LGBTAitP #28: Come Taste the Rainbow!

[Mina Kobold]

I mostly agree with this.
Even the part that disorders are looked upon as something bad.
Though people here don't mind ADD, and certainly don't need them to be passive. I myself have ADD, and I take medication not to feel passive, but because it actually helps me to study, focus, etc (and the fact that alcohol works twice as much with Ritalin+I don't feel hunger anymore+ don't need to sleep for another 4 hours)

Some disorders, though, are really accepted (and sometimes abused) by people. The first time I told anyone I had Obsessive Truth Disorder (OTD), they were interrogating me like police on CSI. Most people find it a good quality, though.

In case I need to clarify, I was lamenting the fact that it is seen as mandatory for ADD to be met with medication. Taking medicine or other stimulants by choice is perfectly fine. Plenty of people take sleep medication or ingest ridiculous amounts of caffeine to affect their activity levels and sleep cycles, so ADD medication sounds great! ^_^

Enforced (Or peer-pressured) caffeine intakes would be pretty scary, though. Eep. ._.

I hope none of them were mean about the OTD. I like inquiry, but interrogation sounds a bit like they forgot that you are not their encyclopedia. ^_^'

Though, I admit. I am kind of curious about what OTD is. I could not find it through Wikipedia or the APA's website... Sorries! >_<

So are you assuming that authority deserves respect automatically by virtue of it being authority?

If it is an authority in the field in question (such as a teacher in the field of classroom behaviour, or a peer-reviewed biology journal on biology), then I would answer yes. Respect is good for those.

Obedience is not a necessary follow-up, though. Expertice is not infallibility or unique, after all.

[SiuiS]

I don't want to sound condescending, but you're actually wrong on this one.
A tautology are two words that mean exactly the same: over and again, big and huge.
What you're saying is a pleonasm. A pleonasm is when you say one thing already includes a property, and that property (english is not my native language): white snow (snow is always white), green grass(grass is always green), wet rain (rain is ALWAYS wet).

I dunno, they seem similar enough to me.

Spoiler

Show

Also, non-white snow an non-green grass are both things. Snow can contain contaminated in the same fashion as acid rain, and grass is often yellow, brown or rarely orange. Grass requires a huge amount of water around these parts to stay green. Non-wet rain though, you've got me there. It could be chalky and Leave ashes, but it's still liquid.

I think the main difference is the training the police receives. Here, in The Netherlands, police is trained real hard to avoid any type of conflict, and to systematically handle every problem.
In the USA, I believe (from what I've seen/heard), police is trained to give as many bills as possible, and as little arrests as necessary.

That's pretty off the mark. Police training works on a lot of the same principles across the world from what I've seen. Different levels of government intervention change how it's utilized, but that's natural.

On a completely different note:
I went bad yesterday, in twofold:
I drank too much, went bad (first time experience!)
I broke a relationship (now I feel bad :smallsad:)

Sucks. Hope you feel better.

So are you assuming that authority deserves respect automatically by virtue of it being authority?

No, but I am, personally, assuming that one boulder demonize authority just because it's authority. That's just as destructive, and just as pointless. I've seen people turn on their friends because said friend joine the police force – how stupid and nonsensical is it to say "we can't be friends anymore because now I can't drink and drive around you"? A societal dislike of authority because it ruins your fun is asinine.

Additionally? Professional occupations deserve a bit of blind faith. Engineers are trained in engineering, I'm not going to have them bust out their credentials and give them the stink eye during a discussion. An authority on a subject should e trusted on that subject, that's what being an authority entails. Obedience? No. But benefit of the doubt makes sense. Else why should anyone trust anyone else? Even our own conversations here would fall apart.

[Socratov]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodios (or something like that, my latin is terrible)

I trust authority for being authority for the simple reason that they answer to someone else too laying down rules. And personally I applaud people taking up a civil service job like military or police since i want to be protected and am too lazy and damned to do that job myself. If you hate the authority like police and politicians be my guest, provided you are willing to take up the job yourself and do it better.

Tl;dr: be constructive, not destructive.

[Kindablue]

Whatever the formal definition of either, a tautological pleonasm is both.

[gunnar11]

In case I need to clarify, I was lamenting the fact that it is seen as mandatory for ADD to be met with medication. Taking medicine or other stimulants by choice is perfectly fine. Plenty of people take sleep medication or ingest ridiculous amounts of caffeine to affect their activity levels and sleep cycles, so ADD medication sounds great! ^_^

Meh, just like coffee or sleeping pills, it can break you if you don't take it on schedule.

Enforced (Or peer-pressured) caffeine intakes would be pretty scary, though. Eep. ._.

I think it would be hilarious the first couple of minutes, then it would be getting creepy. Forcing someone to stay awake is pretty evil (begins devicing plans)

I hope none of them were mean about the OTD. I like inquiry, but interrogation sounds a bit like they forgot that you are not their encyclopedia. ^_^'

The weren't interrogating my disorder, I wish. They were abusing it, asking things they wanted to know about me/my thoughts. Check below the next quote ;)

Though, I admit. I am kind of curious about what OTD is. I could not find it through Wikipedia or the APA's website... Sorries! >_<

Right, I get that a lot.
OTD or Obsessive Truth Disorder, is a rare disorder that one in 5 milion has. It is mostly caused by a traumatic event in someone's life. Sometimes it's associated with PTSD, but it can be classified as a disorder on itself.

What it does, is that you're unable to lie. Or, well, you can lie, but you will get depressed until you confess, and even after that, you'll feel bad (at least, in my case).
So basically: I cannot lie.
Writing, on the other hand, is no problem.

Currently I'm receiving training for it, though. Learning how to circumvent questions, and a lot of technicallities.
I, for example, already have a problem with the question "How are you?", as I can't answer 'Fine' if I don't mean it.

I dunno, they seem similar enough to me.

Spoiler

Show

But they aren't. There's a small difference, but important in linguistics.
To use a really bad metaphor, there's a difference between a mule and a hinny, even though it's barely noticeable.

Also, non-white snow an non-green grass are both things. Snow can contain contaminated in the same fashion as acid rain, and grass is often yellow, brown or rarely orange. Grass requires a huge amount of water around these parts to stay green. Non-wet rain though, you've got me there. It could be chalky and Leave ashes, but it's still liquid.

In these examples, you are to use the stereotype qualities of these things.

That's pretty off the mark. Police training works on a lot of the same principles across the world from what I've seen. Different levels of government intervention change how it's utilized, but that's natural.

But they aren't judged fit for the job in the same way.
I know the skills have to be the same, but I can imagine that in one country, you have to repeat the course over and over and over again until you make no more mistakes in dealing with every type of situation, while in another country
"A man with a knife walks towards you"
"I take out my gun and tell him to back down"
"Okay, you pass"
suffices.

Sucks. Hope you feel better.

Well, I found the first to be an interesting experience, not to be repeated.
The second fixed itself, so I'm back to my old self.

"we can't be friends anymore because now I can't drink and drive around you"

And that isn't even true. When off-duty, police officers don't have to uphold the law, and might as well get drunk and drive, or let their friends do the same.

Quis custodiet ipsos custodios (or something like that, my latin is terrible)

I trust authority for being authority for the simple reason that they answer to someone else too laying down rules. And personally I applaud people taking up a civil service job like military or police since i want to be protected and am too lazy and damned to do that job myself. If you hate the authority like police and politicians be my guest, provided you are willing to take up the job yourself and do it better.

Tl;dr: be constructive, not destructive.

I think you meant: Custodie eum quis custodiet. Guard them who guard you.
Or you meant what you wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodios. Who guards the guards themselves?

I think respecting authority is one of the best courses of action one can take. You are being protected by them, they do everything in your best interest, and as such, you should respect them. I, for one, respect everything that 'serves' me.

Whatever the formal definition of either, a tautological pleonasm is both.

Hahaha, oh the fun I'm having xD
The thing is, that a tautological pleonasm is neither pleonasm, nor tautology. Like I said, and SiuiS matched it with the dictionary, if something is part of the other, then it's a pleonasm, if it's exactly the same, it's a tautology.

[noparlpf]

So are you assuming that authority deserves respect automatically by virtue of it being authority?

Yes and no. An authority that doesn't earn respect isn't deserving of respect, but authorities should be respectable (something at which many do fail). And the culture of disrespect for authority I see is more just disrespecting any and all authorities regardless of whether they deserve respect just because they might obstruct one's fun. It's really rather juvenile.

