New Testingstan

joviwan wrote:EDIT:doesn't seem to be any of those.

it used to be one of those, i guess los just took it off now

regardless all those words are uncool

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I'm not sure of the etymology but it came from people being dissatisfied with "neurotypical" as a word (and while it doesn't affect me so I don't really get much say I can see where that distaste comes from)

Honestly, I don't get it. Not in this case. What was wrong with neurotypical?

Because it's basically a very specific way of saying "normal", the avoidance of which is much of the point of the kind of language I'm talking about here.

So why is allistic substituted for normal then?

Why not just say 'normal' if neurotypical is a problem?

The whole point is that by putting the privileged position as "normal" it helps give a lot of weight to otherisation of people who aren't in the privileged group. It's the same reason het/straight is used instead of something like sexuotypical.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Please stop

Sorry, I probably should and could have found a better way to figure out what word was being bleeped. I was not motivated by any kind of malice or trolling or anything, I was just genuinely curious what word was turned into juggaloing.

adr wrote:

joviwan wrote:EDIT:doesn't seem to be any of those.

it used to be one of those, i guess los just took it off now

regardless all those words are uncool

Quite

i only ever heard neurotypical used as a slur by what i could only describe as autistic separatists so i'm not exactly sorry to see it go

I'M A JUGGALO WOOP WOOP

Still on, guise

Why is the noun okay but not the adjective?

joviwan wrote:

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Please stop

Sorry, I probably should and could have found a better way to figure out what word was being bleeped. I was not motivated by any kind of malice or trolling or anything, I was just genuinely curious what word was turned into juggaloing.

you were close. it was retard-ed, you just didnt add the ed' (which is why tedious referenced noun and adjective.) I was commenting on how I tried breaking the habit of using it to refer (wrongly) to stupid things (something many people I've noticed still do casually, like on Spacebattles.)

Infinity Biscuit wrote:Because it's basically a very specific way of saying "normal", the avoidance of which is much of the point of the kind of language I'm talking about here.

The fascinating thing about 'neurotypical' is that as much as it sounds like it was made up by out-of-touch behaviourists it was apparently coined by autistic people. Jim Sinclair uses it, for example. Obviously times change, and people come up with new terminology to reflect how they feel about this that and the other. Democratisation of movements like I mentioned pages ago.

I sometimes wonder if there are ever divisions over this kind of terminology. Like the allies/sidekick thing (obviously excluding the allies/sidekicks themselves).

Losonti Tokash wrote:i only ever heard neurotypical used as a slur by what i could only describe as autistic separatists so i'm not exactly sorry to see it go

I've seen it used by some members of the lesswrong.com community, but they might as well be members of a modern iteration of the Cult of Reason. But without self-consistancy or anything but shallow philosophy.

Biscuit, i think you'd love these articles I'm reading in Sociology:

"Gender as Structure" by Barbara Risman
"What it means to Be Gendered Me: Life on the Boundaries of a Dichotomous Gender System" by Betsy Lucal
"Dude, You're a Fag" by C.J. Pascoe

Attention Questor, and also anyone else who does international travel

I'm flying to a wedding in england in april. I have never even been outside of my country ('murica), but my passport should arrive in a month or so, after which I should probably get tickets. Scouting online seems to indicate that flying to england is OUTRAGEOUSLY EXPENSIVE, at least, uh, well, compared to the usual $450 I spend to fly across the US.

Basically I'm looking at tickets that are like 1000-1200 USD and wondering if this is normal.

basically

poop.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:The whole point is that by putting the privileged position as "normal" it helps give a lot of weight to otherisation of people who aren't in the privileged group. It's the same reason het/straight is used instead of something like sexuotypical.

It's weird though, because "allistic" would seem to imply you have, well, all of the "isms" from a literal interpretation anyway. Unless I'm missing an alternate definition of "all" combined with "istic" which I guess is possible.

I can see why there's an issue with normal but this word seems odd. Is it implying "all" people are/should/could/would be "neurotypical" or whatever? I'd think "noneistic" or "notistic" would be more literal but then I can see where that would introduce plenty of problems as well.

There's really no good label to give, is there? Maybe we should just stop that but then humans like to label things so that's just a pipe dream.

The "all-" in "allistic" doesn't have to do with the word "all" at all. It's more the antonym prefix of the "aut-" in "autistic".

I can't remember if I've said this before but again the issues with labels deal with whence and why they're used. A label put on someone else by someone who has power over the other is very different from a self-applied label used by someone who is othered or a label the oppressed puts upon someone over whom they have no structural power. Criticism of labels should be aware of this distinction since the two have basically opposite outcomes.

there's still ads for the NY health marketspace that goes "today's the day you don't have to have a rabbits foot to get health insurance. today's the day........ today's the day"

but the website still doesn't actually work right....

adr wrote:there's still ads for the NY health marketspace that goes "today's the day you don't have to have a rabbits foot to get health insurance. today's the day........ today's the day"

but the website still doesn't actually work right....

It's still screwed up for you? Does NY have a huge uninsured population?

idk about how many uninsured, but it is still stuck at the same thing I tried last time: it was able to verify the identity and collect information, but then says it is experiencing technical difficulties and cannot verify the rest of the info, so it doesn't proceed to the subsidies and actual plan listing/sign up pages.

somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.

I think the reason you get what I assume this is talking about is the gap between what people think they should feel and what they actually feel.

I suspect a lot of men prefer women in make-up, but they've absorbed the idea that our beauty culture is pretty sexist and this is pretty problematic and from that that liking women without make-up is more morally correct or good for their Enlightened Not-Sexist Person cred. So they say they prefer women without make-up, and possibly often are sincere in the same way I imagine a lot of Christian "hypocrites" are sincere (that is: they wish they could be "better" people but can't completely suppress their inclinations), but their actual reactions say otherwise.

Jung just get a tumblr account already so you can message me in there too :L

somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.

How did you get from "you don't need make up" to "you don't need basic personal hygiene"? I don't mean not shaving your legs, either. I don't care what you do with your legs.

Infinity Biscuit wrote:I can't remember if I've said this before but again the issues with labels deal with whence and why they're used. A label put on someone else by someone who has power over the other is very different from a self-applied label used by someone who is othered or a label the oppressed puts upon someone over whom they have no structural power. Criticism of labels should be aware of this distinction since the two have basically opposite outcomes.

Man labels are a funny thing

Like obviously I get lumped in with the monolithic whiteness with which must be struggled like the whale himself, and as a white anglophone I don't think that's particularly unfair. I'm from Australia and our issues with race and xenophobia are pronounced to say the least. But at the same time I am Australian, not from the US or any part of Europe or Russia or whatever. And despite having only really severing the British umbilical cord relatively recently as a country we're pretty distinct even from other countries mostly made up of white people speaking English. I guess it's sort of like how characterising a particular set of countries as 'the West' is useful and accurate when discussing global politics, even though the term is geographically nonsensical and turns zillions of quite distinct cultures into this homogeneous mass.

I actually can't remember where I was going with this (something about spherical cows maybe), but I'll finish with blaming the Australian Tourism Commission for fueling all the incredibly daft international imagery of Australia which we cannot reverse because our media industry is too tiny.

RyanThunder wrote:

somebody on Infinity Biscuit's tumblr wrote:When men say that they “love to see the woman underneath the makeup,” they’re not saying they want to see your leg stubble and greasy bangs—they’re saying they want you to be better at hiding your maintenance routine. Because the maintenance spoils the fantasy.

How did you get from "you don't need make up" to "you don't need basic personal hygiene"? I don't mean not shaving your legs, either. I don't care what you do with your legs.

How did YOU get from "no makeup" to "not showering" :L