The questions-not-worth-their-own-thread question thread X

[bigdog5994]

Question

where did the bootstraps thing start?

 

[Zack]

Question: Why does nobody read the actual OP, but posts just by looking at the title?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laziness

 

[Elta]

Question: Why does nobody read the actual OP, but posts just by looking at the title?

Because many people are you.

See my signature for a description of you.


I put little info on my title for this reason in particular.

 

[LightFang]

Why the need for pink/rainbow attire, a lisp or some other aspect associated with homosexuals?

It just perpetuates the stereotype and makes it harder for some to accept us. There's nothing wrong with being proud about one's identity, but outright flaunting it has a whole range of problems ready to come your way.

I dunno if this qualifies as offtopic... since I did ask a few questions right there...

Is there anything wrong with pink or rainbow attire? Or lisps? Or acting in stereotypical ways?

Are you going to ask transgendered people not to express themselves in public too? A cis male who identifies as a female has a right to dress and express herself how she wants.

I agree, we are probably on the same side vis-a-vis this issue. But I think a step to public acceptance is to put it out in public.

 

[Lord Gay]

...That's exactly what I said. That nobody should have to fear revealing what they say... In an ideal world. But we have to accept the current reality that there CAN be consequences until that reality changes.

My position is that you need not reveal your preferences and such

Yes, you do need to reveal your preferences and such, that's my point. There is nothing wrong or shameful about orientation, and if others have a problem, it's THEIR problem, not mine. It's unhealthy to repress yourself.

Further, by giving in to their concern, you are validating their beliefs. Such beliefs won't change if they aren't challenged.

That makes sense, but it doesn't change the fact one must be ready to accept the consequences of being open about it. It's just a reality that has to be accepted until it finally goes away. Maybe ONE day, people will be tolerant of eachother... but until then... self-responsibility has its place. That goes for both those expressing themselves and those who hurt them for it.

You're still in the closet, I understand. The point I'm trying to convey is that you seem to be saying that there's some responsibility on your part about when and where to express your orientation, and I'm saying that there isn't.

It's not your problem, it's theirs. Completely. Yes, it's easy for me to say that because I'm out, but that's my point. You don't have to stay in the closet for them. It's not on you to stay hidden so as not to offend them, it's they who have to change to accept you.

Instead of considering that you have to be willing to face consequences for coming out, consider that they must face consequences for keeping you in. There's absolutely nothing wrong with you Foxy, and you shouldn't limit yourself and your life just because other people have issues.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Question: What would be a good thread title for a topic on this, so I can stop spamming this thread?

Is there anything wrong with pink or rainbow attire? Or lisps?

Not at all. Freedom of expression, and a possible speech impediment in the latter.

Or acting in stereotypical ways?

Not at all. Provided nobody assumes I'm going to suddenly dress in lingerie and do some seductive gay dance when they hear about my orientation.

Are you going to ask transgendered people not to express themselves in public too? A cis male who identifies as a female has a right to dress and express herself how she wants.

I agree. But they should also factor into account they MIGHT be abused for it once they reveal it, and shouldn't be too surprised if they are.

I agree, we are probably on the same side vis-a-vis this issue. But I think a step to public acceptance is to put it out in public.

Perhaps a better way to phrase it is using the Civil Rights movement: Those people went against popular ideas to do the right thing, but they also ran the risk of being abused as a result. They should not have been too surprised when they were hosed down and such; they knew the risks of their protests, and there was implied consent that they were willing to run the risks when they took part in the protests.

Of course, that doesn't make the people who would hose them down any less a group of asses.

I do agree, however, that public expression is the key to acceptance. I have not said that homosexuals and such should hide who they are... what I really mean is that if they show the courage(or sometimes stupidity, it can be hard to tell the difference sometimes) to express themselves in public, they should know they're jumping into a mess and are likely to suffer abuse.

I admire those who will actually publicly express who they are... not flaunting it, but not afraid to say, "yes" if somebody asks them if they are gay.

Yes, you do need to reveal your preferences and such, that's my point. There is nothing wrong or shameful about orientation, and if others have a problem, it's THEIR problem, not mine. It's unhealthy to repress yourself.

I can agree with all of this.

Further, by giving in to their concern, you are validating their beliefs. Such beliefs won't change if they aren't challenged.

My response to LightFang indicates I too feel this is correct. I don't so much want gays and such to hide their orientation, as be willing to face the consequences of revealing it. I admire their bravery for being willing to stand up in the face of danger, just like the Civil Rights activists, but I also request they not act surprised when they're abused for their public expression.

I am a social progressive, but I also believe in self-responsibility, in being ready to face the consequences for what one does. Ideally, of course, there would be no consequences for something as silly as revealing an orientation... but in the current state of the world, there are consequences.

People should be free to express themselves... but they must also be aware of the fact not everybody will accept them, for better or for worse. I admire those who accept this fact, and consent to the risks involved, for the sake of a greater purpose.

