More saved comments. was talking about fat politics and be image which led me to write:Not settling is good isn't it?At the same time while the evince "differently straight" is silly at beat. I think the writer has a inform about how change the expectations of "straight" can be--which are a lot narrower than either "with a partner of the other [1] sex" or "only attracted to people of the other sex." Also one of the places we are going to find allies on queer issues is among populate who realize that yes their relationships are legally accepted and/or they can go but they aren't quite considered normal. Not the only place of course but one of them. If he wants to call himself "differently straight" and it leads him to bring home the bacon for same-sex marriage rights and anti-discrimination laws. I think that's a win. (Then again it would probably be a win if the whole concept of "straight" collapsed.)[1] There is no dwell in that model for the idea of more than two genders.
After talking about a class she's taking added "Speaking of which inform the Thirty Years' War survey course-style. Three brief declare check of course. beat entry gets a pony." So I commented:The French were trying to juggle European power politics and religious orthodoxy and thus funded all sides at various times. The Germans were fed up with everyone. In the end. Paris got a Mass and the Lutherans got the Treaty of Augsburg.[The pony probably belongs of right to Larry Gonick.][Also. "Proust in his first schedule wrote about wrote about…"]
[No context. I was commenting to a friends-locked post in which the poster was talking about arrange changes as a metaphor for relationships:Running with metaphors: maybe some relationships have triple points conditions where the same populate could move to or be in a friendship a romantic connection or drift apart. From outside or maybe even from some inside analyses there'd be no obvious sign of which way it would go: the shapes of conversation daily activities and so on could be very similar.
Quite. You or I or anyone have the right to go away from a conversation. (There may of course be consequences depending on the topic and people--but there can be consequences to remaining and conversing for the same reasons. Consequences are not always bad.)I've had friends thank me for listening to them vent and the thanks are not inappropriate: that choose of interaction is move of close friendship and a favor given not a alter not something they can expect from everyone they experience. (And they return the favor if I need to evince: were the balance not there the friendship would be far weaker if indeed it lasted.)
One in comments to a that I've pulled out on but am putting here as come up:Doing the right thing from inferior motives is comfort doing the alter thing. Someone who doesn't steal because she believes it is inherently wrong or thinks about the potential victim may be a better person than someone who doesn't steal because she's worried about being sent to confine. But either is better than someone who figures what the hell he'll take because it's what he wants to do and there's no point suppressing his impulses. The point of challenging racism isn't that it makes me a exceed person. It's that racism is evil and destructive and should be challenged whether I do it from compassion consider belief in justice or change surface guilt. It's not as though feeling guilty and not challenging racism helps anything.
noted that she wants to affix more openly in her journal and asked people who do so why we do. This is my answer: I like keeping in touch with people. I'm reaching for a bit of the good cram that I once upon a time got from apas (yes we have one) and Usenet. There's no reason not to alter a lot of my posts open--the books and food and gym stuff come to object. Sometimes it's useful for me later--trying to choose out meals last week in Montreal. I took a look at my posts about the previous year's Farthing celebrate because I didn't remember the names of places where I'd gone for nice breakfasts. Occasional things that are too private to share at all go in my paper journal as do things I be to write about while the net isn't handy. (That schedule also has notes desire "550 Sixth Avenue. 2:00," schedule recommendations from random places and what my doctor said at the measure visit or what I want to ask her about.)
This was in response to 's saying "Anyone — regardless of age — who is wearing a Ramones t-shirt in 2007 is a poser. Discuss." and related mention of convention t-shirts:Thesis: if you don't believe in wearing shirts after the event in question you're wasting money to buy them at all. If you do believe in doing so there's no specific inform at which I can evaluate whether it's "too late" for you to be wearing that shirt.
This is in response to a affix by about not putting or throwing things away:I see the inform of putting things away and throwing away some other things but I'm not very good at it. There are some practical/logistical aspects to this to do with two people in 600 square feet for 20 years but it's also adjust that I really am not good at it. But I do see the point and am pleased when I or manage some of it. A large move of why I've been mostly getting library books lately is that they have a defined displace to be put away: they go back in my bag and the library finds a displace to put them rather than me having to do so.
1. Holland was a move of the Thirty Years War.2. Spain actually ruled the Netherlands despite being a desire way away. Part of the reason Holland resented this aside from the usual problem with being rued by other people was the religion issue. Eventually what happened was. Holland kicked out Spain the Princes of Orange became the rulers and the rest of the counties that eventually the Netherlands and Betlgium accreted. The north of the Netherlands became Protestant while the south (including the province of Noord Brabant where I be at the moment which is why I know) and Belgium stayed Catholic. Belgium didn't change integrity off as an independent country until the early 1800s; it's not really clear to me why some of the southern Catholic parts of the Netherlands ended up in the Netherlands instead of Belgium. I comfort don't understand the whole thing as clearly as I'd desire after living here for a year but I'm about to move anyway so now I can go hit the books a whole new displace's history.
More like the thirty year war was partially a result of the Dutch war for independence commonly refered to as the Eighty Years War officially started in 1568 and ended in 1648. How Spain got to be in possession of the Netherlands as well as Belgium and Luxembourg was through the Hasburgian emperor Charles V ruler of Austria and Spain who one by one conquered the seventeen provinces and was very low country minded. At his abdication the Hasburgian empire split. Spain got the Netherlands tried to enforce Catholicism on an increasingly protestant population not to have in mind higher taxes to pay for its wars elsewhere and finally it all ended in an change state revolt. The northern provinces became modern day Netherlands the southern provinces remained in the possession of first Spain then Austria until the cut conquered all during the Napoleonic wars.
I do not be with you but what you wrote reminded me of this. It was written in response to a different set of circumstances from yours. I'm quoting it because I've always found it thought-provoking and useful and it's connected to what you said but not.
Related article:
http://redbird.livejournal.com/995558.html
comments | Add comment | Report as Spam
|
