problems and the limits of that view now, but right then, I was a child in a relatively safe and privileged child's reality-bubble.) As soon as I knew a bit about what white was, I didn't want to be it, and I started looking for a way to not have to identify with it. I called myself "Celtic American" for years. But that got complicated. Ultimately I realized that saying that I'm not white or don't think of myself as white would be denying that I am given better treatment and more access to resources in some circumstances because of my genes and appearance, thanks to unconscious and systemic bias. So I will say that I am white, and leave it at that unless the topic specifically comes up. Because the problems with the construction of privileged whiteness and oppressed non-whiteness are problems that don't directly *cost* me as much as they do black people and other people of color. It's my responsibility to work on that crap in our society, not to grab the spotlight and steer it onto me and how uncomfortable I am with the harm done by people who look like me instead of the actual victims/survivors of that harm. "Not like other white people" isn't a merit badge. I may look to my Celtic ancestors before Anglo-American construction of whiteness got rolling for inspiration sometimes, and I may look to Black American heroes and heras for inspiration sometimes. But I have to *own* the way people treat me looking at me if I don't want to *be* owned by it.

Also, "ally" is not an identity, I've recently figured out. Allyship is showing the fuck up for other people and doing what you can. And being your own ally, when someone shoves their bias or their unawareness in your face. When I am too into my own crap to show up for anyone else, I'm not fighting in alliance, although I *might* be making it possible for me to do so another day - or just flattering myself. Although it's worth considering that self-care is a revolutionary act.

My position of - not liking or identifying with being white while thinking that it's important to own up to it - isn't the same thing as being the biological and/or cultural descendent of non-white people. One of the many acts of systemic racism and the construction of whiteness is the *erasure* of non-white identities by defining people solely as passing for white or not passing for white. The forced assimilation of Native Americans is a particularly grotesque example. The erasure of white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native Hispanics, etc is another. The way Irish and Italian people were considered not-white in one time and place and white in another is one more. And the construction of the "model minority" stereotype of Asians is one. And so is assuming that racial politics elsewhere are the same as those in the United States!

So there are a lot of people out there who may have white-passing privilege, and need to own up to that if they want to work on taking apart privilege in our society, but who are ethnically something other than or in addition to white. They can simultaneously be afforded conditional privilege (which they need to own, if they want to help take apart the structure of privilege in our society) and suffer systemic oppression - frex, having to hear nasty stereotypes about their own family from people who don't notice them - (which they deserve to have recognized, not dismissed).

Really complicated topic?!?!?!

From:

alatefeline

PS: First page of that article, the authors fail to understand *systemic* privilege and bias. Which is admittedly a complex topic, but I think that if someone's going to write about ethics in today's world, they should have at least a dictionary-definition level of comprehension of it.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

Salient to my original research on artificial intelligence: the idea that "life" presupposes carbon-based organic life rather than other possibilities.

From:

alatefeline

Great example! We privilege the forms of life that we find most familiar.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

And the most valuable.

I have this argument with animal-rights activist occasionally. Humans only save what they like. If you do away with zoos, livestock, and pets then you are basically doing away with animals because most humans care fuckall about things that don't immediately benefit them.

Case in point: gaited horses. They were all the rage for centuries when everyone rode everywhere if they could, so people wanted horses that were smooth to ride. Almost none of them are left. There are just a few breeds that still reliably produce nonstandard riding gaits such as the tolt. That is what happens when something stops being of use to humans: they ignore it, and largely ceases to exist.

From:

alatefeline

"Heirloom" vegetables = the refugees from gardening and farming before centrally engineered seeds were a massive business, back when everyone growing things had a local variety.

The green revolution is not something I will condemn, nor the practice of genetically engineering new plants, because human people being able to eat is a good and important thing. But I can and do worry about the effects *on humans* of artificially, monopolistically competing so much genetic variety in *our food supply* out of existence. AND the effects on our plant and other partner-species of refusing to allow them natural reproduction in partnership with their local community of humans, insects, plants, bacteria etc. They'd be justified in "taking their balls and going home" too - I think honeybees might tip into extinction if we humans don't stop being quite so specifically awful - and that's a great big "fuck you" to, well, everything.

Mass extinction as hobby and unintentional "side" effect. If there was an interstellar criminal court for species behavior we'd be dragged in ... and tossed over to the psych ward with sixty-eleven tracking devices.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>"Heirloom" vegetables = the refugees from gardening and farming before centrally engineered seeds were a massive business, back when everyone growing things had a local variety. <<

All of which were better suited to the microclimate, and most of which had better nutrition and flavor.

>>The green revolution is not something I will condemn, nor the practice of genetically engineering new plants, because human people being able to eat is a good and important thing. But I can and do worry about the effects *on humans* of artificially, monopolistically competing so much genetic variety in *our food supply* out of existence. <<

Among the things I have observed:

* Crop problems are MUCH bigger due to everyone planting the same thing, so if one variety is vulnerable to a disease then the footprint is enormous. Like a third to half of a region's whole planting.

* 40 years ago, I was the only person in our monkeysphere with dietary problems, except old people whose bodies were understandably falling apart. Now it is almost everyone. We have either broken humans, broken food, or both.

* Hybrid and GMO foods are bred for profit and durability, not nutrition or flavor. This creates food which is cheap to grow and ship, but so crappy that people eat it only if they have nothing else available. They prefer overprocessed crap to fresh fruits and vegetables because the fresh stuff has all the flavor and texture of styrofoam. No amount of government nagging can make people choose food that is bad, which means cutting off information and/or access to other choices.

>>They'd be justified in "taking their balls and going home" too - I think honeybees might tip into extinction if we humans don't stop being quite so specifically awful - and that's a great big "fuck you" to, well, everything.<<

I have noticed this. They would take out a third of the total human food supply.

>>Mass extinction as hobby and unintentional "side" effect. <<

Congratulations, humanity, you're a comet.

From:

technoshaman

*nods* that was one of the first things I learnt in freshman philosophy... you can own an idea, or *be owned* by it.

And then my best friend came out of the closet, and I went *into* the broom closet... so while I still *looked* WASP, that "P" no longer stood for what The Establishment thinks it does... and nearly 30 years later, still doesn't. Changes one's perspective.

Not that all of the actions caught up right off; life is a work in progress. But still.

From:

alatefeline

>>and I went *into* the broom closet... so while I still *looked* WASP, that "P" no longer stood for what The Establishment thinks it does... and nearly 30 years later, still doesn't. Changes one's perspective.<<

Alert, I'm about to analogize religious conversion and coming out - problematic but interesting.

My identity as regards my sexuality has evolved a lot over time, in part because I didn't really think that much about it as a kid except in terms of opting out, and then I made a conscious decision to opt back in to the possibility of voluntary human relationships in general. At various times I have called myself a straight ally (wincing in retrospect), questioning, bisexual, queer, and pansexual, with the last two still being current, but complicated by encountering concepts like asexuality vs. demisexuality vs. allosexuality, monogamy vs. polyamory, kink, consent culture, intersectionality.

And that process of learning and self-discovery complicated my relationship to race, class, ability, disability, neurodiversity, and so on...