[THAC0]

I think respecting authority is one of the best courses of action one can take. You are being protected by them, they do everything in your best interest, and as such, you should respect them. I, for one, respect everything that 'serves' me.

The second part of that is the problem. In a perfect world, yeah. In the real world? Not always.

[Kindablue]

I think you meant: Custodie eum quis custodiet. Guard them who guard you.
Or you meant what you wrote: Quis custodiet ipsos custodios. Who guards the guards themselves?

It's from Satires, and more recently, Watchmen.

The thing is, that a tautological pleonasm is neither pleonasm, nor tautology. Like I said, and SiuiS matched it with the dictionary, if something is part of the other, then it's a pleonasm, if it's exactly the same, it's a tautology.

In casual conversation tautology and pleonasm are both simply the unnecessary use of words, and can take many forms. Never argue about semantics is one of the six soft-and-slow rules I live by, so I am done here.

[Lord Raziere]

Yes and no. An authority that doesn't earn respect isn't deserving of respect, but authorities should be respectable (something at which many do fail). And the culture of disrespect for authority I see is more just disrespecting any and all authorities regardless of whether they deserve respect just because they might obstruct one's fun. It's really rather juvenile.

well here is the thing I've noticed about cultures in humanity:

at a certain level, cultures aren't really capable of such nuance as well….anyone would like them to be. if a culture is about freedom,its about freedom all the way, if its about safety, its about safety all the way, even if doesn't start out as such ways, cultures can change itself towards such directions.

culture is basically a big blunt unwieldy thing that you can't really stop, just change the direction its going like a river. and the current way the river (of America at least) is flowing is: authority bad. don't trust authority.
anything else is too complex for the river to process.

[KenderWizard]

That makes a lot of sense. Now I just have to figure out why it took four or five years to get that definition XD

Such is life.

Aye. I just thought there would be some conversational/friendship value in sharing my foibles~

Oh, certainly!

I don't know about adolescents in Europe, but my peers have no respect for authority. They flaunt their disrespect, some of them. And it's backed up by grade schools caving to angry parents, and no real punishments for anything. The kids who smoke on the fire escape outside my window are breaking three school rules and a law, and they just go right back outside after the cops finish writing them up and leave, and nothing's ever actually done about it. So why bother respecting authority? Nobody's ever taught that the authorities are deserving of respect.

Well, part of adolescence is pushing against the boundaries of authority in order to form your own identity. On the other hand, *rolls eyes*. I don't have time for that kind of thing. I'm trying to imagine "adolescents in Europe". I suspect, in my experience, the adults involved (teachers, chaperones, lecturers, whoever) would have yelled at the teens and the teens would have then been unwilling to do it again. That always seemed to be how things would go down.

I don't want to sound condescending, but you're actually wrong on this one.
A tautology are two words that mean exactly the same: over and again, big and huge.
What you're saying is a pleonasm. A pleonasm is when you say one thing already includes a property, and that property (english is not my native language): white snow (snow is always white), green grass(grass is always green), wet rain (rain is ALWAYS wet).

My understanding is a tautology is expressing the same information twice, a synonym is a word that means exactly the same as another word (big/large/huge), and a pleonasm is using more words than necessary to express a concept. Okay, hang on...

*wikipedia*

Tautology and pleonasm are not the same thing. Pleonasm is defined as "the use of more words than those necessary to denote mere sense."[1] A round circle. A big giant. Tautology is a repetition of the same idea in different words: A huge great big man. Say it over again once more. (Say it over. Say it again. Say it once more.) The crucial difference is that "Repeat it again" is a pleonasm, because again is inherent to "repeat". Repeat and again do not simply mean the same thing, which means that this is not a tautological repetition of the same thing in a different word – just as tuna and fish are not the same thing.[2]

On a completely different note:
I went bad yesterday, in twofold:
I drank too much, went bad (first time experience!)
I broke a relationship (now I feel bad :smallsad:)

First time drinking too much is a memorable experience. Hope you're cool. Relationship breaking is actually bad, unless the person was bad for you, or you bad for them. Hope you're okay.