The point I'm trying to convey is that you seem to be saying that there's some responsibility on your part about when and where to express your orientation, and I'm saying that there isn't.

Indeed, there isn't. It is my responsibility, however, to not be too surprised if some intolerant jackass decides that my revelation makes me good target practice.

Doesn't make him any less of a jackass or any less of a criminal, however.

It's not on you to stay hidden so as not to offend them, it's they who have to change to accept you.

I agree. So I put my full support behind the activists - not gay pride, who I'm neutral on - who are willing to run the risk of so much violence and abuse in order to do what they feel is right.

Instead of considering that you have to be willing to face consequences for coming out, consider that they must face consequences for keeping you in.

This is where I'm a bit confused. While I wish the world was free from closeminded and just downright evil individuals, I've never been one to punish thought crime... until the homophobe actually starts acting in some manner against gays - not even violent, just protesting... they too have to be willing to accept the consequences of their actions! - I can't really justify any consequences being forced upon them.

I know, it doesn't make much sense. My personal principles never did make much of that...

There's absolutely nothing wrong with you Foxy, and you shouldn't limit yourself and your life just because other people have issues.

Of course, I agree.

This is how I wish it was, that I could simply come out and that'd be the end of it. Unfortunately, I live in fear. Fear that my family - very conservative and very religious - might reject me. Especially considering my father is against gay marriage and also is prone to using the "cigarette" word. Ideally, they'd accept me, but I always ponder the thought of "what if...", and as a result, I do not reveal my identity, for I am too much of a coward to face the potential consequences.

 

[Yared]

Some guys like feeling feminine by putting on flamboyant clothes, putting on a little makeup and what not. That's who and how they are

 

[Brighteye]

I'm aware that it's spelled bestiality, but I ignore it in favor of beastiality, because I can actually SEE the meaning of the word automatically: "Beast", not "best." It just makes more sense to me, as you're clearly having a sexual relation with a beast, not a best, whatever the hell that is.

Just goes to show how silly the English language is.

I always linked it to the words 'bestial', 'bestialize' and 'bestiary'. It seems a shame to lose that link.

...

But there does seem to be a fairly large amount of homosexuals who DO put on the lisp for some reason. I don't see why though myself... can't you just be... I dunno... yourself?

Why the need for pink/rainbow attire, a lisp or some other aspect associated with homosexuals?

I always assumed that it made one easier to spot for other gays, thereby making match-making easier. When you're a minority type amongst many incompatible people you probably need as much help as you can get to work out who might be available for you.

 

[GoodGame]

Question

where did the bootstraps thing start?

from: http://www.google.com/search?q=hist...ult&resnum=1&ct=timeline-date&ved=0CDsQzQEwAA

Feb 1864 - This patent was reissued in February, 1864, with a claim as foUows : "A strap for boots and shoes congtrnpted of métal, or other rigid or tough material, attached either permançntly to the boot-top, or in Buch ma.nner as to admit, after the boot is drawn on the ...The loops are shown as opening transversely of the leg, and the patentée says that they may be grasped with much greater facility than the ordinary straps. This patent was reissued in February, 1864, with a claim as foUows : "A strap for boots and shoes congtrnpted of métal, or other rigid or tough material, attached either permançntly to the boot-top, or in Buch ma.nner as to admit, after the boot is drawn on the foot, of being tumed or shoved down Withih or at the outOT side ...
Show more
Show less

Purely visible here: http://openjurist.org/18/f1d/93

 

[SS-18 ICBM]

What does current international law say about penal battalions and such?

 

[Lord Gay]

I always assumed that it made one easier to spot for other gays, thereby making match-making easier. When you're a minority type amongst many incompatible people you probably need as much help as you can get to work out who might be available for you.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-3-2000/colbert---come-out--come-out--wherever-you-are

 

[Quackers]

yo

i got some whiskey. how do i drink this? straight down the chap or add something to it

cheers

q

 

[Takhisis]

Ask Churchill, he used to drink a wee bit.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

Question: Can somebody PLEASE tell me what is going on? The entire thing is kind of creepy:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

 

[Kennigit]

Question: Can somebody PLEASE tell me what is going on? The entire thing is kind of creepy:

Spoiler :

Link to video.

The music video, which won the MTV Video Music Award for Best Male Video in 1994, features Petty as a morgue assistant who takes home the corpse of a woman (played by Kim Basinger) for a dinner date. A scene in the video featuring the corpse wearing a wedding dress in a room full of wax candles is loosely based on a passage from the Charles Dickens novel Great Expectations. Later, Petty is shown carrying her to a rocky shore and gently releasing her into the sea. At the end of the video, Basinger is seen floating in the water with her eyes open.

Lyrics
Asked if the song was about drugs (since "Mary Jane" is a common nickname for marijuana, and marijuana is said to kill pain), Heartbreaker guitarist Mike Campbell said, "My take on it is it can be whatever you want it to be. A lot of people think it's a drug reference, and if that's what you want to think, it very well could be, but it could also just be a goodbye love song."[4]

In my expertise of ~1 minute of research and not seeing the video, I guess it's supposed to be a crazy bit of connections, maybe inspired from drug trips or whatnot.