And it went on simultaneously with my exploring religion quite a but and choosing not to actively convert to paganism, Buddhism, or any other alternative going around in my community while still personally renouncing both casual cultural-default Christianity and book-definition strict atheism, which were what I'd engaged with previously.

And it all ties into gender, which is its own can of worms.

From:

technoshaman

*nods* Similar path-pattern, even though the path is very different... the paradigm-shattering effect of my best friend's closet-exiting led directly (via two other gay men) to my own broom-closet-entering... it took about 15 years, though, before my long and winding path settled into its current groove.

From:

alatefeline

>> *nods* Similar path-pattern, even though the path is very different... <<

Fascinating. I'm glad my analogy was of interest rather than of harm.

>> the paradigm-shattering effects<<

It's good to notice when one has had, or is having, or could have if one chooses, a life-changing mind-changing experience. Increases the probability of a livable outcome.

>> it took about 15 years, though, before my long and winding path settled into its current groove. <<

Nods. Different places right now - I keep hopping around looking for the groove I think I want, you have a groove - but relevant conversation.

I really enjoy talking with you.

*offers hugs*

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> *nods* that was one of the first things I learnt in freshman philosophy... you can own an idea, or *be owned* by it. <<

Sooth.

>> And then my best friend came out of the closet, and I went *into* the broom closet... so while I still *looked* WASP, that "P" no longer stood for what The Establishment thinks it does... and nearly 30 years later, still doesn't. Changes one's perspective. <<

That it does.

I think that's one of the biggest difference between mainstream and everyone else. The more mainstream someone is, the more they assume they can use the standard version of everything and it'll just work for them because that is their experience. Everything is designed for the way they are. But when you aren't that, then you have to customize most or all of the things in your life.

For someone moving out of the mainstream, that first step is a doozy. They have no idea how to handle it, even if they do it on purpose, let alone the ones who are blindsided by a change they didn't choose or see coming.

From:

technoshaman

The doozy for me was wrapping my head around the fact that my best friend, someone who I knew in my heart to be a Good Person, was a gay man. Left me in a tailspin for a couple of weeks.

After that, the rest was pretty easy. Except the silence. The silence was... is... HARD. But so is belling that cat...

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I don't define "being white" as feeling connected to white culture. I define it as being afforded white privilege. <<

That's an interesting perspective.

I can see that it has multiple aspects: genetics, visible traits, cultural upbringing, cultural affiliation, and so forth.

However, I don't think of identity as something imposed by society, but as something innate. It isn't always what people expect it to be, wish it to be, or threaten people with death for not being. It is what it is. People can say "You have a vagina so you must be a girl" but that does not make me a girl. It makes me a metasexual, masculine-leaning shapeshifter currently morphlocked in a human body that has a vagina. That means I can touch all the pussy I want, any time I want it, which the guy part of me thinks is pretty awesome. Still not exactly being a girl.

So too, this body has a lot of different genetic and cultural heritage, some of which is more visible than others. A challenge of being mixed is that other people will include you in, or out, based mostly on appearance but sometimes on behavior. That has nothing to do with your identity; it has to do with your social role.

And gods help the idiot hick who turns to me and invites me to take the social role of a white person by picking on someone darker.

Then too, there is the issue of privilege itself. It is white privilege not white right and the thing about privilege is that it is fragile. A right is something you're supposed to keep permanently. A privilege is something that can be taken away at whim. People say that white privilege is inescapable, but it is not. It is incredibly easy to get rid of. All you have to do is stick up for people of color and the whites will call you "n*gg*er-lover" and lump you in with the darker-skinned folks they already hate. For anyone of mixed heritage, all you have to do is let slip any physical or cultural detail that clues someone you have 1+ ancestor who is not white.

The passing privilege is there, for a lot of mixed folks. If I'm walking down the street, people will think I'm a white girl, but that doesn't make either of those things true. It just means they haven't done more than glance at me. If someone spends more than a small amount of time with me, they quickly begin to notice the many ways in which the package does not match the contents.

And that influences how I move through the world, who I spend time with, who treats me well or poorly. Certain parts of passing privilege have probably kept me alive. But I never rely on it. I never delude myself that I am safe. I know that at any moment, any individual could realize that I am not what they thought at first glance, and decide to attack me because they hate queerfolk or everyone who isn't white (or Pagans or liberals or or or...). I try not to let it stop me. The thought is just there, in the back of my head, how am I going to handle it if that happens. Is this a safe place to shoot off my mouth, my politics, my nature? Or is it somewhere I need to keep all the exits in view at all times and scram if a problem arises? Is this an issue I should let slide, or a hill I'm willing to die on?

Because I'm not really white, I only look it, I don't think white, I don't act white, and that means I only sometimes get treated as white. Which reinforces my experience of a very different world.

This is, of course, also different from people with visible differences such as very dark skin. They're going to have their own experience which is not identical to mine, and that's okay. It gives us different challenges relating to our identity. Kind of like how people with visible or invisible disabilities have a different experience on the ableness spectrum. But even someone with very dark skin can be challenged as "not black enough" on the social spectrum, even though nobody is ever going to treat them as white. You can get excluded from both/all groups.

Humans are weird. I understand people feeling attached to family, country, other affinity groups. But pigment? Eh, no. That one's always going to seem nuts to me.

>>I called myself "Celtic American" for years. <<

I'm perfectly fond of my Celtic heritage. It's just not the only one I have. And it doesn't tell me what to do when my hair breaks "unbreakable" combs. Those instructions are over in the African lore. (Solution: don't use combs made for white people. Use a wide-toothed pick or a styling brush with flexible pins.)

>> Ultimately I realized that saying that I'm not white or don't think of myself as white would be denying that I am given better treatment and more access to resources in some circumstances because of my genes and appearance, thanks to unconscious and systemic bias. So I will say that I am white, and leave it at that unless the topic specifically comes up. <<

It's good that you've thought through your identity in that detail.

>>Because the problems with the construction of privileged whiteness and oppressed non-whiteness are problems that don't directly *cost* me as much as they do black people and other people of color. <<

They cost me differently, because some of the experiences are different, but some are still the same. Every time somebody calls the latest shooting "the biggest" I flinch and think of Wounded Knee. Of all the other times a bunch of European invaders butchered people -- mostly unarmed women and children -- by the hundreds. I order a tongue taco, or goat anything, and waiters balk because they're looking at the outside; hell, I've been stared at for eating with chopsticks. For the cost is the constant friction between what I am, and what other people think I should be. It is tiresome in a different way than colorism, but it's still a real drag. And it's a drag that real white people don't feel. *ponder* Well, unless they find an ancestor of color, that freaks them out.

>> Also, "ally" is not an identity, I've recently figured out. Allyship is showing the fuck up for other people and doing what you can. <<

I think it's both. Something inward, expressed outward. Just calling yourself an ally doesn't make you one. But if you make a practice of it, then it becomes part of who you are.

For me, being mixed heritage -- rather than just having ancestors of eclectic origins -- means connecting myself in various ways with those cultures. So I stick up for black people, and native people, and so forth when I vote or make donations. What affects them affects me, whether anyone else sees it or not.

>> Although it's worth considering that self-care is a revolutionary act.<<

So it is, especially when others are trying to unmake you or kill you.