[SiuiS]

But they aren't. There's a small difference, but important in linguistics.
To use a really bad metaphor, there's a difference between a mule and a hinny, even though it's barely noticeable.

I quibble details often enough to give that to you, but you'll not that KenderWizard was specifically phrasing it in a way that was conversationally understandable, because technical definitions hand worked for years. She's not wrong, so much as adaptive.

In these examples, you are to use the stereotype qualities of these things.

But you're the one getting technical, luv~!

It's from Satires, and more recently, Watchmen.


In casual conversation tautology and pleonasm are both simply the unnecessary use of words, and can take many forms. Never argue about semantics is one of the six soft-and-slow rules I live by, so I am done here.

What are the other five, pray? They sound like good rules.

[Faulty]

I'm just with Noam Chomsky in so far as I think all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise.

[Selpharia]

I'm just with Noam Chomsky in so far as I think all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise.

Ok, but how do you prove legitimacy? Every authority can produce evidence and a narrative that makes it legitimate, at least in its own eyes.

Aside: Do tautological pleonasms normally fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Redundancy Department?



On a personal note, coming out to my aunt went really well. She was really supportive. It's kind of funny in retrospect because I went in thinking I'd have to defend and explain myself, but she didn't question the legitimacy of my transness at all. She just told me that she's willing to support me, and listen if I need someone to talk to. I asked her to try not to use male idioms when referring to me and she was fine with that (actually switching pronouns would be too much of a giveaway to people I don't want to know yet.) Oh, and she agreed to go clothes shopping with me once the semester's over!

(✿◠‿◠)b

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

~Laura

[Lix Lorn]

Aside: Do tautological pleonasms normally fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Redundancy Department?

Yeah, they do, because they do.

On a personal note, coming out to my aunt went really well.

Aunts are the best.

[SiuiS]

Ok, but how do you prove legitimacy? Every authority can produce evidence and a narrative that makes it legitimate, at least in its own eyes.

There is that. Really, I just don't understand prepackaged bias like that. Hate the po-po is no different than hate the [slang for ethnic group]. Callin them an "Authority" doesn't justify it.

On a personal note, coming out to my aunt went really well. She was really supportive. It's kind of funny in retrospect because I went in thinking I'd have to defend and explain myself, but she didn't question the legitimacy of my transness at all. She just told me that she's willing to support me, and listen if I need someone to talk to. I asked her to try not to use male idioms when referring to me and she was fine with that (actually switching pronouns would be too much of a giveaway to people I don't want to know yet.) Oh, and she agreed to go clothes shopping with me once the semester's over!

Really cool! I'm glad things went well. Even moreso that shopping can be had, that's grand! It's unfortunate things are complicated enough that a pronoun switch would be a tip-off though.

(✿◠‿◠)b

This is awesome.

[Kindablue]

I wish I had a cool aunt. I have plenty of crazy aunts, but no cool aunts.

Except in my car.

What are the other five, pray? They sound like good rules.

There are not, taking my life thus far into account.

[Kindablue]

There is that. Really, I just don't understand prepackaged bias like that. Hate the po-po is no different than hate the [slang for ethnic group]. Callin them an "Authority" doesn't justify it.

That's a total strawman. Faulty didn't say anything about hating cops, just that wearing a blue suit isn't in itself a good reason to let someone walk over other people on the "blind faith" that they have the common welfare in mind.

[Selpharia]

I think the issue was more that "all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise" suggests advocating that all manifestations of authority be resisted as default, which Siuis sees as unnecessarily hostile since the "authority" figure usually hasn't done anything to warrant such hostility, so it's the same kind of pre-judgment that makes bigotry, hence the connection to other groups that face discrimination. I don't think anyone is arguing against a better middle ground between blind obedience and blind resistance, even if they would skew that middle ground more toward resistance or obedience according to personal preference. If I'm wrong though please correct me.

~Laura

[Kindablue]

Yeah, and that was a false analogy too. Police forces have the responsibility to the people they protect to be lawful and just; ethnic minorities don't have the responsibility to prove anything to ethnic majorities.

