AWKWARD ZOMBIE

........ Well, duh???
Definitions and all that.
Internet's just too crazy sometimes.

You'd do well not to call concepts crazy in this thread.

The term cisgender is needed because otherwise people call it "normal" or something similar, which is problematic because it can be used to justify exclusion/harassment/whatever of trans* people. It'd be a bit like calling white people "normal" - that'd be really offensive to people of color.

Speaking of this, may I ask why the accepted term for this sort of stuff is 'queer'? It kind of runs counterintuitive.

I figured it was an attempt to "reclaim" the word.

In some trans* individuals that's true. It's a notable trend, but not 100% accurate.

Then the distinction becomes why it's not present in all people who claim to be trans*, which can go into an ugly debate over whether science, psychology, or philosophy is the best way to handle the issue.

Personally, for me, in the soul-searching I've done on the matter, I've come to the conclusion that there's no distinction between the male and female gender except what people ascribe to it. I'd probably consider myself agender, but I'm not really attached to that, so I default as my physical gender.

Even having these feelings on the matter though, it's important to remember personal feelings on the matter doesn't negate how other people want to be treated, and it's certainly better to accept it even if you don't necessarily understand it. I think this comes up a lot when people insist on knowing people's reasons for being trans* before they can accept them as trans*. It's certainly fine to ponder and try to understand once you give people the courtesy of calling them what they prefer to be called, but they really don't have anything to really "prove" to you.

In my case, I don't have the world view to necessarily know what goes through an otherkin's mind, nor do I think many of you have that benefit too. In that sense (and I think in ONLY that sense) it's similar to trans* issues because of the lack of individuals around to make their personal experience available for better understanding.

If we want to be cynical and believe that it's a phase that people will (hopefully) grow out of, then look back on the phases you personally went through. Generally, you were allowed to live out your personal "bullshit" you used to think, whether it was make believe, imaginary friends, crushes on fictional creatures, stuff like that. Maybe you wish someone would have knocked some sense into you, but would that have worked? Did you ever have your parents shame you for not "growing out" of "embarrassing" habits? Did it ever feel good for them to force you out of that? Would you be the same person as you are now had you not made those "mistakes"?

I'm tolerant of people's "bullshit" as far as they're tolerant of mine. I have no problem entertaining people like otherkin so long as they respect me, regardless of whether it's a legitimate issue or a phase. If they're an actual harm to themselves or others (which the vast majority don't seem to be) that's when help is needed.

But no one needs people to yell and attack them to "break them out of their delusion". That's not how you fix problems. It doesn't help, and it's pretty dickish.

NEW TOPIC WOO: the whole PRISM thing and government surveillance in general.

I feel like I'm in the huge minority, but I honestly don't really mind if the CIA can listen to my phone calls. I don't really have anything to hide, and maybe I've watched too many spy movies, but if the CIA can somehow use that information to stop a criminal somewhere, it sounds to me like its for the greater good. Besides, from what I understand PRISM isn't even targeted towards US citizens, just people living abroad using US communication systems, and even then its more of a general data collection and search engine kind of system (to oversimplify).

Now, if they use that information to directly interfere with my way of life, like shutting down my phone lines or something or censoring what I post on the Web, that's indisputibly a breach of liberty, and is not okay, especially in a society that values freedom so much. However, that freedom doesn't really apply to breaking the law. If a government agency were to gather information that proves someone was breaking the law, then I would think the right thing to do would be to stop that criminal act.

Can someone give my their perspective on why surveillance only is a breach of liberty, though? It seems to me that as long as the government doesn't interfere with a citizen's daily life, I don't see a big problem. Especially since this isn't really an Orwellian security-camera-on-every-street scenario, just a collection of data from a select population. I can see how the idea of not having "total" privacy might make one a bit worried but so long as you can trust your government (I'm an idealist, I know) to not infringe on your life, what's the harm?

That's very nice for you guys but the US has zero business looking at my shit.


You have heard about privacy rights right? Also, if the government has absolute control over you information, it has absolute control over you. You're not far from living in a tyranny then.
Read this for a more comprehensive explanation.

Good article, I liked this quote at the end:


Emphasis mine - I think the problem might be that we don't have clear guidelines set as to what level of monitoring is acceptable. Is it okay to monitor the transactions of a website that sells guns and weapons? Is it okay for Facebook to see what kind of things you buy on Amazon and tailor ads accordingly? Is it okay to collect data about who someone calls, or how often, as long as the phone call itself isn't recorded? I feel like there isn't really a precedent for this stuff, only people's preferences.

I do think people should have privacy rights, but the limits aren't clear. Having complete and total privacy is unrealistic by nature - if you send a letter to someone, others could see you sending it, if you tell a secret to someone, somebody else could overhear. If you live in a society where you depend on systems of economy and government, those systems, probably including some people that you don't know, will have to know some things about you in order to interact with you at all. But there's no clear guideline as to how much they should be able to know about you.

This is from The Current Events thread. Posted it a few days back.

@SC, Those are pretty simple questions, sale of guns should be regulated as the law dictates, and facebook or amazon shouldn't collect your data without asking your permission. It's easy if you view it like this: your information is your property, and nobody should have access to it without your permission or going through the proper legal channels to ensure it is necessary (ie. getting a warrant). In this age information might just be the most valuable commodity, and we are getting robbed blind so to speak.

That's actually a very good point. When you publish your information, you are the publisher. You own every right as to how that information can be used and who can copy it. You actually have copyright on it. When you sign up to services like Facebook you sign away some of your rights to the information. Essentially, nothing you publish on Facebook is owned by you anymore. It is purely Facebooks property. Even if you "delete" the information, the only thing that happens is that Facebook won't let others see it, but it is still on disk. You can't even revoke Facebooks rights to your information.

The way I've always felt about privacy is the only ones who seem to care too much about their privacy are the ones with things to hide. I don't really care if the government wants to snoop on my phone calls or my facebook. All they're gonna hear are weekly calls to my parents, and all they're gonna see is whiny facebook drama from my friends.

The same goes for anyone wanting to search my apartment because they think I committed a crime. The worst they'll find is a mess in my room they'll have to sift through. It's all about confidence. I'm confident that I'm doing absolutely nothing wrong. If you're anal about people being able to tap into your communications, what's that supposed to say about your confidence in what you communicate about?

I'll say it in the words of the Pirate Party.

Everyone has something to hide. And that's not a bad thing.

Alright, try to think of it this way: even if you for some reason don't care that some guy is watching your every move for no reason, with no privacy rights you're only one small step away from living in a perfect tyranny. If the government has control over every information channel, there's no way to organise and protest any of their actions, because they could instantly crack down on any dissenting opinions. Think back to the Occupy Wall Street protesters being labelled terrorists.

Youre ALWAYS doing something wrong, no matter how miniscule. That mess? Could breach tenant laws. Your browser history might reveal some copyright violations. The right to privacy is a protection against abuse from the goverment, a protection from them using their power as a weapon to hit you over the head with.

I view it as the government assuming you're guilty of something until their constant surveillance deems you not guilty.
Which, if you recall, is the direct opposite of our entire justice system.