>>One of the many acts of systemic racism and the construction of whiteness is the *erasure* of non-white identities by defining people solely as passing for white or not passing for white. The forced assimilation of Native Americans is a particularly grotesque example. The erasure of white Hispanics, black Hispanics, Native Hispanics, etc is another. <<

Yyyyyeah. That's a mess.

It has come up in my writing a number of times. Turq is Chinese-American not by coming from China to America, but by being American and imprinting on a Chinese family. Transracial adoption is horribly misunderstood but it puts people firmly in the mixed-heritage category, yet different because it doesn't show physically. The Durante family is torn because Amada is happily Hispanic while Faramundo is assimilationist. So they bicker over how to raise the children, what culture to celebrate or not. And that is not helping him come to terms with his super daughter. The Iron Horses are an intertribal motorcycle gang all sharing the "torn between two worlds" weakness, which is quite common among tribal folks most of whom have some European ancestry. There's a real struggle to integrate that, to live a tribal lifestyle in a larger culture designed against it.

>> Really complicated topic?!?!?! <<

That it is.

From:

alatefeline

Re: skin color, race, identity, social role

>> However, I don't think of identity as something imposed by society, but as something innate. << & >> That has nothing to do with your identity; it has to do with your social role. <<

We’ve talked before about ways in which our interpretations of the nature of social role and identity subtly diverge, which me assigning more weight to the influence the former exerts on the latter.

>> Then too, there is the issue of privilege itself. It is white privilege not white right and the thing about privilege is that it is fragile. … People say that white privilege is inescapable, but it is not. It is incredibly easy to get rid of. All you have to do is stick up for people of color and the whites will call you "n*gg*er-lover" and lump you in with the darker-skinned folks they already hate. <<

>> that influences how I move through the world, who I spend time with, who treats me well or poorly. Certain parts of passing privilege have probably kept me alive <<

I think what’s inescapable for now, in this context, is the existence of white privilege in our society and the things that that says about how the dice a rolled for me *before* I open my mouth or make a single facial expression. I would rather be hated by hateful people. But that doesn’t mean I won’t, say, get approved for a bank loan by a racist jerk because I have a white-sounding name. And if I changed my name - which I don’t want to do, it’s mine and part of me in this lifetime - but if I did and I chose a name from another ethnicity, I think that would be stealing from them.

Also, I won’t stoop to explaining when I have showed up for people of another race or justifying when I haven’t in order to make myself look good or feel good. If I do good, if I am succeeding in gumming up the machinery of oppression a bit, then it doesn’t matter if anyone, including me, holds a party - it just matters that it happens. I need to challenge myself to make it happen more.

>> For the cost is the constant friction between what I am, and what other people think I should be. … And it's a drag that real white people don't feel. <<

Maybe I’m not a real white person, but I’m not anything else, either. But hell, most days I don’t feel like a real human being. My identity as a sentient flying cat shapes my conscious self-image more than the race or the gender other people attribute to me without my consent.

>> So too, this body has a lot of different genetic and cultural heritage, some of which is more visible than others. A challenge of being mixed is that other people will include you in, or out, based mostly on appearance but sometimes on behavior. That has nothing to do with your identity; it has to do with your social role. <<

>> For the cost is the constant friction between what I am, and what other people think I should be. It is tiresome in a different way than colorism, but it's still a real drag. And it's a drag that real white people don't feel. *ponder* Well, unless they find an ancestor of color, that freaks them out. <<

>> The passing privilege is there, for a lot of mixed folks. If I'm walking down the street, people will think I'm a white girl, but that doesn't make either of those things true. … And that influences how I move through the world, who I spend time with, who treats me well or poorly. Certain parts of passing privilege have probably kept me alive. … Because I'm not really white, I only look it, I don't think white, I don't act white, and that means I only sometimes get treated as white. Which reinforces my experience of a very different world. <<

>> This is, of course, also different from people with visible differences such as very dark skin. They're going to have their own experience which is not identical to mine, and that's okay. It gives us different challenges relating to our identity. <<

I heard and I think I understood these distinct points regarded mixed heritage and notably non-white heritage. Thanks for sharing them.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I think what’s inescapable for now, in this context, is the existence of white privilege in our society <<

Certainly it exists. That makes it something to be opposed, due the problems it causes.

How it interacts with each person is more variable. For some people it is quite static, either on or off. For others it is skippy, glitchy, unpredictable -- and that can mean never being happy with human interactions because either people are picking on you for being nonwhite or giving you white-passing privileges that make you uncomfortable.

>> because I have a white-sounding name. <<

It is true that having a white-sounding name is a tremendous advantage when putting one's resume into a stack of other papers. Studies have shown around 33%-50% improvement in likelihood of callbacks. Of course, similar things have happened with author names and submission piles, hence the many women who use initials or male pen names; or in romance, the reverse, men pretty much have to pretend to be women.

>> And if I changed my name - which I don’t want to do, it’s mine and part of me in this lifetime - but if I did and I chose a name from another ethnicity, I think that would be stealing from them. <<

That can happen. Then again, sometimes names are given.

>> Maybe I’m not a real white person, but I’m not anything else, either. <<

That is in common with most people of mixed heritage.

So too, my cultural affinity is never a match for any one place. If I'm in a culture I love, that's great, but I'm still carrying bits of all my others. Always part of everything, but never wholly belonging to anything.

>> But hell, most days I don’t feel like a real human being. My identity as a sentient flying cat shapes my conscious self-image more than the race or the gender other people attribute to me without my consent. <<

So. Much. This.

>>I heard and I think I understood these distinct points regarded mixed heritage and notably non-white heritage. Thanks for sharing them.<<

Glad I could help.

The biggest problem is plain old divisiveness -- that instead of a spectrum, people want pigeonholes, want to set each group against all the others.

From:

alatefeline

Re: even more complications on identity

>> For me, being mixed heritage -- rather than just having ancestors of eclectic origins -- means connecting myself in various ways with those cultures. <<

Awesome, and a great point regarding identity as action and as inward feeling.

For me, though … the cultures I connect to aren’t necessarily mine, and while I honor sharing, I am not going to steal stuff. I need to imagine, invent, or help build a world, so I that can belong to it.

>> >> Ultimately I realized that saying that I'm not white or don't think of myself as white would be denying that I am given better treatment and more access to resources in some circumstances because of my genes and appearance, thanks to unconscious and systemic bias. So I will say that I am white, and leave it at that unless the topic specifically comes up. << << & >> It's good that you've thought through your identity in that detail. <<

Only because I have to, to be what I think of as remotely a moral person in our fucked up society. If stuff wasn’t so fucked up, I don’t think I’d care what color I am. I don’t look at myself in the mirror very much and when I do that image doesn’t look like it’s necessarily me - but it isn't necessarily not-me, and I don’t look like another person in my head either, really. Haven’t found a specific word for *that* experience, though there are plenty that are close but clearly wrong.

If stuff wasn’t so fucked up, people wouldn’t categorize race or ethnicity the same way at all, and maybe one of the categories would actually make sense. There is more genetic variance *within* supposed ethnic groups than *between* them, and the genetic variance being measured is a matter of the frequency of certain genes appearing in the population, not of their existence or nonexistence.

>>However, I don't think of identity as something imposed by society, but as something innate. It isn't always what people expect it to be, wish it to be, or threaten people with death for not being. It is what it is.<<

>> >> Also, "ally" is not an identity, I've recently figured out. Allyship is showing the fuck up for other people and doing what you can. << <<

>> I think it's both. Something inward, expressed outward. Just calling yourself an ally doesn't make you one. But if you make a practice of it, then it becomes part of who you are. <<

I think it appears we’ve swapped apparent positions on the practice-becoming-a-part-of-self discussion, but we’re both pretty good at being consistent with our words, explaining changes in viewpoint, and finding subtle shades of meaning, which means I want to go deeper to find the logic here. I do acknowledge and honor that experience of *becoming* what one *does.* But what we practice daily isn’t always good things, or the things we would want, in an ideal world. So I am leaving room for myself to let myself experience *being* what I am *seen to be* as well as what I *want to be.* Even when I don’t like it.

Also, when an identity is marginalized, trying to tug at the edges of it to make room for oneself under the umbrella can result in derailing the conversation from where it needs to be to let people feel safe expressing themselves. (I’m a little worried about that possibility here with regards to my talking so much, to be honest, but I’m letting myself blather for now because you, hearthkeeper, seem to enjoy talking with me.)

So there are words I will not use for myself or insist on being part of the conversation about because I don’t want to make those words any less useful for someone else. Like trans, or disabled, or non-white. And then there are terms that are umbrellas that do explicitly include me in all my ambiguity — like queer, genderqueer, and neuroatypical — and I will fight anyone who tries to take them from me. And there are words I hold as aspirations, but won’t assign to myself, because I see them as community accolades.

>> People can say "You have a vagina so you must be a girl" but that does not make me a girl. <<

Thank you!!! I recently came across this term and definition: Commogender: when you know you aren’t cisgender, but you settled with your assigned gender for the time being. That seemed almost right and yet…not. (In fact, I think you supplied this link: http://genderfluidsupport.tumblr.com/gender/ .)

I would describe my felt gender as genderqueer with Aspie flavoring. Meaning I basically don’t give a fuck except as play or theater, and wish people would stop gendering all the things. When I talk about my gender, to give a sense of my experience, I include cis in the sense of (older meaning) cissexual (not physically transitioning or intending to) not cisgender “happy with assigned gender role.” I also mention my physical embodiment, which is female as far as I know, but no certainty on the genetic level, since I haven’t had any specific medical testing nor reason to do so. My social role is basically cis female as far as other people’s treatment of me goes, and I am still exploring asserting my genderqueer identity online (and offline in a few select safe(r) spaces). I would like to be able to shapeshift.

>> They cost me differently, because some of the experiences are different, but some are still the same. <<

Oppression costs everybody. It costs some people more. It limits everyone, even the everyones who aren’t here yet. It is evil.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>For me, though … the cultures I connect to aren’t necessarily mine, and while I honor sharing, I am not going to steal stuff. I need to imagine, invent, or help build a world, so I that can belong to it.<<

It's different looking at a culture where you feel a strong affinity but have no blood relation vs. choosing among ancestral ones.

However, there are other ways to belong to a culture than by being born into it. You can be adopted into a family, or adopt someone into yours. You can move into a community. You can immigrate to a whole new country. People do these things. So why, then, is it such a problem to cross cultures in other ways?

Mainly because some people want to take without asking and without giving anything back. If you have family or community ties, then it necessarily goes both ways. People who come in, take what they want, and split are not participating in a culture.

So if I want to borrow things from cultures I'm not associated with, which I do all the time, then I need to give something back. Things I can give back include learning about them so I can share accurate information with others, portraying them in a positive light, helping to maintain things like their language or cuisine, donating to their worthy causes, and supporting political campaigns in their favor. Which is a lot of the same stuff I do for my own cultures, I just do more of it in mine. Culture is a living, growing thing; if people don't practice it, then it dies. So if you're too tight about your culture, you can strangle it to death yourself.

Sometimes, people come up with really brilliant solutions. Lots of folks love Maori-style tattoos, but tā moko have meanings as formal as our military medals. So the Maori have developed some designs that look similar but are just for decoration, which people can use without getting bitched at, because anyone able to read Maori markings can tell the difference at a glance. Everyone gets what they want, and nobody has to get hurt. But coming up with this solution required someone to pay attention to why the problem was happening and think about the conflicting goals to see how to shift out of conflict. You can't do that if everyone just wants to fight over it.

>>Only because I have to, to be what I think of as remotely a moral person in our fucked up society. <<

*hugs* You are so awesome.

>>I think it appears we’ve swapped apparent positions on the practice-becoming-a-part-of-self discussion, but we’re both pretty good at being consistent with our words, explaining changes in viewpoint, and finding subtle shades of meaning, which means I want to go deeper to find the logic here. <<

:D

>> I do acknowledge and honor that experience of *becoming* what one *does.* <<

I should probably mention that there are different aspects of identity, some innate and some acquired, which can overlap. There's even a grammatical structure for it in one of my conlangs, where I could say: "I am a writer by innate talent, vocation, and profession." There are three separate suffixes that can mark how one has a trait, and different degrees (like hobby vs. profession); plus another that combines all three meanings. So I am genderqueer by nature, and a gender scholar as part of my profession; the being led to the doing, but they are not quite the same thing.

>>But what we practice daily isn’t always good things, or the things we would want, in an ideal world. <<

*sigh* That doesn't stop it from working -- hence the warnings about masks that grow onto your face.

>> So I am leaving room for myself to let myself experience *being* what I am *seen to be* as well as what I *want to be.* Even when I don’t like it. <<

There's also the useful skill of "behaving as if" which can help people acquire new traits.

>> Also, when an identity is marginalized, trying to tug at the edges of it to make room for oneself under the umbrella can result in derailing the conversation from where it needs to be to let people feel safe expressing themselves. <<

That is one thing that can happen.

But another thing that can happen is people discovering what they have in common and how they can help each other. QUILTBAG. Intertribal councils. That sort of thing. It's not easy but it can be very beneficial.

>> (I’m a little worried about that possibility here with regards to my talking so much, to be honest, but I’m letting myself blather for now because you, hearthkeeper, seem to enjoy talking with me.) <<

I think it is valuable to talk about things like this, and you are an engaging conversationalist.

>>I recently came across this term and definition: Commogender: when you know you aren’t cisgender, but you settled with your assigned gender for the time being.<<

Fascinating.

To a significant extent, I do that. I know I'm genderqueer, but it often is not relevant in everyday life. As long as being taken for feminine is not causing me harm, I put up with it, because trying to change that impression from everyone is more trouble than it's worth. But try to stuff me with a girl's job I don't want, or expect me to girltalk, or bitch that I am not what someone wanted because I had tits and they thought it meant I'd also have X -- there will be a nasty fight.

And despite years of gender exploration, it was only recently that I discovered my love of unisex toilets because ... that is MY bathroom. The one I belong in. Not the women's room I usually have to borrow when I am not actually a woman. It makes me happy to have a dottie just because it reflects who I am, in a way that 99% of the human race gets to enjoy everywhere.

>>I would like to be able to shapeshift. <<

I know that feel.

Ironically it's one reason why sexual body modification has little interest for me. It wouldn't change the level where I feel the difference, so there's not much point. I suppose if an accident mangled my breasts I would think to ask, "Could you make what's left look like a nice masculine chest?" I'd have no interest in pretending to have ladytits. But since I don't find the gender divergence life-wrecking, there is no legal proof of it, which means the chance of getting gender-appropriate care in that situation would be zero. The whole industry is too much of a mess for me to want anything to do with.

>>Oppression costs everybody. It costs some people more. It limits everyone, even the everyones who aren’t here yet. It is evil.<<

All of these things are true. All isms should be wasms.

And every time I look at an impoverished nation or a boatful of refugees drowning, I think, "I wonder what lifelist items just went down the drain there." Because I know that everyone comes into this incarnation with a list of stuff to do, and the really big stuff only has one or a few people on it at a time, because some skills are just rare and other jobs are hard. The stuff we haven't done yet that is within our theoretical technological reach? It's because the person who had or has it got hampered or killed. You know why we don't have functional AI? Because Turing liked dick and Europe had a gigantic problem with that, so he took his ball and went home. I do not blame him one little bit, you bigoted fucks were fined several decades of advancement. >_<

Every ghetto. Every sinking raft. Every refugee camp. That's what I see. Lost opportunities and a criminal waste of human capital.

From:

alatefeline

*returns hugs*

My brain goes WHIRRR when I converse with you and it's such a nice feeling.

From:

ng_moonmoth

Popping over from LJ to chime in over here, where the interesting comments are. This thread aligns with my current round of introspection.

alatefeline: >> I do acknowledge and honor that experience of *becoming* what one *does.* <<

ysabetwordsmith: >> I should probably mention that there are different aspects of identity, some innate and some acquired, which can overlap. There's even a grammatical structure for it in one of my conlangs, where I could say: "I am a writer by innate talent, vocation, and profession." There are three separate suffixes that can mark how one has a trait, and different degrees (like hobby vs. profession); plus another that combines all three meanings. So I am genderqueer by nature, and a gender scholar as part of my profession; the being led to the doing, but they are not quite the same thing. <<

I am a genderqueer seeker of understanding by nature. As in your case, the being has led to the doing; my gender scholarship is a vocation, but it is not a less essential part of my identity because of that.

alatefeline: >> But what we practice daily isn’t always good things, or the things we would want, in an ideal world. <<

ysabetwordsmith: >> *sigh* That doesn't stop it from working -- hence the warnings about masks that grow onto your face. <<

Not just grow onto your face, but seep into your soul. In my case, I built a facade that helped me preserve my identity by deflecting the pressures directed at it by my cultural environment and upbringing -- and wound up becoming that facade, with my identity sealed off from the world, and part of it stuffed into a box labeled "[people of my birth gender] Don't Do That". A few years ago, the forces directed against the facade intensified to the point where I had to choose between maintaining the identity or the facade. I opted for the identity; that cracked the facade, and it is now crumbling as I step hesitantly out from its ruins.

alatefeline: >> So I am leaving room for myself to let myself experience *being* what I am *seen to be* as well as what I *want to be.* Even when I don’t like it. <<

ysabetwordsmith: >> There's also the useful skill of "behaving as if" which can help people acquire new traits. <<

I am approaching this spot from the other direction. Now that I have decided that I must be who I want to be, I am trying to create room for myself to be seen as who I am. Which leads me to...

ysabetwordsmith: >> The more mainstream someone is, the more they assume they can use the standard version of everything and it'll just work for them because that is their experience. Everything is designed for the way they are. But when you aren't that, then you have to customize most or all of the things in your life.

For someone moving out of the mainstream, that first step is a doozy. They have no idea how to handle it, even if they do it on purpose <<

So true. That's how I've been spending a good deal of time since my defining event: looking for other examples, checking for hazards, trying to break it down into something I can survive. And it's starting to pay off: I'm finally feeling like I have a good enough idea of how to interact with my culture without compromising my identity or myself. I don't always succeed, or do as well as I'd like, but I'm managing. And I get enough positive feedback from some folks on the street that I believe I'm on to something.

alatefeline: >> Also, when an identity is marginalized, trying to tug at the edges of it to make room for oneself under the umbrella can result in derailing the conversation from where it needs to be to let people feel safe expressing themselves. <<

ysabetwordsmith: >> That is one thing that can happen.

But another thing that can happen is people discovering what they have in common and how they can help each other. QUILTBAG. Intertribal councils. That sort of thing. It's not easy but it can be very beneficial. <<

Yes, especially the "not easy" part. Seems like the obstacles most likely to cause breakdown are "not marginalized enough", and exclusion by erasure; I get both. A sexuality, such as mine, that encompasses more than defined by a person's current relationship, is erased far too often for my comfort, even within advocacy groups. And because the issue I have with my identity is that there are no commonly understood markers signaling it that are sanctioned by the culture I inhabit, my marginalization has a direction that does not align well with the sorts advocacy groups are currently campaigning to rectify. The changes people with other marginalized identities need don't improve that, and personally adopting those changes would be too likely to misidentify me as asserting an identity that is not mine. If I'm going to be misidentified, that's another layer of intolerance I can do without, thankyouverymuch. Meanwhile, there's no solution that does well enough for folks like me to justify the effort, so I'm just as well off fending for myself.

ysabetwordsmith: >> I know I'm genderqueer, but it often is not relevant in everyday life. As long as being taken for feminine is not causing me harm, I put up with it, because trying to change that impression from everyone is more trouble than it's worth. But try to stuff me with a girl's job I don't want, or expect me to girltalk, or bitch that I am not what someone wanted because I had tits and they thought it meant I'd also have X -- there will be a nasty fight. <<

My being genderqueer is almost constantly relevant. Being assigned to any box based on my apparent gender is at minimum uncomfortable, and often downright painful. A big part of the problem is the cultural assumption that being asked about someone's gender amounts to disputing that person's gender, which is far too often viewed as insulting. And too easily leads to over-the-top presentation, just to make sure the people you encounter know your gender and don't have to ask about it.

Symbols don't cut it, either. If I wore something decorated with all the identity flags I could reasonably assert (let's start with genderqueer, bi, nonbinary, demisexual), I would just feel singled out and marginalized unless everyone was doing that. And, except for a few special spaces, that doesn't happen.

ysabetwordsmith: >> And despite years of gender exploration, it was only recently that I discovered my love of unisex toilets because ... that is MY bathroom. The one I belong in. Not the women's room I usually have to borrow when I am not actually a woman. It makes me happy to have a dottie just because it reflects who I am, in a way that 99% of the human race gets to enjoy everywhere. <<

Yeah, it's my bathroom, too. Especially when my expression aligns poorly with what people expect of someone using the bathroom based on the sign on the door. At least the sign on the dottie isn't lying too badly. I wish it was a * rather than something that comes across as "both".

alatefeline: >> I would describe my felt gender as genderqueer with Aspie flavoring. Meaning I basically don’t give a fuck except as play or theater, and wish people would stop gendering all the things. <<

My felt gender is inherently queer, in that it is defined without reference to any other gender.