I got 3 to 1 odds on this conversation not existing tomorrow (though I don't think we're breaking any rules), so I'm going to talk about something else also. There's a hilarious deleted scene from Knocked Up with Jonah Hill monologuing on Brokeback Mountain for a few minutes that I just found. I get why it's not in the movie, but man is that funny. He makes some pretty explicit sexual references, so linking it would just raise the odds of this not exisiting tomorrow, but it's not hard to find online.

[SiuiS]

That's a total strawman. Faulty didn't say anything about hating cops, just that wearing a blue suit isn't in itself a good reason to let someone walk over other people on the "blind faith" that they have the common welfare in mind.

It's less of a strawman, and more pointing out what I said when this whole thing started. The conversation on legitimacy of authority came after my shaking my head at people hating cops because they're cops. You'll notice myth raising was specifically a change-of-subject.

What I find interesting is that there doesn't seem to be any notion of a middle ground; I say "I find hatred of authority just because to be baffling". The response was basically "why not? Authority doesn't have any special power just because" which not only wasn't what I said, but also shot from 'don't worship' to 'despise until told otherwise'. That's pretty severe, and is intentionally phrased to make it seem like obedience or combat are the only options, which I find equally silly.

Also, you're on: what coin? I suggest art. Single picture within reasonable bounds, han drawn. Deal?

[Serpentine]

Erm... Literally the only Google result for "Obsessive Truth Disorder" is this thread. Do you have any other source on it, Gunnar? Does it maybe usually have a different name?

[Saskia]

I dunno, they seem similar enough to me.

Spoiler

Show

It's a subtle difference, but a significant one. A tautology is a logical statement which is true by virtue of its construction, while a pleonasm adds to a statement something that is entirely unnecessary by logical necessity. "I saw it with my own eyes" is not a tautology, but a pleonasm because you cannot see in any way other than with your own eyes. "The door is either closed or not closed" is a tautology because there are no conditions under which the statement is untrue. A pleonasm can be but does not have to be redundant.

That's pretty off the mark. Police training works on a lot of the same principles across the world from what I've seen. Different levels of government intervention change how it's utilized, but that's natural.

I don't disagree, but the role of police can vary greatly while maintaining the same training, just like the role of an engineer can vary greatly while the training remains mostly the same. Different uses most certainly constitute different focus in training even if the training itself is fairly uniform.

Additionally? Professional occupations deserve a bit of blind faith. Engineers are trained in engineering, I'm not going to have them bust out their credentials and give them the stink eye during a discussion. An authority on a subject should e trusted on that subject, that's what being an authority entails. Obedience? No. But benefit of the doubt makes sense. Else why should anyone trust anyone else? Even our own conversations here would fall apart.

I don't agree. I won't give much more than the cadence of my voice to an architectural firm with a reputation for building buildings which are structurally unsound. I won't give them the stink-eye, no, but I still won't hire somebody and assume they're competent just because they're professionals. I will grant that in more esoteric fields like biology or cosmology or whatever else I'll assume they know what they're talking about most of the time, but that's largely because of how rigorous scientific methodology is in most everything but clinical psychology. If you want to use a broad definition of faith then I suppose you could apply it there, but even then it isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) blind faith.

I think respecting authority is one of the best courses of action one can take. You are being protected by them, they do everything in your best interest, and as such, you should respect them. I, for one, respect everything that 'serves' me.

First, you have to define "respect" and what that entails, because respect can mean very different things to different people. I don't waste my time calling people out if I don't respect them, but others think of respect as a duty to defer judgment. Second, living in the nation with the highest rate of incarceration per capita wouldn't lend itself to believing that your government cares to serve you in any capacity. Complacency of the public is the breeding pit for corruption in the authoritative body, and trust is the spawning pool of complacency. I would say it's a civic duty to question authority and hold authority figures accountable for their actions, regardless of what context in which that authority lies. Power will always try to do what is best for itself, no matter what its duty is, and assuming it can be trusted is like assuming your flushing dogs are looking out for your pheasants when you aren't around.

[Mina Kobold]

Quis custodiet ipsos custodios (or something like that, my latin is terrible)

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes, actually. Very close! ^_^

The weren't interrogating my disorder, I wish. They were abusing it, asking things they wanted to know about me/my thoughts. Check below the next quote ;)

Isn't that very similar to feeding someone a truth serum and interrogating them about their personal life? ._.

