Aug. 5th, 2017 10:40 pm
This is a very good essay, and I will link to it every time I feel like responding to people who say "liberals are stifling free speech" and "liberals are intolerant of other views".

I'm pleased to say that I haven't felt like responding to them with any frequency in the past couple of years.

"{P}rotections {of tolerance} extend only to those who would uphold it in turn. To withdraw those protections from those who would destroy it does not violate its moral principles; it is fundamental to them, because without this enforcement, the treaty would collapse. It is appropriate, even ethical, to answer force with proportional force, when that force is required to restore a just peace. We seek peace because on the whole it is far better than war; but as history has taught us, not every peace is better than the war it prevents."
I decided to post this after reading
A few of my neighbors have the "no matter where you're from we're glad you're our neighbor" sign up (

I like these signs. They tell me who is definitely not a Trump voter and I like knowing these things about my neighbors.

I agree with the message of these signs - I like multi-origin communities, and I like people who like them.

At the same time, I would never put this sign up myself. It would feel weird. In the heat of an argument I would (and have) insisted on my right as a citizen to welcome whomever I like into my country, but without the adrenaline rush I guess I just do not feel sufficiently American.
To whom can I speak today?
Brothers are evil
And the friends of today unlovable.
To whom can I speak today?
Hearts are rapacious
And everyone takes his neighbour's goods. [To whom can I speak today?]
Gentleness has perished
And the violent man has come down on everyone.
To whom can I speak today?
Men are contented with evil
And goodness is neglected everywhere.
To whom can I speak today?
He who should enrage a man by his ill deeds,
he makes everyone laugh (by) his wicked wrongdoing.
To whom can I speak today?
Men plunder
And every man robs his neighbour.
To whom can I speak today?
The wrongdoer is an intimate friend
And the brother with whom one used to act is become an enemy.
To whom can I speak today?
None remember the past,
And no one now helps him who used to do (good).
To whom can I speak today?
Brothers are evil,
And men have recourse to strangers for affection.
To whom can I speak today?
Faces are averted,
And every man looks askance at his brethren.
To whom can I speak today?
Hearts are rapacious
And there is no man's heart in which one can trust.
To whom can I speak today?
There are no just persons
And the land is left over to the doers of wrong.
To whom can I speak today?
There is a lack of an intimate friend
And men have recourse to someone unknown in order to complain to him.
-the violent man has come down on everyone

To whom can I speak today?
There is no contented man,
And that person who once walked with him no longer exists.
To whom can I speak today?
I am heavy-laden with trouble
Through lack of an intimate friend.
To whom can I speak today?
The wrong which roams the earth,
There is no end to it
I don't know what America was to Langston Hughes, but to Papashvili America was a joy and a festival, much like life. Today I am re-reading Anything Can Happen and watching

Songs! Friends! Adventures! Honest judges! Naked Georgians! Food! Wine! Love!

Чего и вам, господамы, от чистого сердца!
I like this point of view
for two reasons:

1. It is kinder than my default point of view
2. It brings up the importance of etiquette
"The wealth gap merely puts a number on something we feel but cannot say—that American prosperity was ill-gotten and selective in its distribution. "

"Reparations would mean the end of scarfing hot dogs on the Fourth of July while denying the facts of our heritage."

My guess is all my LJ friends who read English already read Ta-Nehisi Coates call for reparations.  It's a stirring call, but I'm not stirred.  There is no such thing as American prosperity - there is my own prosperity, and I'm not giving up a piece of it as reparation for crimes of others.  
I acknowledge the deep wrong that was done by white Americans to black Americans and want to erase the results of it.  I'll gladly pay for policies to ensure fair housing, fair lending, good schooling and equal job opportunities for the present and future generations, with the understanding that it would lay a basis of equality not only for African-Americans, but for future groups likely to encounter prejudice or to be in danger of dispossession.  
I acknowledge that racism still exists and affects African Americans to a great and horrible extent and am willing to pay for policies to punish it and for policies to prevent it in future generations, with the same understanding.
I do not acknowledge my personal guilt for the wrong that was done, do not believe that I benefit from that wrong, and am strongly opposed to either paying monetary reparations outright, or treating these necessary and beneficial policies as a type of reparations.

После третьего поста во френдленте про котиков пошла отфренживать. Котики вообще прекрасны, но на данный момент ощущаются как некоторый диссонанс.
And this is why I think the anti-discrimination laws in the US are a good thing for the economy as well as for people in general:
This is Spain and, in comments, Germany - not Russia or some other Honduras, and yet a company loses money for a year because a)photos are required with resumes and b)hiring managers use photos to hire unqualified applicants.
In general objectification is the lack of concern for rights, feelings and experiences of the one being objectified.
One can objectify others by treating them as tools or by straight-out destroying some important part of them (life, bodily integrity, liberty, sanity...) for purposes of one's own.
However, this happens relatively rarely.

