02-23-2017, 09:19 PM
Speakeasy, I apologize, I thought I sent this post eons ago, and found it on my desktop tonight. I am sorry for the tardy reply – Izod.
I think it is good news overall, but I am skeptical of the advancements made for the LGBT. Note the word is skeptical. As you indicated above, my skepticism (rather than firm opinion) is in regard to the culture that makes up our society, and the level of permissiveness, also, in the generic sense when one groups rights advancement seems to be infringing on the free exercise of other people's rights, i.e. a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a LGBT couple(or other analogies).
I am going to make two more comments, not to provoke a response or a debate but to serve as qualifiers to my statement of skepticism.
#1) My brother is HIV positive, had AIDS and had his viral load backed off, so now he is just considered POZ(if anyone wants to here some disturbing commentary about that feel free to e-mail e privately, as it is bone chilling). So it is not with a bit of understanding that I frame references to LGBT.
#2) He readily acknowledges that they recent (last three decades) societal acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and the various expression of that is what lead to his situation.
So in closing on this, what I am trying to say that my skepticism around the advancement of rights for all groups may come at level of generalized societal cost.
It is interesting you came up with three generations. For cultural anthropologists (or at least when I was in school) it was taught that the appropriate pace for moving a taboo to an acceptable mores is three generations. It had been studied in culture after culture, to determine the pace that often lead to decline.
The U.S. had an almost episodic period a few decades back, when AIDs first emerged. Had homosexuality and bisexuality had the same level of acceptance level it has today, the damage to the general society could have been devastating on both financial terms and in terms of family structure. Fortunately the taboo mechanism was in tack enough to stigmatize the behavior in such a manner that it likely prevented widespread dissemination into the greater heterosexual community.
You can also see this effect in the migration of tattoo culture in the U.S. The generalized taboo in the business community probably kept enough of a check on what might have been wide dissemination of the practice that sanitation and health standards were able to get ahead of the sea adoption from a health standpoint in the majority of communities. A community like mine was less fortunate, and health related problems proliferated which caused the County to cajole the municipality to effectively ban the establishment of any new tattoo parlors and called for the long term elimination of all of them systematically. This artistic expression has been stifled in a community that may have benefited economically from it economically as a result.
I’ll just make a few comments. If Renard is to believed, most of the crime in Portland was wesen related. Nick was supposedly an effective cop before he became Grimm, implying he was effective against wesen without knowing they were wesen. Using the standard, lawful, and non-life taking measures that are the collection of procedures that make up civil law enforcement, Nick was able to effectively discharge the duties of his job. Enter Nick the Grimm and suddenly Miranda rights, search and seizure protocol is discarded, and murder, framing individuals for crimes they did not commit are in. Once again, before becoming a Grimm Nick is effective as a LEO, after Grimm, Nick turns his back on the very foundation of law that is the Rosetta Stone of our society.
Moreover, I think someone could make the case that it was Nick’s emergence as Grimm that provided the impetus for BC rising so prominently in Portland.
Kindest regards...
Izzy
(02-10-2017, 07:50 PM)speakeasy Wrote: The good news is minority groups such as black Americans, members of the LGBT community, all women, and the physically and mentally challenged have had their rights recognized by acts of law in most developed countries, and especially in the USA. The bad news is it has caused great upheaval in our society as we try to adjust to this new age.
I think it is good news overall, but I am skeptical of the advancements made for the LGBT. Note the word is skeptical. As you indicated above, my skepticism (rather than firm opinion) is in regard to the culture that makes up our society, and the level of permissiveness, also, in the generic sense when one groups rights advancement seems to be infringing on the free exercise of other people's rights, i.e. a baker who does not want to bake a cake for a LGBT couple(or other analogies).
I am going to make two more comments, not to provoke a response or a debate but to serve as qualifiers to my statement of skepticism.
#1) My brother is HIV positive, had AIDS and had his viral load backed off, so now he is just considered POZ(if anyone wants to here some disturbing commentary about that feel free to e-mail e privately, as it is bone chilling). So it is not with a bit of understanding that I frame references to LGBT.
#2) He readily acknowledges that they recent (last three decades) societal acceptance of alternative lifestyles, and the various expression of that is what lead to his situation.
So in closing on this, what I am trying to say that my skepticism around the advancement of rights for all groups may come at level of generalized societal cost.
(02-10-2017, 07:50 PM)speakeasy Wrote: Our nation's culture is richer and greater than ever, imo. But I'm not saying we have assimilated these enormous changes into the mix by any measure. It still feels like the rug's been pulled out from under us. These are scary times because we can no longer fall back on the accepted standards and mores we structured our lives around some decades back. It must be harder for those of religious faith. My feeling is it will take at least three generations to adjust to this new norm. But I have high hopes that it will improve the general lot of most of humankind.
It is interesting you came up with three generations. For cultural anthropologists (or at least when I was in school) it was taught that the appropriate pace for moving a taboo to an acceptable mores is three generations. It had been studied in culture after culture, to determine the pace that often lead to decline.
The U.S. had an almost episodic period a few decades back, when AIDs first emerged. Had homosexuality and bisexuality had the same level of acceptance level it has today, the damage to the general society could have been devastating on both financial terms and in terms of family structure. Fortunately the taboo mechanism was in tack enough to stigmatize the behavior in such a manner that it likely prevented widespread dissemination into the greater heterosexual community.
You can also see this effect in the migration of tattoo culture in the U.S. The generalized taboo in the business community probably kept enough of a check on what might have been wide dissemination of the practice that sanitation and health standards were able to get ahead of the sea adoption from a health standpoint in the majority of communities. A community like mine was less fortunate, and health related problems proliferated which caused the County to cajole the municipality to effectively ban the establishment of any new tattoo parlors and called for the long term elimination of all of them systematically. This artistic expression has been stifled in a community that may have benefited economically from it economically as a result.
(02-10-2017, 07:50 PM)speakeasy Wrote: You may be correct in your assessment that Nick's being heroic to some fans is a result of the lowering of the ethical bar by which we measure it. He's not Captain America, but he is much more genuine in his humanity, imo. Flawed but not corrupt. Uncertain but resolute. Self-contained but affectionate. Fierce but compassionate. He's a Grimm with a conscience; he's an aberration, a born executioner who acknowledges the Wesen right to life and the Wesen way of life. He's a low-keyed phenomenon, in my view.
He has killed, and he's killed for revenge. But he's used his power to destroy only wesen who do harm and has rescued countless innocent victims, both Wesen and Kehrisiete. He's a warrior on the front lines of a daily battle in the world of Grimm. He's not the hero of the halcyon days of our youth, but a more recognizable one of the here and now.
I’ll just make a few comments. If Renard is to believed, most of the crime in Portland was wesen related. Nick was supposedly an effective cop before he became Grimm, implying he was effective against wesen without knowing they were wesen. Using the standard, lawful, and non-life taking measures that are the collection of procedures that make up civil law enforcement, Nick was able to effectively discharge the duties of his job. Enter Nick the Grimm and suddenly Miranda rights, search and seizure protocol is discarded, and murder, framing individuals for crimes they did not commit are in. Once again, before becoming a Grimm Nick is effective as a LEO, after Grimm, Nick turns his back on the very foundation of law that is the Rosetta Stone of our society.
Moreover, I think someone could make the case that it was Nick’s emergence as Grimm that provided the impetus for BC rising so prominently in Portland.
Kindest regards...
Izzy
Oxford commas are so totally rad!.