Right, I get that a lot.
OTD or Obsessive Truth Disorder, is a rare disorder that one in 5 milion has. It is mostly caused by a traumatic event in someone's life. Sometimes it's associated with PTSD, but it can be classified as a disorder on itself.

What it does, is that you're unable to lie. Or, well, you can lie, but you will get depressed until you confess, and even after that, you'll feel bad (at least, in my case).
So basically: I cannot lie.
Writing, on the other hand, is no problem.

Currently I'm receiving training for it, though. Learning how to circumvent questions, and a lot of technicallities.
I, for example, already have a problem with the question "How are you?", as I can't answer 'Fine' if I don't mean it.

Fascinating, if probably not very fun if people use it as an excuse to interrogate you. Anywhere I could read about it? I feel a bit bad asking someone about their personality traits if I do not know how comfortable they are talking about it. ^_^'

I can however, mention that a discomfort with lying (it is related to the difference in how neurological input and signals are filtered) is a common trait of Asperger's Syndrome. Have noticed that in myself (Unless being obviously humorous, I have difficulty being knowingly incorrect) but it is probably far far different from OTD.

I'm just with Noam Chomsky in so far as I think all authority is illegitimate unless proven otherwise.

To be annoyingly technical (sorries!), this statement places Noam Chomsky as an authority. For the inclusion of the name to be relevant, that person's words have to carry weight, even if it is admittedly just because they said it well. ^_^'

Personally, I think the word authority needs a qualifier or two. It is true that authorities established by unsound means (ie. aristocracy, dictatorships, etc.) should be met with scepticism and gain only the respect they earn. However, an authority can also be granted exactly because a person can show that they have expertise. A respectable degree in Astrophysics would make someone an authority, for example, but it would also be the evidence that they should be respected on that field. Same is supposed to be true for governments and police, they are elected or assigned based on their expertise at the job.
Not that they should not also be met with scepticism, but they should not be considered illegitimate as a default. At least, not as I understand it, but I may misunderstand the concept entirely.

[SiuiS]

I don't disagree, but the role of police can vary greatly while maintaining the same training, just like the role of an engineer can vary greatly while the training remains mostly the same. Different uses most certainly constitute different focus in training even if the training itself is fairly uniform.

Is that not what I said?

I don't agree. I won't give much more than the cadence of my voice to an architectural firm with a reputation for building buildings which are structurally unsound. I won't give them the stink-eye, no, but I still won't hire somebody and assume they're competent just because they're professionals. I will grant that in more esoteric fields like biology or cosmology or whatever else I'll assume they know what they're talking about most of the time, but that's largely because of how rigorous scientific methodology is in most everything but clinical psychology. If you want to use a broad definition of faith then I suppose you could apply it there, but even then it isn't (or at least, shouldn't be) blind faith.

That's fair. Blind faith is no what I was going for, and a poor choice of words. Not blind faith, but educated faith. Learn ye systems, so you know what an office entails, and decide from there whether it's worth trusting. Sorry for being so bass-ackwards there.

First, you have to define "respect" and what that entails, because respect can mean very different things to different people. I don't waste my time calling people out if I don't respect them, but others think of respect as a duty to defer judgment. Second, living in the nation with the highest rate of incarceration per capita wouldn't lend itself to believing that your government cares to serve you in any capacity. Complacency of the public is the breeding pit for corruption in the authoritative body, and trust is the spawning pool of complacency. I would say it's a civic duty to question authority and hold authority figures accountable for their actions, regardless of what context in which that authority lies. Power will always try to do what is best for itself, no matter what its duty is, and assuming it can be trusted is like assuming your flushing dogs are looking out for your pheasants when you aren't around.

Hmm. I can't really say anything without expecting "that is why you need to define respect" as the obvious rebuttal.

I find respect is best met by treating someone as you would like to be treated, and wishing to be treated like you treat others. Questioning authority and holding them responsible for their actions is part of respect. I think Gunnar and I – or at least I, as ive no right to speak for him – are unconsciously framing things in such a way that said authority is in the right to be exercising their power in this nebulous circumstance. I'll question an officer, say, speak to his superiors and insist on my known rights despite what they may say, all other things being equal, such as being pulled over for no real reason. They have a right to pull me over, if only so I can clarify that nothing went wrong, etc., but if I have reason to believe said officer is acting in their intense capacity – there was screaming, a gun shot or two, and the officer is obviously presenting himself as an authority – then I will obey immediate orders ("Get out of the car" "hands where I can see them", an such) because I have every reason to believe that I am helping the officer, helping myself, and that he or she has a right to do so in these circumstances.

That's where I believe we are coming from, a position where we have no evidence that the officer is acting outside o capacity or even any reason to suspect it. In instances where an officer has told me to, say, give them my knife, I have and will again refuse until they give me a receipt for its seizure and their badge number, and having tem call in other officers as backup can only help me in the end. This is because I know my rights in this instance, and the officer may not. Some of them will, indeed, be willing to pocket a cool knife off the hooks, but some honestly just weren't aware that taking it wasn't okay. So I guess again, it comes down to benefit of the doubt.

I had a way to make this thread relevant, and specifically about something I was goin to bring up, but I lost it during dinner. Something something cliques, gay community, angry people assuming command of a 'movement', something something dark side.

I'd say I we to write this stuff down for later but, here we are >_<

[Triscuitable]

This boy is a child I met on Reddit. He's 13, and he's been bullied for his sexuality. I saw his post on how he was suicidal.

Please, send him a message. Lift his spirits. Make him feel happy.

Don't let him die because this is just a boy. Please.

[Astrella]

Yes and no. An authority that doesn't earn respect isn't deserving of respect, but authorities should be respectable (something at which many do fail). And the culture of disrespect for authority I see is more just disrespecting any and all authorities regardless of whether they deserve respect just because they might obstruct one's fun. It's really rather juvenile.

Authorities don't deserve any respect that any random person doesn't deserve by default solely on the merit that they are authorities. Trust is an active thing, not a passive thing and I'll trust people if they show me that they can be trusted. Blind trust is a dangerous thing. Like, a physicist making a claim just as much needs to support that with a good reasoning as someone else. Etc...

On a personal note, coming out to my aunt went really well. She was really supportive. It's kind of funny in retrospect because I went in thinking I'd have to defend and explain myself, but she didn't question the legitimacy of my transness at all. She just told me that she's willing to support me, and listen if I need someone to talk to. I asked her to try not to use male idioms when referring to me and she was fine with that (actually switching pronouns would be too much of a giveaway to people I don't want to know yet.) Oh, and she agreed to go clothes shopping with me once the semester's over!

(✿◠‿◠)b

And now we return you to your regularly scheduled thread.

~Laura

Ooh, that went really well then? Glad it turned out that she's supportive.

This boy is a child I met on Reddit. He's 13, and he's been bullied for his sexuality. I saw his post on how he was suicidal.

Please, send him a message. Lift his spirits. Make him feel happy.

Don't let him die because this is just a boy. Please.

Message sent.

[ScionoftheVoid]

This boy is a child I met on Reddit. He's 13, and he's been bullied for his sexuality. I saw his post on how he was suicidal.

Please, send him a message. Lift his spirits. Make him feel happy.

Don't let him die because this is just a boy. Please.

I've written something. As I say there, I'm not the person to be doing it. But I know how they feel, and I hope the same thing that's helped me will help him. I owe it to the people who care about him to try.

[Astrella]

Ugh, I need to stay away from reddit. Apparently referring to people by their gender identity rather than their assigned sex is now "transsexist". (Because you know, referring to people by their gender identity totally invalidates cis people's gender identities like cissexism invalidates trans* people's identities, right?)

[Asta Kask]

I'll be going into hibernation for a month or so. I've been getting worse - it's the darkness that's getting to me - and me snapping at Lena was a symptom of that. If I continue like this on this side of the solstice there's a risk I'll get banned and I don't want that. I really don't want that.

I'll be contacting Roland to ask that he temp-ban me until Jan 1st. Thank you all.

[Serpentine]

Ugh, I need to stay away from reddit. Apparently referring to people by their gender identity rather than their assigned sex is now "transsexist". (Because you know, referring to people by their gender identity totally invalidates cis people's gender identities like cissexism invalidates trans* people's identities, right?)

Eywot? I thought reddit etc. were really good - to the point of ridiculousness - about that sort of thing? Linky possible?