alextheraven:

simonalkenmayer:

philosophy-and-coffee:

simonalkenmayer:

karama9:

simonalkenmayer:

Allow me to connect this to my argument of a few days ago regarding Nazis and what to do with their faces if you are so inclined.

The Government can’t arrest you… can the Government make conscious effort to hurt you and your livelihood? Like, say, by consistently attacking your reputation and making baseless accusation on your honesty and integrity?

Eh? What exactly do you mean? The federal government is prohibited in violating free speech. The Supreme Court exists to apply law so that this does not happen. If you feel the federal government has violated your rights, outside the constraints determined by the Supreme Court, then you can sue. It’s your right.

They can’t legally but they certainly will. The US government is so crooked it’s hilarious.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people… You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” – former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
But the comic’s point still stands that free speech does not extend to societal approval. If you decide to be a Nazi, you’ve decided (in my book) that you deserve to have the shit beat out of you.

Point being, that while the government carries on in a specific way, it’s not allowed to. The freedom of speech and so forth do not protect you from me, if I should decide to accept consequences. If I hit you in the face, there is no civil rights issue. There is an assault issue. Different things.

The news media is not part of the government (except for that trump news thingy), which means that if that’s who you’re referring to when you say, “…by consistently attacking your reputation and making baseless accusation[s] on your honesty and integrity” (Karama9), well they actually aren’t under any impetus to be factual at all anymore, and their actions could probably be considered social or societal approval

Yes. They have the freedom of speech. Which means you have to sue them for libel, but the government cannot legislate them.

youcantseebutimmakingaface:

simonalkenmayer:

karama9:

simonalkenmayer:

Allow me to connect this to my argument of a few days ago regarding Nazis and what to do with their faces if you are so inclined.

The Government can’t arrest you… can the Government make conscious effort to hurt you and your livelihood? Like, say, by consistently attacking your reputation and making baseless accusation on your honesty and integrity?

Eh? What exactly do you mean? The federal government is prohibited in violating free speech. The Supreme Court exists to apply law so that this does not happen. If you feel the federal government has violated your rights, outside the constraints determined by the Supreme Court, then you can sue. It’s your right.

The Federal Government cannot tell you you’re an asshole, but everyone else can.

Precisely.

philosophy-and-coffee:

simonalkenmayer:

karama9:

simonalkenmayer:

Allow me to connect this to my argument of a few days ago regarding Nazis and what to do with their faces if you are so inclined.

The Government can’t arrest you… can the Government make conscious effort to hurt you and your livelihood? Like, say, by consistently attacking your reputation and making baseless accusation on your honesty and integrity?

Eh? What exactly do you mean? The federal government is prohibited in violating free speech. The Supreme Court exists to apply law so that this does not happen. If you feel the federal government has violated your rights, outside the constraints determined by the Supreme Court, then you can sue. It’s your right.

They can’t legally but they certainly will. The US government is so crooked it’s hilarious.
“The Nixon campaign in 1968, and the Nixon White House after that, had two enemies: the antiwar left and black people… You understand what I’m saying? We knew we couldn’t make it illegal to be either against the war or black, but by getting the public to associate the hippies with marijuana and blacks with heroin. And then criminalizing both heavily, we could disrupt those communities,” – former Nixon domestic policy chief John Ehrlichman
But the comic’s point still stands that free speech does not extend to societal approval. If you decide to be a Nazi, you’ve decided (in my book) that you deserve to have the shit beat out of you.

Point being, that while the government carries on in a specific way, it’s not allowed to. The freedom of speech and so forth do not protect you from me, if I should decide to accept consequences. If I hit you in the face, there is no civil rights issue. There is an assault issue. Different things.

filledwiththislight:

Things my dentist has actually said to me:

“Well, either the x-rays lied to me or you are spontaneously creating teeth. I’m going with the second one because it’s way cooler.”

“When was the last time you flossed? Your gums aren’t bleeding which means I’m either not doing this hard enough or you actually floss your teeth regularly”

“You don’t need to do a fluoride treatment I just want to go check my facebook for a second and this is the best excuse I can come up with. Don’t worry your insurance will cover it.”

“Take a whole handful of toothbrushes, I can’t order new ones in less ugly colors until these ones are gone.”

“Remember not to eat or drink anything for a half hour…or actually you know forget that go eat lemons and drink coffee right now. I make money based on peoples bad decisions, you should probably stop brushing your teeth too.”

“I became a dentist because I like making children cry and they don’t let you do that as a regular doctor.”

He sounds like one of the finest dental health professionals I have ever heard.

jamisings:

simonalkenmayer:

personalsp0ilers:

simonalkenmayer:

dovewithscales:

simonalkenmayer:

youcantseebutimmakingaface:

simonalkenmayer:

some-kind-of-bad-pun:

simonalkenmayer:

youcantseebutimmakingaface:

simonalkenmayer:

youcantseebutimmakingaface:

simonalkenmayer:

sirjefetheboss:

digoxin-purpurea:

apply for jobs you’re not qualified for! audit upper-level classes! get drunk with your TAs! see that poster advertising that lecture series? go there take notes and ask questions! thank the presenter for talking about this topic you love! if the class is full before you register, email the professor and ask if they can squeeze you in! RAISE YOUR HAND! tell the disability accomodation office to do their goddamn job! ask for help! file complaints! go to class in your pajamas and destroy the reading! you got this! you KNOW you got this! be arrogant enough to learn EVERYTHING! take your meds! punch a velociraptor in the dick! fear is useless and temporary! glory is forever! shed your skin and erupt angel wings! help out! spread your sun!

i had a really good morning! you deserve a really good morning! kill anyone who says you don’t and build a throne from their bones!