And so what if it's creepy? It's made that way.

 

[aimeeandbeatles]

The music video, which won the MTV Video Music Award for Best Male Video in 1994, features Petty as a morgue assistant who takes home the corpse of a woman (played by Kim Basinger) for a dinner date. A scene in the video featuring the corpse wearing a wedding dress in a room full of wax candles is loosely based on a passage from the Charles Dickens novel Great Expectations. Later, Petty is shown carrying her to a rocky shore and gently releasing her into the sea. At the end of the video, Basinger is seen floating in the water with her eyes open.

Lyrics
Asked if the song was about drugs (since "Mary Jane" is a common nickname for marijuana, and marijuana is said to kill pain), Heartbreaker guitarist Mike Campbell said, "My take on it is it can be whatever you want it to be. A lot of people think it's a drug reference, and if that's what you want to think, it very well could be, but it could also just be a goodbye love song."[4]

In my expertise of ~1 minute of research and not seeing the video, I guess it's supposed to be a crazy bit of connections, maybe inspired from drug trips or whatnot.

And so what if it's creepy? It's made that way.

Well, I was mostly wondering how Tom got into the morgue. It's just weird and the entire video smacks of necrophilia. About the lyrics, I already know about the marijuana reference. The interesting about the lyrics thing is from the Playback booklet:

Spoiler :

Date Performance: 1993, Running Time: 4:33
Comments: Recorded at: Ocean Way, Hollywood, CA. Mixed at: Gone Gator Two (MCA Records) "There was a period during Full Moon Fever," Petty says, "where Jeff [Lynne] was in England and Stan [Lynch] came over, and Mike [Campbell] and Stan and I were playing and I got on a roll where I was improvising songs. I must have done twenty or so in one afternoon. Sometimes I can get lucky and really go stream of consciousness and all kinds of <beep> comes out. We actually have a video of 'Mary Jane' going down, except there was no chorus. But most of the words came out, though they may have been tidied up some later." "When we were going to do the greatest hits I was mid-way through Wildflowers and contractually I had to do two tracks for the greatest hits album. I was actually really annoyed about it and didn't want to stop what I was doing. I said, 'I hate the whole idea that you have the Greatest Hits and then you have two new things on the end.' Rick Rubin said, 'Well, I think we should stop and you go away and write something specifically for the Heartbreakers and then we'll bring all of them in, we'll go to another studio, and we'll have another session.' He got hold of that tape and went through it and he said, 'I really like this but you need to write a chorus for it.' I sat down that evening and the first chorus that came to me, at least the tune and the chords, was the one we kept. But I wasn't singing those words. I was singing 'Indiana Girl' or something really bogus. I think we even cut it with me singing those words. Later on when I started listening to it I thought, 'Now I've got to take the lyric up a bit to where it's something a little more meaningful.' I struggled around with it and finally arrived at 'Mary Jane's Last Dance.' It made much more sense to me. I still think it's one of the better Heartbreakers singles." On record and even more in concert, "Mary Jane's Last Dance" gave Petty a chance to stretch out on lead guitar: "I got to play a lot on the record which I don't usually, because Michael's so good that I feel intimidated. He's been encouraging me to play solos and that was one where I had this lick in there and he was playing it in slightly different syncopation. I said, 'No, no, it's like this,' and Mike said, 'Look, there's no need you teaching me, why don't you just do it?' And when it came to the solo he just said, 'You should do it, you're doing fine.' So he let me have the solo at the end and he did the nice one in the middle. That record really came out well. It was our last session with Stan. We had very happy sessions, those last sessions. I think he felt good because he was leaving on a real high note. This was the biggest album we ever had as it turned out. It brought in a whole other generation of people. And the funny thing was how hard I fought against putting anything new on it. Rubin will never let me forget it that I complained about that so much. But I'm really glad I did it now."

 

[Cutlass]

Because when you make a music video, you try and be creative and do things that hold people's attention. It doesn't always have to be more significant than that.

 

[holy king]

I'm aware that it's spelled bestiality, but I ignore it in favor of beastiality, because I can actually SEE the meaning of the word automatically: "Beast", not "best." It just makes more sense to me, as you're clearly having a sexual relation with a beast, not a best, whatever the hell that is.

Just goes to show how silly the English language is.

newsflash, vowels shift.

 

[Brighteye]

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-february-3-2000/colbert---come-out--come-out--wherever-you-are

Sorry, videos not available in my country.

yo

i got some whiskey. how do i drink this? straight down the chap or add something to it

cheers

q

Depends on the whiskey. But generally just straight down.

 

[Tani Coyote]

Why is it that I find the idea of kangaroo meat completely repulsive, as much as dog meat, despite:

a) Not being Australian, and thus having never encountered one
b) Roos not being kept as pets, and thus not having that same taboo

?

Maybe I just never thought of the idea of Kangaroo as a meat...