can i be morally superior at least?
Ex:
- Conservatism
- Liberalism
- Libertarianism
- Socialism
- Communism
- Anarchism
- Fascism (although rarely claimed)
Bisexual was a scientific term originating in the late 1700s referring to living beings that had more than one sex. The term originally applied to plants that had both male and female sexes in one specimen, and the term was later used to describe the theoretical human ancestor that had both male and female sexes simultaneously. In the mid-1900s, the term was also used to describe things that are unisex, like a bisexual/unisex hat or scarf. These definitions persisted until the mid to late 1900s.
The earliest use of bisexual referring to a sexual orientation was in the late 1800s, where it was used only in clinical settings to define attraction to two sexes, which was considered a mental illness along with homosexuality.
Kinseyβs work on sexuality in the mid-1900s did not refer to bisexuality because at the time the term was more commonly used to describe having or relating to more than one sex, not a sexual orientation. However, bisexuals fall in Kinseyβs scale in between heterosexual and homosexual attraction, and this is how many bisexuals define their attraction today β including both hetero and homosexual attraction.
Bisexual became a term used by people in the community to self-identify and describe their sexual and romantic orientations by the 1970s, and itβs definition by activists was not limited to attraction to two sexes. Here are a few examples of how early bisexual activists defined their attraction:
>βAs one who views herself as a feminist bisexual womanβ¦ I must challenge yet a third aspect of sexism which has not yet been challenged, at least not on a large scale. I call this aspect two-genderism, a rather clumsy term upon which I hope someone will improve. [β¦] Literature which insists that there are only women and men is conspiring unconsciously with sexist forces to crush those in between. [β¦] My main feeling is that I want to love human beings; sex and gender should not be determining factors.β β Margo, βBeyond Two-Genderism: Notes of a Radical Transsexual,β The Second Wave: A Magazine of the New Feminism (1972)
>βItβs easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and thatβs the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not gendersβ¦β β Martin Duberman (1974)
>βBeing bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.β β Ja
... keep reading on reddit β‘Personally, I am quite annoyed by 'inclusivity' in historical drama but I want to hear you guys' thoughts on this.
Oh, and the reason I'm annoyed by it is going to be in comments.
>Racism, however, requires a contemporary or historical structure that generates and perpetuates it. No such structure exists in the case of Hinduphobia. Unlike antisemitism, Islamophobia or anti-black racism, it has no historical or material basis.
>In Bangladesh, horrific attacks have recently taken place on the Hindu minority. But the killings and attacks on temples are not part of a global phenomenon. Communal violence has been endemic in south Asia for many decades β often rising to terrifying levels. This has been acerbated, many activists say, by the knock-on effects of the rise of the BJP and raging Islamophobia in India on the south Asian region as a whole.
>As for the claim that Hinduphobia exists in India too, this is absurd since India is a Hindu-majority country with a Hindu supremacist government in power.
https://bylinetimes.com/2021/12/09/the-new-strategies-of-hindu-supremacists-in-britain/
I am an Indian, so I know the India side of this debate fairly well. One of the "big questions" here is why we never recorded history or treated it like a science, despite being one of the oldest civilizations on Earth and being relatively very advanced in fields like Grammar/Linguistics or Mathematics or Philosophy. This was not due to a loss of material or inability to keep record, since we preserved much older texts just by oral recitation (c.f - the Rigveda dated to approximately 1200-1500 BCE~ preserved down to the last pitch accent). In fact, our preservation of the Rigveda was so good that modern linguistics relied heavily on it to reconstruct Proto-Indo-European (spoken approx in 3500-4500 BCE). Around 65% of the PIE cognates are reconstructed with the aid of Sanskrit. Now, our scribes managed to preserve enough of Classical Sanskrit literature as well, quite faithfully. It seems as if our PurΔαΉas combined with our dynastic vaαΉΕΔvalΔ«-s (pseudo historical records of kings) served a quasi-historical role but we never developed the science of historiography. Why?
Note: There is one exception here. Kashmir is the only state in India that does have a fairly faithful historiographic tradition, (c.f - Kalhana, Jonaraja and the RΔjΔtaraαΉ gini). Any thoughts on this?
Coming to Iran, I know a small bit of Iranian history but not enough. From what I know, our Iranic cousins & neighbors do not have any historical chronicles either (say from the Achaemenid Period). Why is this so? Why do we rely so heavily on Greek or Chinese or Islamic era chronicles for Indo-Iranian history? Is this possibly due to some ancestral cultural attitudes as the Indo-Iranians had almost an identical religion and language when they split apart. Possibly some common revulsion to history as too materialistic? I don't know, so I ask you all and hope I get some good answers.
Cheers.
mass murder and rape of their ancestors like this is shocking. I have no idea who this woman is, but it's mindblowing that she feels it's acceptable to take part in such a scene, considering what it represents
https://np.reddit.com/r/aznidentity/comments/sbdgnx/any_lu_here_lol/
robert downey jr was also in all those superhero movies or whatever they are (again, movies which are often deeply racist) - this is why it's insane for Asian countries to allow any western media - afterall, even a particular movie isn't problematic, you know for a fact their cast have been involved in all kinds of anti-Asian movies - to support an industry that outright hates you is I would say as equally fucked up, really
Bisexual was a scientific term originating in the late 1700s referring to living beings that had more than one sex. The term originally applied to plants that had both male and female sexes in one specimen, and the term was later used to describe the theoretical human ancestor that had both male and female sexes simultaneously. In the mid-1900s, the term was also used to describe things that are unisex, like a bisexual/unisex hat or scarf. These definitions persisted until the mid to late 1900s.
The earliest use of bisexual referring to a sexual orientation was in the late 1800s, where it was used only in clinical settings to define attraction to two sexes, which was considered a mental illness along with homosexuality.
Kinseyβs work on sexuality in the mid-1900s did not refer to bisexuality because at the time the term was more commonly used to describe having or relating to more than one sex, not a sexual orientation. However, bisexuals fall in Kinseyβs scale in between heterosexual and homosexual attraction, and this is how many bisexuals define their attraction today β including both hetero and homosexual attraction.
Bisexual became a term used by people in the community to self-identify and describe their sexual and romantic orientations by the 1970s, and itβs definition by activists was not limited to attraction to two sexes. Here are a few examples of how early bisexual activists defined their attraction:
>βAs one who views herself as a feminist bisexual womanβ¦ I must challenge yet a third aspect of sexism which has not yet been challenged, at least not on a large scale. I call this aspect two-genderism, a rather clumsy term upon which I hope someone will improve. [β¦] Literature which insists that there are only women and men is conspiring unconsciously with sexist forces to crush those in between. [β¦] My main feeling is that I want to love human beings; sex and gender should not be determining factors.β β Margo, βBeyond Two-Genderism: Notes of a Radical Transsexual,β The Second Wave: A Magazine of the New Feminism (1972)
>βItβs easier, I believe, for exclusive heterosexuals to tolerate (and thatβs the word) exclusive homosexuals than [bisexuals] who, rejecting exclusivity, sleep with people not gendersβ¦β β Martin Duberman (1974)
>βBeing bisexual does not mean they have sexual relations with both sexes but that they are capable of meaningful and intimate involvement with a person regardless of gender.β β Janet
... keep reading on reddit β‘