A quote on LJ from someone I also know in real life, who is in the process right now of asserting their felt gender after decades of repressing it:

"Gender is, maybe, more like a landscape; but it's not a flat featureless plain. There are landmarks, hills, valleys, rivers, bridges, and places where groups of people have chosen to settle, and I believe with all my heart that even when that landscape has been fully opened up to everyone, most people will still prefer to find a place where they are comfortable, call it home, and spend most of their lives in that place. Few will want to be gypsies (though some will) and nobody, I think, will want to be a displaced person with nowhere to call their own, to whom all places are the same and nowhere is special."

My place feels like a cabin in the wilderness. I have a few neighbors (ysabetwordsmith is one; alatefeline, you might well be another), some nearby, others further away; we visit from time to time, and can call on one another in case of need, but there is always mutual respect and support for each other's ways, and no inclination to interfere in them.

I have settled where I have because it is a wilderness -- because it lacks the capacity to handle crowds. And I am building a cabin here because it is my home. And I am building it in a place where those who are seeking their own place can see it, and those who see something of themselves in it can come and visit, and share their experiences, and thereby gain insight into the nature of their journey.

alatefeline: >> My social role is basically cis female as far as other people’s treatment of me goes, and I am still exploring asserting my genderqueer identity online (and offline in a few select safe(r) spaces). <<

I'm still constrained by normative standards for my birth-assigned morphology, but my sense of style and how to engage with other people is improving to where I can see that may soon no longer be necessary. I'll be much better off when I can go around as myself all the time.

alatefeline: >> I would like to be able to shapeshift. <<

ysabetwordsmith: >> I know that feel.

Ironically it's one reason why sexual body modification has little interest for me. It wouldn't change the level where I feel the difference, so there's not much point. <<

Coming to the same place from the other direction again. My identity is in my head; my body won't fit that, no matter what shape it is. It might be a better fit if it looked a bit less like the ones those other people who aren't like me have, but I have no idea how to do that and still be identified as human. So I'm not up for doing anything right now.

ysabetwordsmith: >> I suppose if an accident mangled my breasts I would think to ask, "Could you make what's left look like a nice masculine chest?" I'd have no interest in pretending to have ladytits. But since I don't find the gender divergence life-wrecking, there is no legal proof of it, which means the chance of getting gender-appropriate care in that situation would be zero. The whole industry is too much of a mess for me to want anything to do with. <<

There is starting to be some movement toward defining what genderqueer-appropriate care might look like. Definitely agree about the mess surrounding non-gender-normative healthcare. I'd love to go to my doctor as myself, but that's a can of worms that I'm not ready to open any time soon.

From:

alatefeline

Also, I agree that people should be treated as ends, not means. But that doesn't require agreeing that rocks, or landscapes, or plants, or biospheres, or animals, or machines *shouldn't* be. *That* statement is where one draw a line, or chooses not to draw a line. The *former* statement, to me, is more about something regarding the inextricability of means and end.

From:

technoshaman

Salient points for me:

Karma Is. It's immutable. It flows at its own rate. Sometimes it hits like a hurricane. Sometimes it takes decades. But it *will* happen.

Music Is. If you've got a good song, you can have a Movement.

Love .... Should Be.

Peace - be it in a household or a nation or between nations - is a matter of *conversation*. And honesty, both with the other, and (more importantly) with yourself.

Caring for your fellow being is enlightened self-interest. Unlike some others I don't believe (fr'ex) healthcare is a *right* of the individual... but it is the *responsibility* for an enlightened society to take care of all comers.

There is religion that is just what one does on Sunday morning, and there is religion that permeates one's being and thoughts and lifestyle. The latter is preferable. But any which have Love at their centre is valid. Those who do not... in my experience, somebody's been twisting some words.

Each of us has a Spark within us. Get it out from under your bushel basket.

Namaste.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> Unlike some others I don't believe (fr'ex) healthcare is a *right* of the individual... but it is the *responsibility* for an enlightened society to take care of all comers. <<

I am intrigued by this difference.

I consider health care a right, because I consider life a right. If life is a right, then it must include those survival needs necessary to sustain it. If those things must instead be purchased, then life is not a right, it is a paid privilege only for those who can afford the asking price. Regrettably, life is acting as a paid privilege in America at this time because people often do not get access to food, water, shelter, clothing, health care, etc. unless they can pay whatever is demanded for it. This is a problem.

I do feel that a society's effectiveness is judged on its ability to meet most of its citizens' needs most of the time. No system is perfect, but if it doesn't do a good job of that, then sooner or later people will tear it apart in search of something that works better. You can either furnish people the opportunity to meet their own needs individually (i.e. space to grow food or a job that pays enough to buy healthy food) or collectively (i.e. distributed food through potlatches) but somehow or other everyone needs to eat. What we have now is a system that guarantees neither individual nor collective resources.

From:

technoshaman

I consider health care a right, because I consider life a right.

Life *eats* life; it must to survive. Humans are both apex predators and social animals, but not *too* social; they have a built-in yen to go faster, farther, explore more... which ultimately means we have to leave our nest. The only way to do *that* is to specialise, and the only way to do *that* is to take care of each other - and our nest, both to enable us to live long enough to leave, and to give us something to come *back to* if we botch an attempt. ETA: Humans are not much different from other critters in that when they don't feel safe, the claws come out, and it gets ugly. We need to make sure people feel safe for our own good.

(Can you tell there's a lot of Kant built into this?)

That said, I don't have any disagreements with your final graf. Right or social contract, if it is violated, there will be pitchforks... and America's ugly mood at having individual need-meeting slowly pulled from under them is small potatoes compared to England's having had a functional social contract for three generations and getting it pulled at an even faster rate... by the same bunch of bastards (who are quite good, sadly, at redirecting that anger at those who Don't Look Like We Do...

GRRRR.

*Oh*.

How do we make it feel safe for the fat cats to give away their stash? (OTOH, we could make it feel very *unsafe* for them *to have one*... but I don't like where that leads...)

(Memory: Red October: How do you make men want to get off a submarine. How do you make men *want* to get off a nucl.... *lightbulb*)

So how *do* we stage a "reactor accident" in Wall Street, leaving us with several trillion dollars of Sov... corporate state property?

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>>Right or social contract, if it is violated, there will be pitchforks... and America's ugly mood at having individual need-meeting slowly pulled from under them is small potatoes compared to England's having had a functional social contract for three generations and getting it pulled at an even faster rate... by the same bunch of bastards (who are quite good, sadly, at redirecting that anger at those who Don't Look Like We Do...<<

Sadly so.

>> How do we make it feel safe for the fat cats to give away their stash? <<

How do you teach an addict what 'enough' feels like? How do you teach people to stop being greedy?
Yes, that's a problem.

From:

thnidu

Though I don't disagree in any way with what you are saying, the page you link to for "mitakuye oyasin" quotes (a version of) "Chief Seattle’s Letter of 1852". That letter, or speech as it is also known, is highly unreliable as a rendering of anything Chief Seattle ever said, let alone wrote (he was illiterate and spoke no English). See Wikipedia.

Edited Date: 2016-06-27 05:19 am (UTC)

From:

ysabetwordsmith

It is really, really hard to find a good description of mitakuye oyasin online, and every time I go looking for it, I usually have to use a different one because the older ones are gone. Ideally I look for tribal pages first, and try to avoid things like Wikipedia unless there's nothing else usable that day. I think that the concepts are a pretty good representation of Lakota philosophy, though.