On everyday basis objectification comes down to fungibility - seeing the ones who are being objectified as interchangeable. E. g. if one sees a husband as a combination hammer/vibrator/atm then all men capable of fulfilling these three functions are interchangeable; if one sees a date as eye-candy all good-looking people of the right gender are interchangeable; if one sees poor people as targets of improvement all poor people are interchangeable; if one gets off on inspiration porn all handicapped people are interchangeable.

Not everyone seems to understand that all of these can be deeply offensive.
They are offensive to many people, and they are offensive despite the fact that multiple men search for a wife on the strength of their income/hammer-wielding abilities, multiple women produce porn and enjoy being perceived as eye-candy, multiple poor people beg, and AlejAndro Anastasio makes inspirational videos.

I am often rude to those people.

Below are links to articles by people more polite than me:
Оооочень интересное распределение ответов и комментариев.
1. 43% уехали бы. Огромный перевес. На втором месте <за белых> - всего 23%.
2. А вот комментарии разделились почти поровну, т. е. те, кто не уехал бы комментируют чаще. Пассионарии, панимашь.

Похожий вопрос (кого они считают героями гражданской войны) я как-то задала двум испанцам по имени Виктор. Они посмотрели на меня как на ненормальную, и сказали (одновременно), что в гражданской войне героев быть не может. Здравая позиция.

Не устаю поражаться людям, искренне верящим, что государство может воспитать иx детей лучше, чем они сами, и обязано этим заниматься.

По сути это парадокс. Именно потому, что они верят в это, они правы - им нельзя доверять воспитание детей. (При условии, что конечный желаемый итог воспитания - думающий и свободный человек).
Однако, государство, признавшее иx правоту, и взявшее на себя воспитание иx детей тем самым утеряет ценности, позволяющие воспитать думающиx и свободныx людей, даже если они у этого государства были. Но если воспитание этиx детей нельзя доверить ни иx родителям, ни государству, то кому же? Лично я - не возьмусь.


Oct. 11th, 2009 09:31 pm
<Пушкин - это наше всё, Церетели - наше везде, а Путин - наше всегда>

В далёкой юности, проходя мимо телевизора в баре отеля (ну ладно, не проходя, потому, что с какой же стати проходить мимо бара, даже если там повесили телевизор?) я увидела на экране погруз солдат в самолёты, и поймала себя на мысли <интересно, наши ли это?> (умеющие отличать солдат по форме меня не поймут. Я отличаю только ромулянцев от клингонов, да и то с трудом.). И сразу задумалась - а что я имею в виду, говоря <наши>, и поняла, что <наши> это эдакая комбинация русских солдат, американских, и израильских. И ужаснулась.

К счастью, о футбольных коммандах у меня таких мыслей не возникает.

А о ком они возникают у вас, господамы? И кто для вас <наши>?
Забавно, что то, что в исполнении Михалкова вызывает жестокий цинизм, в исполнении Лайала (Lyall) вызывает, скорее, a sentimentally wistful kind of cynicism.
Read more... )

UPD: I have been told by Veroniq that Germany has way better health insurance than US and I fully credit it.
Эта идея (заменить слово <брак> во всех официальных документах на <домашнее партнёрство> с сохранением всех прав и распространением на всех жителей) кажется мне не только хорошей, но очень хорошей. Сегодня я пойду искать где бы подписаться. Но радостно не это, а то, что до меня наконец дошла точка зрения оппонентов, за что огромное спасибо терпению Послана.

<если любую религию законодательно запретить назвать иначе, как сектой, бога предписать называть идолищем и последователей религии называть идолопоклонниками, это было бы примерно похоже.>

Я не могу с этим согласиться (мне слово партнёр не кажется оскорбительным, ему кажется), но я хотя бы могу это понять. Мне легче, когда я могу убедить себя, что оппоненты не бездумно ненавидящая толпа, а такие же люди, как я, тоже защищающие свои святыни.

Ещё мне кажется, что брак, как его не называй, это состояние эксплицитного высшего доверия между людьми. Поэтому это состояние священно, и поэтому оно должно быть доступно всем.


It's totally going to fail. The right way is to wait 5 years or so, and pass a proposition amending the Constitution to give marriage rights to everyone, especially since it looks like the marriages made in the happy interim period will not be invalidated. I'm going to vote for it anyhow.


Jan. 9th, 2009 12:10 pm
Из того, что я последнее время читала, лучшее:


Nov. 4th, 2008 09:14 pm
This citizenship thing isn't half bad...
Page generated Oct. 18th, 2017 04:46 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios