I fell most autistic trans people are gender non conforming or nbs , is that true?
I don't think I've ever met a gender conforming autistic trans women as me , I don't know if it's just gender conforming trans binary people don't like to say they are autistic . I think I kind understand why since some people use the autism to invalidate us and if you're very dysphoric it may be better to hide it. But I don't know if it's because of that or because we are pretty rare.
Edit: I think I should used gender conforming intead of normative, sorry. I don't think trans people are the norm even if we are gender conforming. But maybe I'm confused.
Sono nuovo in questa sub e forse questo topic è già stato affrontato prima d'ora. Sto pensando di cambiare auto nell'anno che viene, ed è d'obbligo secondo me chiedersi che tipo di auto prendere nel 2022 in modo che possa essere utilizzabile per almeno dieci anni, oppure che mantenga un valore futuro. Ciò è dato dal fatto che negli ultimi tempi le leggi sulle emissioni sono diventate sempre più stringenti, e con un investimento del genere non voglio che il governo fra 6/8 anni mi impedisca di girare in città per via di nuove norme su emissioni di CO2. In questo senso, poi, l'auto a benzina sembra dare più garanzie sul valore futuro del diesel, che vede sempre più restrizioni. Il fatto è che però ad oggi, secondo me, la tecnologia dell'elettrico è ancora acerba e può essere che un auto presa oggi fra 5 anni diventi già obsoleta. Secondo me siamo quindi in un periodo ambiguo in questo senso, in cui l'endotermico è il presente/passato, e l'elettrico non è ancora il futuro (tecnologicamente e economicamente). Voi che ne pensate? Qual è la soluzione che secondo voi è più future-proof per un auto nuova?
Edit: mi sono dimenticato di integrare una notizia recente che giocherebbe a mio favore: meno di un mese fa l'Italia ha aderito all iniziativa di smettere di vendere auto con l endotermico nel 2035, quindi fra 10 anni a rigore di logica i motori euro 6+ è facile che circolino ancora senza molti problemi direi...?
I'm a psychology researcher working on a model of normativity - the biological and cognitive basis of the sense of "ought". One of our proposals (based on empirical evidence that I omit here) is that there is little distinction between the mechanisms underlying intended actions and actions that are believed normative. What you think is normative (what you think you ought to do) is in essence just what you intend to do, and the experience of a distinction (the sense that there is a big difference between an act that is intended and an act that is normative) is in large part illusory.
Is there any philosophical tradition along similar lines? What have philosophers arrived at when analysing the distinction between normative and intended actions? Are there philosophers who have argued that talk about normativity is not importantly different from talk about what people want?
If you can't sit through 7 different subjects for 50-minute spurts over an 8-hour day, you have a brain disease known as ADD, or maybe even oppositional-defiant. If you don't accept the arbitrary rules surrounding uniform, phone use, and bathroom times, you likely have some intractable illness in your mind. As a teacher, kids have told me how much they hate the zombifying affects of the literal amphetamines their parents feed them each morning, but how it's the only "fix" their parents can think of for their poor grades. I have brilliant -but socially inept- autistic-labeled students who can't function in my regular classroom but could tell me every part of my computer. I have students who love to run and play, and are only given the outlet to do so in highly regimented, gendered competitive sports activities. The last thing a kid can be at school is a kid, and any attempt for them to genuinely act their age and explore their growing selves is labeled as psychotic deviance.
As for the kids -and there are many!- in need of genuine psychological help, there's none to be found in the school. the counselors are old boomer women, who think any problem can be solved by hard work and the indefinable quality of "grit." No Crybabies Allowed!
God help you if you're a black student (especially a black girl), because any expression of pain or trauma will be labeled as scary violence instead of emotional hurt. Kids like these are sooner placed in a police cruiser than in a psychologist's office.
Fuck my job, This is my last year in it. I'm tired of being the man behind a trauma machine. Free the youth, youth liberation now!
Edit from a response to a comment below:
The "brain disease" bit was meant as sarcastic! sorry if that wasn't clear. The first few phrases were sort of how our society views these things. The common belief that ADD is an intractable fact of a person's biology is how many teachers and parents view the syndrome. I agree entirely that each person is unique and their minds should be understood holistically, not in terms of diseases, pathologies, or quantifiable facets of personality.
The zombification point is as much from personal experience as it is from the experience of my students. If it doesn't make you feel like a zombie, and it makes you function better, then awesome! I meant no offense, I was just trying to communicate the issue of over-diagnosis and medication in schools.
sorry, this was written in a flurry of anger as I administered
... keep reading on reddit ➡That is, are they saying something about the future or the current moment in time? And if they are future tense, does that mean that we cannot have certainty about normative statements, given that we can only predict the future?
If I say 'I should wear a raincoat because it is raining outside,' am I talking about my behavior in the future, or am I saying something more timeless and universal-- like a declaration of a general rule that is to be followed under certain conditions?
Link to the original here. https://sometipsygnostalgic.tumblr.com/post/670945439258968064/she-ra-confuses-me-like-in-some-parts-of-it-it
Anonymous asked:
>she ra confuses me, like in some parts of it, it subverts tropes like destiny, mentors, redemption arcs, but in the big finale it's the biggest 'the good guys defeat the bad guys with the power of love' cliche
My response:
I disagree. There are some elements of this, but the meat of the finale is not about the power of love - rather, it is about identity and self-actualization. And the places where love interact, sometimes it is in more interesting ways. Such as.... where this love comes from, and where it is accepted.
Let me go through the key beats of the finale:
https://preview.redd.it/7tjeqgnpqi681.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=c22ab434b765c4269c19b091d782bbd581ba952a
1. Would you say Shadow Weaver saved Catra and Adora with the "power of love"? Is that her "love" for them? If so, then that's really interesting - a darker interpretation of love, which they also have for her, in a way. That is no happy go lucky love cliche. The scene with them crying over her, it's powerful and painful and very provocative, IMO the strongest part of the finale. What do you do when you feel love for your abusive parental figure, and then just when you're getting over the fact they never cared about you, they show love back in an act of self-destruction? What closure do you get?
https://preview.redd.it/vujazovqqi681.png?width=540&format=png&auto=webp&s=989261d782a492e4959c568a783cbe0835b90f5a
2. Love in the context of Entrapta and Hordak, is hard earned, because these characters spend so much of the show thinking that they were innately unlovable, and because Hordak had spent the whole season being guided back to his own identity with the "LUVD" crystal, and even then, it still wasn't enough - after Hordak had finally won the battle to be true to himself, to show and accept love, he had this pried out of hands immediately by Horde Prime. In the original animatic, Hordak panicked that he killed his brother (who in part he does still love), and Entrapta calmed him down... then Prime yelled at them, in Hordak's body, that they were unworthy and unloved and would die with no comfort. It was chilling. The final scene was cut short but
... keep reading on reddit ➡I don't mean specific theories, such as utilitarianism, but rather general theories, such as consequentialism.
I'd be curious to know from folks in this sub to what degree you do or have struggled with mono-normative thinking or expectations in your life.
By this I mean, do you ever catch yourself thinking that nonmonogamy is somehow wrong and that by extension that you're somehow wrong or selfish for wanting it. Perhaps you worry that you might be a little too focused on sex in your life, or that you're choosing nonmonogamy to avoid dealing with commitment or attachment issues. Or that one day you'll find yourself old and lonely wishing you had chosen that special someone to settle down with?
I'm sure many people in this sub will find these ideas ridiculous, but I'm also sure there's at least a handful of us that still struggle with such thoughts, especially when familial expectations and other things like that come roaring in during the holidays.
I'd be curious to hear some thoughts and experiences on this topic from this sub. I'd love to know your age, gender, and a little bit more about your situation if you care to share it too.
Thanks!
Puteti sa va stergeti la cur cu diplomele date de universitatile din Romania. Sunt egale cu zero daca un analfabet obtine o diploma de licenta in drept, stampilata de Ministerul Educatiei.
https://preview.redd.it/9kzwkdeek1a81.png?width=730&format=png&auto=webp&s=bcbc44a4807daca55f824ebe4c010cee449db0e4
Microsoft Word - 7299_CV Vlad Piedone Popescu Parlament.docx (cdep.ro)
There are many different races and cultures out there, grouping everyone who is not white and calling them "people of color" robs the individual of their unique cultural/racial identity. It's kind of just a fancy way of saying whites and others.
In addition, advancement of one non-white group does not automatically translate to advancement of a different non-white group. For example, blacks have been accepted in the comedy scene for years, that doesn't do much to help Asians. Similarly a positive academic opinion of Asians doesn't do much for blacks.
So my wife and I got married this year. My parents are ok with my lesbianism and what not. No issues there.. other than they make a lot of insensitive steps/comments. So we received a Christmas ornament with a theme that fits us perfectly other than the Mr. & Mrs blasted on the front… now my parents don’t have a lot of money to spend anyways so the fact that they spent their money on this is even more frustrating…. I don’t know how to address this with them without just being angry. I can’t find the words….
It doesn’t help that my father when he came to visit this summer kept calling me dad when referring me to my animals parent… I never changed my pronoun with them? I called him out and we discussed it. Thought the matter would be closed from there. Then this. It’s just the icing on the heteronormative cake…
How can I express my frustration without being ungrateful for the gift…. It’s just not something I will hang in my house for there is No Mr here…
Similarly to substance dualism within the philosophy of science debate, moral realism seems to invoke a sort of dualism.
There are normative ("Killing is wrong") and non-normative properties and utterances ("Jim kills Tom") which are both real, and normative properties seem to affect non-normative ones in particular ways. After all, assuming moral realism to be true, we don't banish normative properties to an isolationist existence within the normative realm never to affect anything non-normative, e.g. whether Jim actually kills Tom or not, as in whether his neurons are fired in such a way or not that he actually does kill Tom or not.
As moral realists, we want "Killing is wrong" to affect "Jim kills Tom" (preferably, in a way for the latter to be wrong as Jim refrains from killing) and we don't want "Killing is wrong" to be purely subjective or even non-normative, e.g. as in "My neurons are arranged in such a way that I dislike killing".
However, there is no "ought" value of neurons or the such. It either fires or it doesn't. How do normative properties affect non-normative ones? How do they determine or increase the likelihood of neurons to be fired in such a way that Jim kills Tom or not? Or even more importantly: How do we even know that "Killing is wrong" in the first place if our whole capacity of knowing is based on a very much non-normative instrument, the brain, consisting of very much non-normative entities, neurons, who either fire or not, but surely don't "ought" to fire or not. How can normativity arise from such non-normativity?
I feel conflicted about this. In the past, I have given feedback, especially on papers, but now I am feeling the pull of just providing the scores, and letting the students know I am available to discuss the assignments in greater depth if they like. My concern is, first, that it is highly time-consuming to provide substantial feedback on a large number of essays, and, second, that I'm not sure more than a handful of students would take the comments as a learning exercise, rather than simply a justification for the score. Maybe I'm rationalizing, but I think it may actually be the students' interest for me to give more feedback during the semester itself, and at the end of the semester, to prioritize getting through things efficiently and fairly with respect to the scores themselves. I know this will vary greatly based on any number of factors, especially the subject matter (which is why I am specifying humanities or social science classes with essays that involve at least some normative issues), but I'd be really interested in hearing other people's perspectives. (I don't really talk too much about this with other people in my department, in part because I sense it is a somewhat sensitive topic as people in the conversation might feel judged one way or the other.)
I saw it in a copy pasta, i dont really understand the statement.
I was recently reading Leslie Kern's new book. She was writing, in part, about the growth of the suburbs after World War II. This is from the book:
If the racial effects of suburban development linger today, so too do the gendered effects. Hayden puts it succinctly: “Developers argued that a particular kind of house would help the veteran change from an aggressive air ace to a commuting salesman who mowed the lawn. That house would also help a woman change from Rosie the Riveter to a stay-at-home mom.” Post-war propaganda was explicit about the need for women to relinquish their wartime factory jobs to returning men and the suburban home was the perfect “fix” for re-establishing normative gender roles. By providing a spatial solution to the temporary widening of women’s horizons, the public-private, paid-unpaid work divide could be “naturally” re-established between the sexes.
The suburban lifestyle both assumed and required, in order to function properly, a heterosexual nuclear family with one adult working outside the home and one inside. Large houses, isolated from transit and other services, meant the stay-at-home wife and mother was required to perform a full-time domestic caretaker role, overseeing the home and managing the needs of the breadwinner and children. As feminst planner Sherilyn MacGregor states, this built form has “created a lasting infrastructure for the [gendered] division of labour,” one that pre-supposes the traditional heterosexual nuclear family.
More here:
Normative ethics (to put it simply and in a way that's relevant to the question) tells us the specific actions that are moral or immoral. Meta-ethics tells us what the nature of morality even is, the uses and purpose of moral language, whether there really are moral facts or properties, etc.
But how do these relate? For example, utilitarianism says that we should maximise well-being. Surely the utilitarian is going to offer arguments for why this is the case - in doing so are they doing normative ethics? Or is determining whether moral statements are true done without reference to any particular ethical theory?
I have been with my partner for 4 years. We both were raised by alcoholic, narcissistic father's, and codependent mother's.
We are both in therapy, and working on ourselves independently. I am very vocal about not wanting to recreate the dynamic I was raised in for my own family.
Despite this, I still really struggle to discern how much and what type of conflict is normal in a relationship vs. abusive, toxic, or a red flag. I'm paranoid about slipping into a relationship with a narcissist/abusive person, because this has happened to me in the past. However, I do feel that sometimes this fear might cause me to over react in my current relationship.
Example: tonight we were on a date at a fun event, and taking lots of fun pictures of each other. I was on a swing doing different goofy poses, and asked him to take some pictures. After a few, i asked him to take another and he sort of snapped at me and said "I already TOOK this one!", rolling his eyes. It was triggering for me because his short attitude reminded me so much of my dad... but at the same time, people are just people and maybe it's normal for partners to be short with each other from time to time.
I told him it bothered me, and he said he was tired from work (granted he went to work at 5 am and fell asleep in the car ride back), and was too tired to discuss it. We drove home in silence and then he fell asleep. I just don't know what is normal and what is not and it bothers me so much. I feel like I can't trust myself. These sorts of things happen semi frequently.
Have any of you ever delt with this, and how have you learned to discern what's normal relationship conflict vs abusive behavior or toxic behavior? What do you do when you both over and under react?
five minutes later
Me and the bestie! Picture of extremely normal straight couple who happen to be t4t
uj/ Despite being not cis I've still largely considered myself gay for men but now I'm also getting envious at seeing straight t4t relationships 😭 brain please make sense I have gay'd so hard it has caused an integer overflow and looped back around
hj/ haha confusing non-binary moment
From the Dev notes #3 about the changes to the endgame:
"If there were no limits, players would likely find the optimal activity and just spam that over and over. So we hope this change incentivizes players to try out all the different end game options we have rather than feeling compelled to optimize by grinding the same activity all day."
OK, so we need a sense of what the Devs think is 'normal' character levelling/development. All experienced players end up playing the algorithm behind the surface of the game so as to optimise how they play the game. With this update the game devs have made design decisions that deprecates the way some players have optimised their game play and therefore their experience of the game.
I am consul in a company on Delos and our approach is designed to welcome all playing types -- PVE, PVP, casual and sweaty. It means we have had a mix of responses to the recently proposed changes. Those players that want to lean into the PvP game experience and do not care for watermark or GS are feeling like their experience of the game is now at threat of being diminished. It would be good to know how these watermark/GS changes interact with the PVP scaling changes too.
My own play style is to basically do ALL content and I enjoy the watermark grind (just under 700 hours in, plus open beta). So the purported changes will be of benefit to me as I have max watermark in armour and not far behind in weapons.
I am asking for the Devs to describe and clarify:
- How they understand endgame character development. This will provide players with a sense of when they are progressing fast or not and therefore set up expectations around how they should value their experience and different kinds of success.
- The relationship between gear score watermark (expertise) and scaling in PVP. Is it going to scale whenever someone is flagged in open world? Only in formal PvP settings like wars or OPR? Is there a scenario where a PvP player will be scaled relative to character level but not gear (so therefore something like best PvPer gear will be basically any non-60 level with BiS gear for that level or 60s with watermark at 600 GS)?
I am currently reading Fanon's The Wretched of the Earth and he points out the State pushes nonviolence as a means of dissent when it faces the threat of political change via violence. I think this is very interesting and I know it to be anecdotally true but are there academic endorsements of nonviolence as a means of political dissent? I am looking for accounts from members of a dominant group or demographic, i.e. white or French (regarding Algerian occupation), etc. Thanks in advance!
P.S. Contemporary arguments from academic sources would be best, if possible.
By a normative reason, I mean some consideration/fact that counts in favor of A (eg, belief, intention). I contrast a normative reason with a motivating reason—the consideration on which an agent A’s, because they take it to be a normative reason. People can have all sorts of motivating reasons that are not normative reasons. (I might see the fact that I will seriously injure you as desirable, and act on the basis of that, even though that fact was not actually a reason to attack you.)
It seems obvious that certain considerations are normative reasons for belief and that certain considerations are normative reasons for (intentions for) action. The fact that you see bootprints in the snow is a reason to believe that someone recently walked on the snow, and the fact that some activity would be fun is (probably) a reason to do it.
Furthermore, it seems like if two people disagree about whether some fact is a reason for person S to do/believe A, then one of these people is incorrect.
But are there reasons for other things (other attitudes) besides belief and action? For example, reasons to feel pity for someone? Reasons to find something beautiful?
If there is a case where one person feels pity for some victim of a robbery yet another person does not feel pity for that victim, is one person’s attitude correct/appropriate and the other’s incorrect/inappropriate? Are there facts about whether you should feel pity for someone?
In other words, we can talk about what a person should believe and what they should do. But can we talk about more than this, like what emotions they should feel?
I've had a mainly cis-normative childhood myself and am now questioning my gender. So many popular trans stories center on how in their childhood they always preferred playing with "girls toys" and how they always preferred the feminine option. There's a sense of I've always known in so many trans stories, stories were people didn't always know can be hard to find. I haven't actually been able to find any stories where people didn't realize they were trans until later, though I've probably just been searching for the wrong thing. I keep having the thought that I can't be trans cause I don't have an extended history of feminine leaning. Anyways my point is if you didn't realize you were trans until later on what's your story?
I just saw a TikTok of a girl just vibin at the beach with a song, nothing rare until I go to the comments section.
There was lots of people "preaching" her saying "you are so brave!!" and "I have the same body type and I hate it but you look cute". Why those comments? Cause that girl didnt had an Instagram model body type.
If you look comments on a post from a normative girl you will only see compliments about how hot she looks, yet if we have an /average/ body we are supposed to be "brave" to show it? Like the normal thing were to be ashamed of it?
Maybe I'm reaching but I found it the opposite to normalizing it when people say these things like you are beautiful despite your body type and if you show it you are brave like it should be hidden or what?
I don't want to be brave, a body positive activist nor even be hot; I just want to chill on the beach. Stop minding someone else body.