From:

thnidu

Given the ongoing situation you describe, that sounds to me like a pretty good strategy. But I wasn't recommending Wikipedia as a source for mitakuye oyasin, but for its description of the origins of that text, as far as they can be determined, about which I've read many times.

Edited Date: 2016-06-27 05:41 am (UTC)

From:

redsixwing

This is a fascinating thread. Thanks for hosting it.

Some of my ethical principles... well, I try to go for simple principles, but they get complex in operation. It's like playing Go - two rules turn into a vast variety of options. (I have more than two. I'm working on simplifying.)

IDIC: Infinite Diversity, Infinite Combinations. All variations are valid; monocultures kill.

That doesn't just apply to humans, or to living things, or even to ideas. Infinite diversity means that which will exist, could exist, does exist - and can't exist, because how else do we get something to strive for? And the frontier is always moving anyway, so there's really not a point to trying to define it exactly as it...was when the sentence started.

This is a big concept and I'm having trouble putting it in words, but: that'll have to do for now.

All things live. (Well, I'm an animist, so this one feels obvious.) Find the stone that wants to be a gem. Find the stick that wants to be a tool. Things want to serve their function. People do, too. Finding ways to fit them together is like solving the biggest puzzle there is.

Everything cycles. Everything.
This is more of a gut feeling than an ethical principle, but I'm working on it.

From:

ysabetwordsmith

IDIC is a favorite of mine too. :D

I observe that mostly what we have now are distribution problems, not resource problems. There is plenty of food and shelter; the reason people lack those things is because other people forcibly prevent them from using available resources.

From: (Anonymous)

I'm actually having something of a low grade crisis about this stuff right now. The second concept is more correct, but within it how can I justify taking action to cause myself to continue to live at the expense of others? I already knew that right now we live by hurting others, but I thought it was a fixable problem. But if trees can move branches so everyone gets enough sunlight, it isn't. And how can I justify considering the sentient more important? I realise this isn't well put together and probably doesn't make sense. My thoughts don't feel well put together, but my therapy people while good aren't quite magical/social justice enough to quite understand, and the only friend i trust with this is Chaotic and doesn't get why I'm having trouble.

Bernadette

From:

ysabetwordsmith

>> I'm actually having something of a low grade crisis about this stuff right now.<<

Okay, let me see if I can help ...

>> The second concept is more correct, but within it how can I justify taking action to cause myself to continue to live at the expense of others? <<

Here are some points to consider:

* Life feeds on life. Nobody gets out of here alive; that is the nature of mortality.

* Prey are here to be eaten. That is their purpose. If they are not eaten, they would overrun the environment and everything would die. :( Therefore, it is right and good that predators should eat prey. The same is true for herbivores eating plants, and omnivores eating both. In fact, some species have evolved to feed each other quite deliberately: mulberries produce seeds inside sweet fruit. The fruit pays the birds to carry them. The birds drop the seeds, now surrounded by fertilizer, in distant places. Everybody wins. \o/

* As sapient beings, we have the ability to understand suffering and minimize it where possible. Some people interpret this as "don't eat animals." Others feel that it is permissible to eat animals, but not to abuse them before or during slaughter.

* Balance and equality pertain. An individual or species has a right to its own survival and space, but not to take up more than its fair share. Suppose a hunter goes out in search of venison. He has a right to hunt; the deer has a right to run; and evolution decides the winner based on comparing their skills. Some hunters feel it is not right to hunt from beyond the prey's sensory range, because that negates the evolutionary value of hunting. If you take all the best deer, they don't reproduce, and you wind up with crummy deer. :( So you shoot the slow ones, the stupid ones, the deer that don't think to look up. Then you get better deer.

* Context also matters. The house is human territory and any wildlife straying into it may be freely killed. Or one may choose to catch things and put them outside. I tend to deport beneficial species and dispatch pests. But when people go outside, that is shared territory, and the wilderness if for wild creatures. One should have a very good reason for killing things there.

* Be mindful of choices. Understand that everything is alive, and that conflict is part of life. Know why you are doing what you do. Mindless harm is bad if one is sapient.

>> I already knew that right now we live by hurting others, but I thought it was a fixable problem. <<

Let's say it is an improvable problem. One can refrain from doing avoidable harm. Some harm is an inevitable outcome of life; every time you blink, tears kill microbes that have landed on your eyeballs, which is one of the purposes of tears.

>> But if trees can move branches so everyone gets enough sunlight, it isn't. <<

Well, that's part of the ongoing evolution. Species are always pushing and shoving for resources. Sometimes it pays off better to be aggressive, other times cooperative.

>> And how can I justify considering the sentient more important? <<

All creatures favor their own goals. Moral creatures also consider the goals of others. What will be gained if you act for yourself, or others? Is there a way to share without doing harm? These answers vary in different contexts. Morality is largely about doing as much good and as little harm as possible.

>>I realise this isn't well put together and probably doesn't make sense. My thoughts don't feel well put together,<<

That's okay. These topics are complicated and people have been wrestling with them for millennia.

>> but my therapy people while good aren't quite magical/social justice enough to quite understand, <<

That's unfortunate, but hardly a surprise. However, you might consider looking for perspectives among the more mainstream pacifists. It's usually easier to find a Buddhist than a Pagan.

>> and the only friend i trust with this is Chaotic and doesn't get why I'm having trouble. <<

Well, at least you know not to use a screwdriver to pound nails.

From: (Anonymous)

[Prey are here to be eaten. That is their purpose. If they are not eaten, they would overrun the environment and everything would die]

One of the things I'm struggling with is that maybe it would be better if nothing existed. But that's ridiculous. I thought I'd had this existential crisis already. Anyways, ridiculous: I mean that believing it is both unpleasant and useless. But I'm still having trouble shaking it this time. I'm not sure why. Maybe I care more now about objective reality, maybe I'm just worried I could end the world if I tried hard enough. I still believe life is better, but I'm having trouble giving myself a reason better than "it's more pleasant to think". I know there's more, I just can't find it anywhere. And it's all tangled up with the idea of Order being inherently oppressive, which is not a thing I can cope with believing. But which is hard to refute.
[All creatures favor their own goals.]
Everything doing a thing doesn't make it right.
[However, you might consider looking for perspectives among the more mainstream pacifists. It's usually easier to find a Buddhist than a Pagan.]
I live in a large city, and there are other Pagans here, but as far as I can tell all practice privately or in places I mostly can't access for mental health or financial reasons. And it's hard to talk about this with people I'm going to see in person. And some of the ways we look at energy seem wrong. I don't get harassed the way most woman-appearing folks do. I cover up my body and wear the coldest, uncaringest, most dead-eyed look you ever did see most of the time, but accounting for that, I still almost never get harassed, or even respectfully approached. It happens, but very, very, very rarely. And a Pagan person I was talking to said it was clearly because I'm not open to that energy, which makes me deeply uncomfortable, because the logical corollary to that is that a woman who is harassed is somehow open to it. (Potentially relevant, I haven't done the sex thing yet and have no intention if ever doing it in a casual context. Just not my thing. And is Paganism culturally appropriative by default? I'm sorry, you asked about ethical observations, not every moral dilemma you're unable to resolve.
[Well, at least you know not to use a screwdriver to pound nails.]
Literally, obviously. Figuratively, I tried it a few times and broke my feelings pretty good and then I gave up. Unfortunately this leaves me in the uncomfortable position of having the foundation of (an integral portion of?) my ethical system broken, and I'm trying to pretend it's totally not broken to get through my day. So far it's working, but it's not fun.