Oddly inspiring

I agree with all of this except the pajamas. That’s disrespectful to the lecturer who spent hours preparing and also has to present themselves accordingly. It is basic decorum to arrive showing that you are prepared, which by no means means you have to dress uncomfortably.

Perhaps I am odd in that way.

Some of my pajamas back then were arguably nicer than the clothes I had.

Where, where, are those silk monogrammed ridiculous pajamas I used to rock? They came from a fancy thrift store and they vanished in a move.

Fuck, I’ve got to buy another pair and a sweet smoking jacket and fez and slippers, to go with my pipe, you know.

Well, yes, I suppose if your pajamas are nicer than your clothes that is either an invitation to wear them as a mark of respect, or alternatively to buy a new wardrobe

To be honest, coming out of thirteen some years of Catholic School Uniforms, I 1) had no intention of ever wearing ‘clothes that signify respect and subservience’ ever again and 2) literally owned no clothes except ‘I wear these to garden in’ and ‘I wear these to church’ ensembles, neither of which were okay for going out among my peers.

Those pajamas were fabulous though. I only got to wear them a few times to class before my mother hauled me off to Target, Wet Seal, and the like to put me in people clothes.

I felt a little like Dobby.

Subservience and respect are not the same thing. It pains me that people think that.

It is about the exchange of ideas. If your friend invited you to their event would you wear pajamas? And let’s not split hairs about what sort of event. The point is, you would dress according to the event to honor your friend. This person on stage is giving you knowledge. Even if you don’t respect them, and they dress in a hoodie, the act of sharing wisdom is noble, and the effort of teaching and mentoring is sacred.

To me pajamas would be a breech of conduct.

I would wear slacks and a shirt, or a nice dress. No one can talk me out of that. But you’re entitled to your opinions and I am not judging you for having them. I’m simply stating my own discomfort with such an idea.

I will say that with a lot of private schools n subservience is an implied part of the uniform and some teachers will get on to you even if you’re in uniform. As a kid I had a teacher absolutely terrorize me because I always wore the boys uniform in the winter. It was the only way to wear pants when it was too cold for the dresses because the girl’s uniform didn’t have pants as an option. I can definitely see why she’d have that connotation.

I despise that schools teach that, or demand uniforms.

They literally said, ‘as soon as you walk on campus you have no civil rights’.

Fuck you Louisville High School

That is patently false.

They literally said, ‘as soon as you walk on campus you have no civil rights’.

It’s not only false but also potentially something they could get in trouble for saying. I feel like a school, even a private school, telling minors they have no civil rights might be considered some kind of child abuse.

Then again I am of the opinion that a lot of what goes on in schools should be considered abusive, but it keeps happening anyway.

As for clothing… Most of the time, I wear exactly what I wish, and it’s equal parts comfort and self expression. Because there are only two kinds of people whose opinion matters to me; family, and people who have power over my life. If you want me to care that you disapprove of sarcastic shirts, red jeans, and gothic makeup, pay my rent.

When I used to host public events, or do work at city hall, or now when I have to meet new doctors, I dress for glamour. That is, to make people perceive me how I wish. The right color, the right cut to a blouse, strategic jewelry, can dramatically enhance charisma. You can control how people respond to you by being mindful of your visual presentation.

That should be a factor in how you dress for classes, for work, for any situation where you want to succeed and where someone else’s opinion of you will effect that success, or where you want to influence someone in any particular way. 

Use your clothes to make your professors, administrators, and classmates, see you in a more favorable light. It will make a difference.

I don’t think there’s anything inherently wrong with dressing to respect other people. I am biased in that regard because it’s essentially how I’ve lived for a long while.

I had never considered that showing up to class in pyjamas could be construed as disrespectful. I totally see @simonalkenmayer‘s point about this and I personally am uncomfortable leaving my home in pyjamas anyway tbh.

I also agree with @dovewithscales that how you dress can have a big impact on how people think of you.

Here’s the thing though. I struggle with formal education and just getting to lectures, even if they were only a 5-minute walk across campus away, was a monumental task for me. At the time, the most respect I could muster for anyone or anything was to turn up. Granted, I would ensure my butt was covered with fabric, but never anything nicer than my favourite jeans and hoodie.

I tried my best to show my respect through being there when I would rather be anywhere else; being as clothed and conscious as I could manage; actively listening to the lecture and using private reading to fill gaps in my knowledge afterwards (because I never got to grips with doing the reading before the lecture).

I guess what I’m trying to say is please show your teachers as much respect as you can, but with respect for your own mind and body.

Agreed. I take your point. The professor encounters you on a visual scale. The first and third times he/she sees you, they will determine if you seem respectful of the process. If the appearance is incongruous with the reality, they will have to work to see past it. This is more easily facilitated by you and how you choose to dress. But if comfort is critical to the capacity to show up, I agree it is more important to do that.

What about that professor who, in protest of having his class schedule changed so everyone had to be there at 7:30 am, showed up in his PJs? Wouldn’t showing up in your’s as well show solidarity with him?

Yes, please…let us split straw so finely we could make a mink stoll.

karama9:

simonalkenmayer:

Allow me to connect this to my argument of a few days ago regarding Nazis and what to do with their faces if you are so inclined.

The Government can’t arrest you… can the Government make conscious effort to hurt you and your livelihood? Like, say, by consistently attacking your reputation and making baseless accusation on your honesty and integrity?

Eh? What exactly do you mean? The federal government is prohibited in violating free speech. The Supreme Court exists to apply law so that this does not happen. If you feel the federal government has violated your rights, outside the constraints determined by the Supreme Court, then you can sue. It’s your right.

Blog at WordPress.com.

Up ↑