From:

dragonyphoenix.livejournal.com

A native American friend once pointed at a crumpled up, used napkin and told me "That's alive." I have a wider definition of alive than the guy who wrote that AI article, but it never would have occurred to me to consider that napkin alive!

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

It's mind-blowing to imagine everything as alive. I have no trouble doing it in nature -- rocks, water, sky, the planet, these are tangibly alive to me.

I have a harder time thinking of random little manmade things as alive. A ship? A building? I can do that. A napkin? It's harder.

Technically our hair is not alive, and yet it is part of a living being. It has health (or not) even though it's not alive. We certainly object to anyone tampering with it against our will, because it feels like part of us.

So too, these bits and bobs of seemingly inert matter are part of a vast being, the planet Earth.

When we behave as if everything is alive and matters, in some way, then we are more driven to act carefully instead of selfishly. When we believe that things don't matter, we're more inclined to devise reasons for making that category bigger -- to say that plants do not matter, animals do not matter, certain types of humans do not matter -- and then we may do with them as we please, regardless of the harm it does. Because they're not alive, not important; only the decider is important.

Take that to its ultimate conclusion and you get a psychopath who acts like everyone else in the world is a cardboard cutout.

From:

siliconshaman.livejournal.com

Learnt psychopathic behaviour... where a person believes that 'human' only applies to a narrow class of people and has no empathic connection to anyone outside this (their) class. (see racism)

-textbook definition I dredged up from my course notes.

From:

siliconshaman.livejournal.com

My philosophy is that everything has a spirit... some of the things are alive.. all of it matters.

A rock is not alive, but it has a spirit, it matters. Harm the rock, and you harm it's spirit...and since all spirits are connected, you indirectly harm all of those. Because just as living cells make up bodies, so spirits make up greater spirits. [and ultimately, the entire planet has a spirit, which is just one cell in the universe of spirit.]

Which sounds like a great big pile of new-age woo-woo.. until you think of things like quantum entanglement and non-locality, and the fact that the universe behaves like it was a hologram, where one tiny bit also encodes all the information for every other tiny bit.

Mess with that rock, and you're messing with the universe. Which also includes you.

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

Well said.

I swear, watching the people who run the world today is like the stories of Coyote and his anus.

From:

siliconshaman.livejournal.com

I don't think I've heard that one... but I have a feeling I know how it ends!

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

Basically, it's a story about how he doesn't know that the parts of his body are part of himself. Here is one version:

http://www.hotcakencyclopedia.com/ho.TrickstersAnusGuardsDucks.html

From:

filkferengi

It sounds a lot like Diane Duane's Young Wizards series; have you read any of those?

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

I have enjoyed those.

From:

filkferengi

Mark Oshiro is currently reading them, posting 2-3 videos a week on youtube. He's on book 3. The others are still up, & the discussions on his site, markreads dot net, are fascinating! Also, Diane Duane is offering the New Millenium Editions [updated, ebook versions] of her whole series [up to the latest] for a huge discount over on Mark's website. If you use an e-reader, it's a super deal!

From:

fayanora.livejournal.com

I have a whole post about my ethics, as you know. So I'll just add this: If someone in our current culture told an Ah'Koi Bahnis of the Yahgahn culture about our health care system, the AKB would be like "Are you telling me that you trust your lives and health to people whose only motivation for helping you is MONEY?" And then a look of utter horror on their face, like you might see if you told a Tibetan Buddhist that your country's primary currency was the flayed skins of human infants.

And yes, everything is alive. Look down at its smallest level, everything is dancing matter, so of course it's all alive!

Edited Date: 2016-07-05 12:07 pm (UTC)

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

My go-to metaphor for that is "I feel like Puddleglum after he ate the Talking Stag."

And yes, that's one of the leading problems I have with the health care system. Doctors are bad enough, but occasionally accurate information can be derived from them. It is 100% impossible to get accurate information from dentists. If there's money to be made, they always recommend the most expensive treatment and won't discuss any other options. If you're broke, they always recommend the least expensive treatment and won't discuss any other options. There's no way to make a good decision, because even if you go twice, you can't tell whose recommendation is better suited to that instance. It is maddening. My lifetime total for anyone in the entire industry putting any aspect of my health over any aspect of profit? 1. So far, it's been a fluke.

From:

fayanora.livejournal.com

My go-to metaphor for that is "I feel like Puddleglum after he ate the Talking Stag."

*Confusion*

Wow, I had no idea dentists were so bad. But it makes sense. People in this country only go to the doctor when there's an emergency, I'm thinking it's at least as bad for dentists, and at that point most people are probably in too much pain to argue.

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

In theory it's possible to find a good dentist. I have heard stories of some. I have found some who were excellent at individual skills. I have never seen one who presented a range of all possible options for solving a given problem, rarely even two choices. All of them have leaned extremely one way or the other, most or least expensive. I have repeatedly heard from other people that they had no idea options on the other scale even existed until they went to someone at the other pole. I suppose there may be some who cover a wide range, but they aren't making much noise if there are.

A further problem with dentists is that many of them refuse to take emergencies, or if they do, demand non-emergency care before treating the emergency. For anyone who is unable to afford, or has contraindications for, the various types of non-emergency care then this can make care of any kind completely unavailable. They don't have to help you, and many times they just won't.

From:

fayanora.livejournal.com

A further problem with dentists is that many of them refuse to take emergencies, or if they do, demand non-emergency care before treating the emergency.

O_O Seriously???

OMG, I mean hospitals are legally required to take in emergency cases, and are even given the means to write off the costs of helping poor people in such a way that they get paid by the government for it. The same should be true of dentists.

Did you know that on Medicare, at least on the basic level of Medicare (not one of the paid extra modules), that dental work isn't covered at all? I was surprised to find that out.

From:

ysabetwordsmith.livejournal.com

>> OMG, I mean hospitals are legally required to take in emergency cases, and are even given the means to write off the costs of helping poor people in such a way that they get paid by the government for it. The same should be true of dentists.<<

If only. Dentists often cater to people with money, which makes sense given that few health plans cover it and dental care is very expensive. So they try to filter out "undesirable" customers. Places that take people who aren't at least middle-class? They tend to deliver shitty care, because anyone who can get a job somewhere better does so.

>>Did you know that on Medicare, at least on the basic level of Medicare (not one of the paid extra modules), that dental work isn't covered at all? I was surprised to find that out.<<

Many, many plans omit dental and vision care. Because apparently some body parts are more important than others, and taking care of a whole person is a nuisance.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

S	M	T	W	T	F	S
				1	2	3
4	5	6	7	8	9	10
11	12	13	14	15	16	17
18	19	20	21	22	23	24
25	26	27	28	29	30	31

The Writing & Other Projects of Elizabeth Barrette

Links

Page Summary

Active Entries

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags