Flying incarnation+Buried Alive or Corpse Connosoir and other tutors was more than enough to give Grimgrin evasion in a pinch, when necessary and eating people didn't create a problem. Olivia with vampires has a tendency to be a more immature deck as there isn't a big support enough yet for red vampires, so you're going to be mostly in black with that tribal.
Invasion/Planar Chaos Dragons+Psion of the Ur-Dragon is one large metacycle that could include 11 players.
The Gods, when complete, will have 15 available for play with potentially, maybe, a 5 color god if they choose to put one into the third set like Chromanticore.
The one work that stands out to me was Reinaldo Arenas' Before Night Falls: A Memoir. The graphic details about his life, ranging about just everything from his writing career to his problems politically under the Castro regime to how he was treated in the US. Yet it was the graphic way in which he addressed the issue of his own sexuality by stating his preferences for black men and the sexual adventures he had. It was quite a revealing work, and included his suicide note.
What works do you recommend that you read outside of your comfort zone that you would recommend to others and why?
Feminism CANNOT achieve gender equality via rabid female tribalism which has now morphed into blatent institutionalization of misandry.
I will give you a specific example with education, in South Africa the president there was missive about AIDS education. This helped to increase the amount of AIDS related cases in that country, there was an idiot belief that AIDS could be cured with having sex with a virgin. So a man has HIV/AIDS, hears from his drinking buddies to get rid of AIDS find a virgin and bang her. Quickest way to get fixed is to:
A. Locate a virgin
B. Have sex with them
Let us presume that the young man doesn't really like to rape, we can presume that the young man is really desperate and doesn't want to die, either. This is like a hungry man wanting to eat a sandwich, yet the local laws do not allow for begging and have no food banks or similar charities. So the man is forced to steal food to survive. Now the perception of afflicted man is that he "needs the sex to live," which makes it more of a tragedy in that in the end both the afflicted rapist and the young woman will both end up with AIDS. Granted men such as Mandela stated education is highly necessary, and came out against the president that came a few after him for his idiocy on the issue and the problems it caused the nation. But the damage is done, and is directly related to one reason why AIDS gets spread to even young women who may very well be very socially conservative and waiting for marriage to have sex. Equally, it is possible that with education that a person can live with HIV or even AIDS, I think?, with medication and end up being okay and living an almost full life (except for sex). So rather than being a rapist, and showing the consequences to young men that they're hurting women and not getting cured would make those desperate for a cure to spend their time searching else where for medication to survive.
That's not misandry at all, that's stopping someone desperate from doing something stupid that they would not otherwise do. That is exactly and precisely something that education can certainly more than help fix, because it started with the stupid meme that a virgin can cure AIDS like a cure all for the common cold by sneezing and coughing into a woman's ******. When you make the idea look stupid, fewer engage in it.
I like a lot of the points Captain_Morgan made. A lot of our problems with sexual violence in this country come not only from bad sex education, but also from ignorance surrounding mental health issues, and stereotypes regarding gender roles. As far as avoiding "male demonization" in sex education - that's why I'd advocate to sticking with gender-neutral concepts, like what constitutes consent. For what it's worth, I did see acknowledgement of forms of rape other then the "male-on-female" variety in the relevant educational materials distributed by my college. They had an example of a gay couple in which one pressured the other for sex, and I think there was one of a girl telling her boyfriend things like "have sex with me or I'll kill myself". Both of these things can constitute rape, and in both cases a man is unquestionably the victim.
@joande's comment directed at myself: No, not all rapes are due to consent ignorance. But ignorance is a much easier thing to fix then a mental health issue, so why don't we focus on that?
As far as the whole feminist theory thing...is it their fault that someone who is too stupid to understand the message gets the wrong idea? Because that's what you appear to be saying with this "multi-layer" thing. Yes these things are complicated. I don't think I've ever run into a professed Feminist that claimed otherwise. So when the masses try to reduce it all to something simple, and it comes out all wrong, is that really surprising? In which case, the problem isn't Feminists trying to demonize men, the problem is that Feminists suck at communicating their message to a non-intellectual audience - and that criticism is something I (and many others) can totally agree with.
Perhaps it has also come time to look at feminism and step back and ask whether it as an intellectual notion lived beyond it's usefulness for some issues, that includes marketing ideas like privilege or cis. And that the marketing issue is that feminism itself was meant as a defense mechanism and intellectual and philosophical ground to pursue equality for women. That as greater equality has been achieved, that the notion of the feminist becomes more mundane and less of a need to differentiate itself as an ideology and that a more universal approach to intellectual and philosophical argumentation and policy analysis may need to be breached. There are women also fighting over the "label" of feminist, such as conservative women who claim that mantle versus those who are liberal and claim the mantle as a part of their own intellectual arena.
I am actually quite opposed to the idea of the continuation of feminism as an intellectual movement in the West, as I believe it has outlived it's usefulness. My mother considered herself a feminist, raised her children with some of those ideas, and it worked to an extent. The males respect their women, while the women are all professionals. Yet, I am not a feminist, I am a conservative by merely accepting the axioms and moving on and synthesizing that with neo-liberalism and some out takes from philosophy and history. However, I do see a need for gaps in intellectualism such as people like Teia Rabishu whose own issues are mainly looked at under intellectualism that studies specifically gender identity and who was influenced by her mother. Yet, there are people who are LBGT and are able to find that intellectual and philosophical justification and argumentation else where at the same time. As LBGT becomes more mainstream, the acceptance for gender and race based understanding within a larger context becomes much more interesting.
Let us take a specific example and tie this into the concept of womanhood and rape. Martha Ballard kept a diary, information about the woman can be found here:
The book is excellent and it covers issues about human sexuality, child rearing, and on and on during the American Revolutionary period and the Early Republic. Yet, there are some feminists who really hate Dr. Ulrich's work because of her historiography. I'm not going to get into a debate over it, there actually is a story about a priest and a woman dealing with rape. I won't spoil the movie, made by PBS some years ago, or book, since I think you need to look at the entire work in it's historical context and what was going on in Martha Ballard's life and avoid what's called "presentism" in the field. That is to judge the past by the morality of the present and miss the context and understanding of the people being studied. Which is what some of the feminist criticisms mostly labored around. The story of Martha Ballard is a great one, which some feminist blast to their own detriment.
The same would go with looking at LBJ's sexual harassment, he used to sit on the toilet with the door open taking a crap while having his secretary stand there looking at him being dictated to and taking notes. And if you read Caro's books, there's a lot more weird in those. Yet, Caro's nor Ulrich's works aren't feminist in all respects, rather they address a problem and how people dealt with the problem at the time as it allows us to see how much the power differences were for Martha Ballard or how much a bully to men and women. The reason why Ullrich's work was so rewarding to read, because it covered so many real life topics such as plagues to sex to medicine to family. That it didn't even need to be particularly feminist, because it dealt with health as an engrossing story and argument. That is also why Caro's work didn't need to be vivisected into a feminist critique of LBJ's sexism, since he a jerk to men as well and more of an overall critique of his brutish behaviors. And that's why I encourage other people to read those works, because they make a more convincing and enduring argument than some of the even more mainstream feminists. Whereas when I read works such as the Feminist Mystique or The Power of Beauty, I see one as antiquated and the other as rather the way the arguments were contrived to be argued that way and had found the arguments argued better elsewhere.
The point is to be pertinent on the emotional spectrum to all people, and that a good writer who makes arguments about human sexuality do quite well. I even read Reinaldo Arenas' autobiography, short read, but it had a lot of gay sex in it and he was quite specific he liked black men and that he gotten AIDS and when he was weak he ended up taking his own life when he could no longer write. While I admit to shirking some of the more sexually explicit scenes in the late Mr. Arenas' work. I did indeed find his arguments and observations on the human condition with regard to sexuality more emotionally appealing than those of many of the feminist writers whose articles and books I have read. While Mr. Arenas was gay, and I typically really really really hate hate graphic sex in my reading, I was drawn to his story because it was his story and what happened to him. It appealed to me, not because I am gay but because I am human. The feminist failure to appeal to others, maybe because they lack stories and theories that others can see in themselves.
So I recommend A Midwife's Tale and Before Night Falls: A Memoir to people who want to read how better to look at the human condition and the outcomes of bad decision by looking at the stories themselves. Both evoke different emotions from the reader and deal with the issues of family, sex, politics, and power better than most specific feminist works I've read.
Mercadian Masques took place in 3 different planes. Mercadian Masques was Mercadia, Nemesis was Rathe, and Prophecy was Jamuraa on Dominaria. So it maybe a return to that style as a set up for a bigger block. Warlords of Khanar may very well represent different warlords and some sort of structure.
1. She already has art based on a constellation in the spoiler art that has thus yet to approach on any actual card
2. She has been confirmed as the Goddess of Night Sky
3. The fifteen card god cycle is enough to be considered a "tribe," and having a rainbow God makes "sense"
4. Chromanticore did not have enough text space for Legendary, while God fits Legendary Enchantment Creature-God in the text space.
5. Chromanticore is the "super Bestow" creature, not the "super enchantment legendary creature"
6. Conflux was the last time we had a legendary color creature
7. Commander is a big hit with people, making a new rainbow legendary would meet with a lot of adulation(therefore fan base and a lot of use for casual and Commander players)
8. Nyx has the powers of the Night Sky, which envelopes all colors in the game
9. Her actual shrine can produce all mana types.
Nyx is a woman, her constellation body has long hair, a staff, and wearing a dress. Constellations can take human form as seen with the archetype cycle, so her gaining a physical form while actually within Nyx itself would be able to be done as a manifestation of her own powers. My presumption would be this:
1. Her devotion animation is going to be equal to or higher than the dual color gods
2. Her ability will be strong to define her abilities
3. Her symmetry will be 5 CC only, since that's been extremely typical of all traditional rainbow legendaries except the strongest
4. Her ability will define her unique place within the pantheon
#4 is really up in the air, since we know so little about her.
1. Part of why we're so resentful of "how to not get raped", but not "how not to get robbed", is that the former has a history of victim-blaming that the latter doesn't. In the not-to-distant past, rape was commonly viewed as the woman's fault. In many parts of the world, it still is. Ergo when it comes up, "how not to get raped" by default comes with the subtext "Not getting raped is your responsibility", because that IS what it meant for the past thousand years. This applies doubly so when the conversation is in text form, since one can't use intonation and body language to indicate that they are not saying this from a place of judgment but instead from a place of empathy/sympathy.
What I tend to dislike about "violence against women," is that directly implies that men do not get raped.. which they do. There are some, while rare instances, of male on male date rape. There are gays who happen to be rapists. Which we have to look at what happens in both contexts that are similar; don't leave your drink somewhere and only be with people you trust. We also have to get beyond for young males, "you ain't going to get raped except in jail by Bubba."
2. The concept of rape culture, from my perspective, is less about rape per se then it is about boundaries, and a lack of respect thereof. This stems a great deal from the atrociously ****ty sex ed in our country. Most of it consists of "here's what sex is, and you should next have it til marriage, the end." Nowhere does it include what is legally considered consent. Boys are left to fill in the blanks, and while you may think it would be common sense, young boys still get it very, very wrong on a regular basis. And why wouldn't they? Teenagers get all sorts of stuff wrong all time when they're unguided and unsupervised, why would this be any different?
Women are also left without a good understanding of boundaries as well, when a young girl attempted to strike my son with a slap he just grabbed her wrist before she could connect and said, "If you hit me again, I'll hit you back. It's that simple."
"You can't hit girls!"
"Then you don't know what personal responsibility means. You don't hit other people and don't expect to get hit back. I didn't hit you, it doesn't give you the excuse to hit me. Even my sister knows that."
He released her wrist, walked away. Girl was pretty stunned.
I taught my children "people don't hit people" rather than "men don't hit women." Makes thing so much easier, especially how I am to know if my children aren't gay? If my son ended up gay, which he isn't, what then he beats up his boyfriends? Seriously, we need to look at those dynamics under different contexts and universalized rules of conduct between person to person issues than just gender vs. gender.
3. A certain amount of it comes from the fact that "don't rape" is inherently in conflict with the concept of masculinity our society likes to push. No, men are not sex-crazed monsters by default, but there's a lot in media that suggests they're supposed to be. Men are encouraged to draw self-esteem from aggression and sexual prowess. It creates a culture in which a man's worth is hinged on his ability to "get some", which subsequently give men way too much incentive to pursue sex at all costs - costs which can and often do include the woman's say in the matter.
Well, we need to take a step back about rape and how people function. During a heightened time period for risk taking, such as horniness, mental illness, war and ect. people take riskier moves. Equally there are times where rape becomes a weapon of war. And there are times when gang rape is used as an initiation test for women into gang life. Now we have to separate say the rapist pedophile, of which there are women who will rape other women, from the rapist who believes if he has sex with a virgin he'll be cured of AIDS. The woman on girl rape is a mental illness and a clear sex crime, the second is a sex crime but also from a desperation for a cure to a deadly illness. The two outcomes are the same, rape has occurred, yet the reasons are very different. The one pursues sex out of a warped desire, the other does so out of a survival need from bad information. Which I agree that the problem is sex ed, but rather not the "culture of rape" rather this Victorian sensibilities that may have worked. Like when men didn't hit women, or that rape was very much a taboo still under the guise of chivalry code of ethics. Now we also have issues of marital rape, which thanks to Lorena Bobbitt have evolved the discussion on consent specifically, which is a clear problem. Yet, there are also cases with women on girl sex that are not addressed because of this Victorian sense that gay sex is "bad" and adds to the unlikely event that a young molested girl by a woman teacher is more likely to come forward.
Equally with teachers who are women and pretty, are more likely to be identified as mentally ill than their male counterparts. Which is another problem with sexuality in public. I will also add that we have to delineate between someone who is say 18 years of age pursuing a 20 something year old teacher that is a breach of professional conduct. Versus that of say the woman on girl pedophilia case. They should not be treated as the same, as they have a different context. One is an abuse of power with two stupid people, the other is an abuse of power as well as mental and physical abuse which goes well above the threshold of abusing power. Since an 18 year old sleeping with their 22 year old teacher may have an otherwise "normal relationship" while the other leads to deleterious consequences such as sociological and psychological problems.
So it is less of a "culture of rape" and more of that we as a society suck about talking about sex in general. Limits, boundaries, decorum, and the like are also possible.
We must also look at the male and female desire for sex itself, and what constitutes the drive to have sex and understand that release of those instincts through a proper framework is an individual decision. As a person who is individually socially conservative as an individual with regards to sex, I believe that in some respect this may also be a problem with the rise in marriage age and the lack to establish early marriages that are on a good basis such as economically, sociologically, and communally. We just fail to get people out of their parents house early enough than nature wants us to, and we need to look at that and say we suck at it.
4. On getting consent - yes, you do need to ask. Kill the mood you say? Not being creative enough, says I. It's a simple matter of "Tell me how much you want me baby!", or some variation thereof. It's really not hard to work it into dirty-talk. As far as being afraid of things being misconstrued - that's why you should be upfront about your intentions. If you aren't sure that your non-verbal communication is getting the point across, BE EXPLICIT and use words! There are plenty of guys I know who have found ways to do this effectively, I'm sure the rest of you can too
Early in my marriage, the wife complained that I was more into books than sex. We had a discussion about it, and she found out that if she wanted it she would have to be aggressive about it. Simply because I was used to being celibate, I used to read in the evening when I retired from the daily grind. It was a strange conversation, but as I said to my wife, "If you want something ask for it." And I agree with you, we need to open up people to be able to talk more about sex that doesn't confuse boundaries. But also we need to expect with young men and women who do have sex not to lie to their partners, as the story I regaled earlier in this thread sent me into a morality spin some years ago when I first heard it.
People that shoot DNA at each other have a responsibility that incurs being honest about problems like STD's, child bearing problems and applications, and other such events.
I find we're talking often too much about men raping women, and less about men who rape men and women who do rape other women. We also have to talk about pedophilia, as well as other forms of abuse and setting up ways in our society to constitute ways of dealing with these problems.
When intervention groups come to school it's always an idea about feminism, when it comes to my household we take more of an equal opportunity approach to problems. If my son is struck by a woman, he is allowed to defend himself. When my daughter is struck by a man she is allowed to defend herself. When either are raped, they're expected to go to the police. I'm not certain why we can't have this conversation with both genders, not just men.
I might actually be inclined to agree with you Tiax, if not for other issues.
1) Where they are locked up is not always where they live (for the purposes of residence representation/gerrymandering).
2) Being locked up means they don't have property, and usually don't pay taxes, and usually don't have a dog in many political fights. What good is a ballot measure on building light-rail to a convict? Or would they only vote in presidential elections?
3) It's human nature to vote for your own interests. What then if prisoners vote for representatives that are soft on crime? Or vice-versa? What of a candidate, who is soft on crime, ensuring that they find a seat in a district with a large prison, easy win?
Well, we have to begin with a few things:
1. What is justice?
2. What does it mean to distribute a fair sentence?
3. What do we do with rehabilitation?
When you dig deeper, you find that access to a good attorney and intervention programs are distinctively race based localities. Not so much because it's racial, rather the nature of agglomeration and people like to live near their families and tend to date people within their race or relatively looks "like them" and so forth tends to lead towards a self fullfiling cycle. Now, conservatives have shown to be great on economic issues with regards to business in comprehending how the "system" works. However, they tend to have a pretty spotty record more modernly on criminal justice.
Libertarian legalization does work for drugs, and I say with gritting my teeth hating many drugs with the handle name of a popular brand of rum. The leftist luvy dovey lefty has much in common with their more communitarian, hardcore conservative Christian Quaker compatriots. Quaker and other forms of old Protestant justice were based on getting the person to work off a fine while being paid and trained to do a trade. Economically these places had fewer people, so forgiving past sins by working as a part of the community "made sense." Then we have to look at Jeremy Bentham and other progressive ideologies who looked at the unfair treatment of individuals and said "can we do better?" And asked some basic human questions.
For white gangsters, or even "wangsters" that pretend to be an "OG," they tend to live in affluent areas and go to places such as the Betty Ford clinic. Their compatriots who live in the city, white or black, tend to not have access to those intervention programs and are seen as a scourge. It is an "us vs. them," in a smaller community that has more resources a person will be more greatly valued than "one of many" who must be "made to pay" so "they" will "not harm" the "community" or "us."
The mechanism is called parochial altruism, you hurt my friend I hurt you. And people will go to great lengths to punish people even at a distinct disadvantage to themselves, which in part explains the 40% trend for civil wars to engage in civil war again.
And talking as someone who would have been on your evening news in an orange jacket had I made a different decision on how to approach revenge and anger against specific people who did legitimate harm. Vengeance made through justice and using the system to work for you is the only way, but it also means being actually diplomatic and political to make sure people understand what happened and what the results of their decisions made. Then that's where you have to understand they won't "always get it," but if the offender does understand "enough" that they did bad and make some work to do "better" and have a proven track record of improving from that dysfunction and daemonic influence. Then forgiveness gradually and tenuous can bring about healing over time, rather than a nebulous "get 'em" either through virtue or vice... the jail or the grave.
Yes you want to feel that sense of "they got what they deserved," but there's also this sense that you want to see the person succeed as well. That's being a humanist. They're in a horrible place, a hell that allows for daemonic influences to corrupt and divorce a person from reality. Sometimes, some people don't realize who they are until someone tells them and then they're humiliated and punished. Then it's up to that person to change, and those that legitimately say and do work hard. What's not to say we shouldn't be there for them?
Love and forgiveness come at a price for everyone, because one day we all will be there in a place we don't like and need those two mechanisms to get back on the road to a real life.
I highly recommend David Friedman's book The Machinery of Freedom to anyone who is interesting in Anarcho-Capitalism. He ditches the moral arguments against government in favor of a more consequentialist approach, which appeals to me more than the NAP does.
The issue comes in from the back end where we discuss aquifers, take for example the issue of Turkey. Turkey has a lot of dams in the way and holds a lot of water from other nation states, if we presume that the use of this water is "private" then each person who farms takes out a lot more water for their "own self interest" when those waters decrease the people down stream will begin to migrate. They say, "Hey you damaged my property, I want that water." Natural inclinations lead towards attacks. Friedman's argument about his book and "sharing through love" neglects parochial altruism, which is basically "you hurt my friend, I hurt you" mechanism. You see this all the time in youngsters and people who make gangs. Now let us take the Turkish example, you have a gang of farmers who band together into an army and then invade Turkey and carve it up into kingdoms. The Turks can do nothing about that, and lose access to their water. So they either move or stay and integrate with their conquerors. Those who move, tend to invade other peopled areas and either integrate peacefully or invade and conquer.
Frankly, from what I'm seeing with the work you recommend is that he's sidestepping some of the research done by people like Elinor Ostrom over the tragedy of the commons
His axiom because "people believe it is necessary" often comes at a curious question, when we have government we have more wealth and prosperity whereas without government we have anarchy and disorder and death. Without government, you had the issue of the Disease Holocaust which affected the Indian Americans upon the first landings of the explorers spreading disease by accident. The second wave came from the 300 years war against the tribes, that arguably haven't really been satisfied except over time and a more enlightened time about national identity. So we have to time into construct "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to borrow a thesis into this point about both intended and unintended consequences for such things.
If we consider game theory, we can see that it allows people to begin to make decisions through practiced decision making processes rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel." There are also just somethings that people want and cannot be bought, so rather than resort to crime we resort to the courts. Yet, a profit based court without a free press is more inclined to rule for the richer party. The old Grecian argument, "Yea I killed her, and you know what? I did do it, but you see that bridge over there. I built that, and if you like that bridge then, well, let me go. Otherwise, you're not going to see another one." You get all sorts of quirky arguments like that when you begin to make a market based approach to such things as justice. Removing money from some arguments and having a concept of "the law" over "the money" is another access point.
Now, the portion of the problem with the justice system is not a "cheaper justice system" but rather a cheaper defense prospects and more able body lawyers in the US. In Canada, there are more lawyers, yet they earn less than the US and are much more affordable. Whereas Sudan, trying to get justice requires a gun. It's really hard to argue based on realistic outcomes for how people behave without government, because when we see it.. we see some acting okay and others like feral children.
There are certain issues dividing this country that you just cannot compromise on. For instance, you cannot have 50% Obamacare. There are those who are opposed to Obamacare, there are those who are in favor of it, and both sides are elected specifically to hold their ground and not budge against the other.
That's also a part of the issue, it's "Obamacare" and seen as a "great evil" that "must be killed." This is the same way that Jackson looked at the American banking industry as "evil, evil, evil, must go away at all costs." Yet, it took an entire economic bubble and crash, Polk to create a new state based system, and then after multiple other crashes to create the Fed.
This reminds me of a lot of NCLB act under Bush, a lot of good ideas strung together with some idiot ideas that came from some think tanks and politicians that focused on a broad goal by telling teachers what to teach and ended up creating a massive problem.
The point is that you can support the ethos behind a bill but not the pathos and exact policy. When you get to policy, you must be very specific. For example, I do not believe in the insurance agency setting life time caps on healthcare spending. Get rid of the healthcare bill, and that comes back. Then "replacing" it will take months, and then for that legislation to come back into vogue, if it does, will require six months to become law, again.
Amendments, reform, and taking your time to be a good editor. However, when conservatives talk like, "Don't judge me by how many laws we pass, but how many laws we repeal."
It's called quality management and editing, it's also called human centered design. When those are applied to the private sector those designs have worked quite well, however it may have come time to look at the structure of the committees themselves. For example, many of the top posts are based on seniority. Why? Why aren't they merit based, how do we make those merit based?
Would I rather have Steve Jobs nominated and elected as head of the technology related committees for a few years when he was alive? Perhaps, might have been interesting. At the very least I would rather have some young person followed up by a CEO then by a regulator dependent on the zeitgeist of the times with the people. Rather than being totally about court politics in the system.
We must also look at that the rules aren't being always followed, such as the "return to regular order" under the budget process. Why did it take 5 years? Because Congress had a bunch of neophytes that didn't understand process that wanted to change the process and a bunch of old timers that had to tame the social sphere.
For example, Michelle Bachman reached out for greater power multiple times without building the relationships inside of the system, nor were her merits very well known such as being a tax lawyer. That certainly damaged her ability to gain power, whereas Ron Paul was known to be a medical doctor and a devout Austrian follower that wanted the Fed destroyed. He also had the relationships to gain that power.
Spain? 7,000 years ago? I believe this guy would have been from an ethnic group that was to be overrun by two or three successive waves of invaders from the east. That's why Spaniards don't look like that today. This certainly isn't what humans looked like 7,000 years ago everywhere. The bulk of the modern Europeans' ancestors (there would of course have been some mingling with the locals) were still somewhere in Central Asia.
Raises a point, though, about the persistence of blue eyes in Spanish blood, though, was more of my thinking.
Apu from the Simpsons is probably the biggest racist character on TV today. You'd be amazed at how racist people are about Indians and how socially acceptable it is. I've literally had people joke to me that my wife's name is 'ali baba' or give me all sorts of stupid, insensitive and full-out racist nonsense.
"What are you?"
You've got no idea how many times my kids get asked that, the wife's white. At least your own children won't be compared to a cookie...
I have been a long-time viewer of HIMYM and, while I am of part Asian heritage, I do not believe that it is at all reasonable to be up in arms about the episode. It isn't the unproud and 'white-washed' that feel this way; instead, I feel that anyone who has taken offence has no appreciation of the clear homage to Hong Kong kung fu cinema or of humour. Such people have taken this far too seriously and are too sensitive.
As for daily life, I get no more and no less than your average person. Regarding popular culture, it is demonstrable that Asian people are not usually portrayed well, if they are even represented. In fact, another comedy television show that I watch, Community, made this precise comment in one of their more recent episodes.
Considering what they did with Woopi Goldberg in The Associate, if it's done tastefully or a social statement I enjoy those sorts of things. However, I think with modern movie make-up if it's done extremely well and people aren't able to tell the core race. Then why not engage in those experiments? Having white people play black people, having black people play Asians, and on and on in regular, real roles. Granted in some places it would require heavy make-up, but it would make for one hell of a performance.
If you look at Young Justice... Batgirl, white and a red head just like every other version, was voiced by an African American. If we have the technology, then why not have something challenge? I think it'd be fun. Certainly there's problems like with Sean Connery playing an Arab with a hilariously thick brogue but I digress. Sometimes you just have to move on.
I have a tendency to view East Asians with great respect, a halo effect. Mostly because of some friends and mentors who were loyal, had a good sense of humor, a wit and wisdom that helped me at a dark time in my life.
Life's weird.
Although I have to say weirdest question I ever got was on this forum, "What is your education level?" Never ever got what those PM's on how to take them. Strange. But people will always ask strange questions, it's like being a trans and being asked whether you have a ***** or a ******. Or an American Indian that gets asked what % blood are you? Each person gets their stupid question in polite society.
I'm predominately German and my wife is Chinese so our daughter is mixed. I have predominately lived in areas with diverse populations (Hawaii, San Francisco.)
I found blatant racism in Hawaii fairly commonly directed towards me (haole), but there were also common stereotypes about various Asian and Pacific Islander countries/islands of origin.
I haven't experienced any overt comments directed toward an Asian or white person in SF. I have overheard; however, overheard many overt racist comments directed towards Black individuals. Though, if I may stereotype, I believe those comments have predominately been made by non-SF residents.
I've lived in a lot of different places, I've been called everything under the sun.
What strikes me is whenever people start to pull different ethos based on race, and differences in human beings. I've reacted myself to certain things myself, first time I met an Amish woman and another time was a Sikh. Mostly because I read so much about them, was more like a "cool, never met one of you people before!"
Reminds me more recently I met a younger woman who after a while got to know her as a person well, found out she was gay. Was like, "You're the first openly gay person I've ever met that I knew was gay." She was like, "Well, pleased to meet ya." Was pretty funny really, and we get along great.
Occupy Wall Street peoples, gays, whites, Asians, transpersons, and on and on. So much fascination on how each suffers in their own unique way, yet they all look for a certain commonality among their fellow people. An old mentor once taught me, "Treat your employees as human beings, always. If anyone tells you different, fire them."
The Gods, when complete, will have 15 available for play with potentially, maybe, a 5 color god if they choose to put one into the third set like Chromanticore.
What works do you recommend that you read outside of your comfort zone that you would recommend to others and why?
I will give you a specific example with education, in South Africa the president there was missive about AIDS education. This helped to increase the amount of AIDS related cases in that country, there was an idiot belief that AIDS could be cured with having sex with a virgin. So a man has HIV/AIDS, hears from his drinking buddies to get rid of AIDS find a virgin and bang her. Quickest way to get fixed is to:
A. Locate a virgin
B. Have sex with them
Let us presume that the young man doesn't really like to rape, we can presume that the young man is really desperate and doesn't want to die, either. This is like a hungry man wanting to eat a sandwich, yet the local laws do not allow for begging and have no food banks or similar charities. So the man is forced to steal food to survive. Now the perception of afflicted man is that he "needs the sex to live," which makes it more of a tragedy in that in the end both the afflicted rapist and the young woman will both end up with AIDS. Granted men such as Mandela stated education is highly necessary, and came out against the president that came a few after him for his idiocy on the issue and the problems it caused the nation. But the damage is done, and is directly related to one reason why AIDS gets spread to even young women who may very well be very socially conservative and waiting for marriage to have sex. Equally, it is possible that with education that a person can live with HIV or even AIDS, I think?, with medication and end up being okay and living an almost full life (except for sex). So rather than being a rapist, and showing the consequences to young men that they're hurting women and not getting cured would make those desperate for a cure to spend their time searching else where for medication to survive.
That's not misandry at all, that's stopping someone desperate from doing something stupid that they would not otherwise do. That is exactly and precisely something that education can certainly more than help fix, because it started with the stupid meme that a virgin can cure AIDS like a cure all for the common cold by sneezing and coughing into a woman's ******. When you make the idea look stupid, fewer engage in it.
Perhaps it has also come time to look at feminism and step back and ask whether it as an intellectual notion lived beyond it's usefulness for some issues, that includes marketing ideas like privilege or cis. And that the marketing issue is that feminism itself was meant as a defense mechanism and intellectual and philosophical ground to pursue equality for women. That as greater equality has been achieved, that the notion of the feminist becomes more mundane and less of a need to differentiate itself as an ideology and that a more universal approach to intellectual and philosophical argumentation and policy analysis may need to be breached. There are women also fighting over the "label" of feminist, such as conservative women who claim that mantle versus those who are liberal and claim the mantle as a part of their own intellectual arena.
I am actually quite opposed to the idea of the continuation of feminism as an intellectual movement in the West, as I believe it has outlived it's usefulness. My mother considered herself a feminist, raised her children with some of those ideas, and it worked to an extent. The males respect their women, while the women are all professionals. Yet, I am not a feminist, I am a conservative by merely accepting the axioms and moving on and synthesizing that with neo-liberalism and some out takes from philosophy and history. However, I do see a need for gaps in intellectualism such as people like Teia Rabishu whose own issues are mainly looked at under intellectualism that studies specifically gender identity and who was influenced by her mother. Yet, there are people who are LBGT and are able to find that intellectual and philosophical justification and argumentation else where at the same time. As LBGT becomes more mainstream, the acceptance for gender and race based understanding within a larger context becomes much more interesting.
Let us take a specific example and tie this into the concept of womanhood and rape. Martha Ballard kept a diary, information about the woman can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Ballard
Then A Midwife's Tale was written by this woman:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurel_Thatcher_Ulrich
The book is excellent and it covers issues about human sexuality, child rearing, and on and on during the American Revolutionary period and the Early Republic. Yet, there are some feminists who really hate Dr. Ulrich's work because of her historiography. I'm not going to get into a debate over it, there actually is a story about a priest and a woman dealing with rape. I won't spoil the movie, made by PBS some years ago, or book, since I think you need to look at the entire work in it's historical context and what was going on in Martha Ballard's life and avoid what's called "presentism" in the field. That is to judge the past by the morality of the present and miss the context and understanding of the people being studied. Which is what some of the feminist criticisms mostly labored around. The story of Martha Ballard is a great one, which some feminist blast to their own detriment.
The same would go with looking at LBJ's sexual harassment, he used to sit on the toilet with the door open taking a crap while having his secretary stand there looking at him being dictated to and taking notes. And if you read Caro's books, there's a lot more weird in those. Yet, Caro's nor Ulrich's works aren't feminist in all respects, rather they address a problem and how people dealt with the problem at the time as it allows us to see how much the power differences were for Martha Ballard or how much a bully to men and women. The reason why Ullrich's work was so rewarding to read, because it covered so many real life topics such as plagues to sex to medicine to family. That it didn't even need to be particularly feminist, because it dealt with health as an engrossing story and argument. That is also why Caro's work didn't need to be vivisected into a feminist critique of LBJ's sexism, since he a jerk to men as well and more of an overall critique of his brutish behaviors. And that's why I encourage other people to read those works, because they make a more convincing and enduring argument than some of the even more mainstream feminists. Whereas when I read works such as the Feminist Mystique or The Power of Beauty, I see one as antiquated and the other as rather the way the arguments were contrived to be argued that way and had found the arguments argued better elsewhere.
The point is to be pertinent on the emotional spectrum to all people, and that a good writer who makes arguments about human sexuality do quite well. I even read Reinaldo Arenas' autobiography, short read, but it had a lot of gay sex in it and he was quite specific he liked black men and that he gotten AIDS and when he was weak he ended up taking his own life when he could no longer write. While I admit to shirking some of the more sexually explicit scenes in the late Mr. Arenas' work. I did indeed find his arguments and observations on the human condition with regard to sexuality more emotionally appealing than those of many of the feminist writers whose articles and books I have read. While Mr. Arenas was gay, and I typically really really really hate hate graphic sex in my reading, I was drawn to his story because it was his story and what happened to him. It appealed to me, not because I am gay but because I am human. The feminist failure to appeal to others, maybe because they lack stories and theories that others can see in themselves.
So I recommend A Midwife's Tale and Before Night Falls: A Memoir to people who want to read how better to look at the human condition and the outcomes of bad decision by looking at the stories themselves. Both evoke different emotions from the reader and deal with the issues of family, sex, politics, and power better than most specific feminist works I've read.
2. She has been confirmed as the Goddess of Night Sky
3. The fifteen card god cycle is enough to be considered a "tribe," and having a rainbow God makes "sense"
4. Chromanticore did not have enough text space for Legendary, while God fits Legendary Enchantment Creature-God in the text space.
5. Chromanticore is the "super Bestow" creature, not the "super enchantment legendary creature"
6. Conflux was the last time we had a legendary color creature
7. Commander is a big hit with people, making a new rainbow legendary would meet with a lot of adulation(therefore fan base and a lot of use for casual and Commander players)
8. Nyx has the powers of the Night Sky, which envelopes all colors in the game
9. Her actual shrine can produce all mana types.
Nyx is a woman, her constellation body has long hair, a staff, and wearing a dress. Constellations can take human form as seen with the archetype cycle, so her gaining a physical form while actually within Nyx itself would be able to be done as a manifestation of her own powers. My presumption would be this:
1. Her devotion animation is going to be equal to or higher than the dual color gods
2. Her ability will be strong to define her abilities
3. Her symmetry will be 5 CC only, since that's been extremely typical of all traditional rainbow legendaries except the strongest
4. Her ability will define her unique place within the pantheon
#4 is really up in the air, since we know so little about her.
What I tend to dislike about "violence against women," is that directly implies that men do not get raped.. which they do. There are some, while rare instances, of male on male date rape. There are gays who happen to be rapists. Which we have to look at what happens in both contexts that are similar; don't leave your drink somewhere and only be with people you trust. We also have to get beyond for young males, "you ain't going to get raped except in jail by Bubba."
Women are also left without a good understanding of boundaries as well, when a young girl attempted to strike my son with a slap he just grabbed her wrist before she could connect and said, "If you hit me again, I'll hit you back. It's that simple."
"You can't hit girls!"
"Then you don't know what personal responsibility means. You don't hit other people and don't expect to get hit back. I didn't hit you, it doesn't give you the excuse to hit me. Even my sister knows that."
He released her wrist, walked away. Girl was pretty stunned.
I taught my children "people don't hit people" rather than "men don't hit women." Makes thing so much easier, especially how I am to know if my children aren't gay? If my son ended up gay, which he isn't, what then he beats up his boyfriends? Seriously, we need to look at those dynamics under different contexts and universalized rules of conduct between person to person issues than just gender vs. gender.
Well, we need to take a step back about rape and how people function. During a heightened time period for risk taking, such as horniness, mental illness, war and ect. people take riskier moves. Equally there are times where rape becomes a weapon of war. And there are times when gang rape is used as an initiation test for women into gang life. Now we have to separate say the rapist pedophile, of which there are women who will rape other women, from the rapist who believes if he has sex with a virgin he'll be cured of AIDS. The woman on girl rape is a mental illness and a clear sex crime, the second is a sex crime but also from a desperation for a cure to a deadly illness. The two outcomes are the same, rape has occurred, yet the reasons are very different. The one pursues sex out of a warped desire, the other does so out of a survival need from bad information. Which I agree that the problem is sex ed, but rather not the "culture of rape" rather this Victorian sensibilities that may have worked. Like when men didn't hit women, or that rape was very much a taboo still under the guise of chivalry code of ethics. Now we also have issues of marital rape, which thanks to Lorena Bobbitt have evolved the discussion on consent specifically, which is a clear problem. Yet, there are also cases with women on girl sex that are not addressed because of this Victorian sense that gay sex is "bad" and adds to the unlikely event that a young molested girl by a woman teacher is more likely to come forward.
Equally with teachers who are women and pretty, are more likely to be identified as mentally ill than their male counterparts. Which is another problem with sexuality in public. I will also add that we have to delineate between someone who is say 18 years of age pursuing a 20 something year old teacher that is a breach of professional conduct. Versus that of say the woman on girl pedophilia case. They should not be treated as the same, as they have a different context. One is an abuse of power with two stupid people, the other is an abuse of power as well as mental and physical abuse which goes well above the threshold of abusing power. Since an 18 year old sleeping with their 22 year old teacher may have an otherwise "normal relationship" while the other leads to deleterious consequences such as sociological and psychological problems.
So it is less of a "culture of rape" and more of that we as a society suck about talking about sex in general. Limits, boundaries, decorum, and the like are also possible.
We must also look at the male and female desire for sex itself, and what constitutes the drive to have sex and understand that release of those instincts through a proper framework is an individual decision. As a person who is individually socially conservative as an individual with regards to sex, I believe that in some respect this may also be a problem with the rise in marriage age and the lack to establish early marriages that are on a good basis such as economically, sociologically, and communally. We just fail to get people out of their parents house early enough than nature wants us to, and we need to look at that and say we suck at it.
Early in my marriage, the wife complained that I was more into books than sex. We had a discussion about it, and she found out that if she wanted it she would have to be aggressive about it. Simply because I was used to being celibate, I used to read in the evening when I retired from the daily grind. It was a strange conversation, but as I said to my wife, "If you want something ask for it." And I agree with you, we need to open up people to be able to talk more about sex that doesn't confuse boundaries. But also we need to expect with young men and women who do have sex not to lie to their partners, as the story I regaled earlier in this thread sent me into a morality spin some years ago when I first heard it.
People that shoot DNA at each other have a responsibility that incurs being honest about problems like STD's, child bearing problems and applications, and other such events.
I find we're talking often too much about men raping women, and less about men who rape men and women who do rape other women. We also have to talk about pedophilia, as well as other forms of abuse and setting up ways in our society to constitute ways of dealing with these problems.
When intervention groups come to school it's always an idea about feminism, when it comes to my household we take more of an equal opportunity approach to problems. If my son is struck by a woman, he is allowed to defend himself. When my daughter is struck by a man she is allowed to defend herself. When either are raped, they're expected to go to the police. I'm not certain why we can't have this conversation with both genders, not just men.
Well, we have to begin with a few things:
1. What is justice?
2. What does it mean to distribute a fair sentence?
3. What do we do with rehabilitation?
When you dig deeper, you find that access to a good attorney and intervention programs are distinctively race based localities. Not so much because it's racial, rather the nature of agglomeration and people like to live near their families and tend to date people within their race or relatively looks "like them" and so forth tends to lead towards a self fullfiling cycle. Now, conservatives have shown to be great on economic issues with regards to business in comprehending how the "system" works. However, they tend to have a pretty spotty record more modernly on criminal justice.
Libertarian legalization does work for drugs, and I say with gritting my teeth hating many drugs with the handle name of a popular brand of rum. The leftist luvy dovey lefty has much in common with their more communitarian, hardcore conservative Christian Quaker compatriots. Quaker and other forms of old Protestant justice were based on getting the person to work off a fine while being paid and trained to do a trade. Economically these places had fewer people, so forgiving past sins by working as a part of the community "made sense." Then we have to look at Jeremy Bentham and other progressive ideologies who looked at the unfair treatment of individuals and said "can we do better?" And asked some basic human questions.
For white gangsters, or even "wangsters" that pretend to be an "OG," they tend to live in affluent areas and go to places such as the Betty Ford clinic. Their compatriots who live in the city, white or black, tend to not have access to those intervention programs and are seen as a scourge. It is an "us vs. them," in a smaller community that has more resources a person will be more greatly valued than "one of many" who must be "made to pay" so "they" will "not harm" the "community" or "us."
The mechanism is called parochial altruism, you hurt my friend I hurt you. And people will go to great lengths to punish people even at a distinct disadvantage to themselves, which in part explains the 40% trend for civil wars to engage in civil war again.
And talking as someone who would have been on your evening news in an orange jacket had I made a different decision on how to approach revenge and anger against specific people who did legitimate harm. Vengeance made through justice and using the system to work for you is the only way, but it also means being actually diplomatic and political to make sure people understand what happened and what the results of their decisions made. Then that's where you have to understand they won't "always get it," but if the offender does understand "enough" that they did bad and make some work to do "better" and have a proven track record of improving from that dysfunction and daemonic influence. Then forgiveness gradually and tenuous can bring about healing over time, rather than a nebulous "get 'em" either through virtue or vice... the jail or the grave.
Yes you want to feel that sense of "they got what they deserved," but there's also this sense that you want to see the person succeed as well. That's being a humanist. They're in a horrible place, a hell that allows for daemonic influences to corrupt and divorce a person from reality. Sometimes, some people don't realize who they are until someone tells them and then they're humiliated and punished. Then it's up to that person to change, and those that legitimately say and do work hard. What's not to say we shouldn't be there for them?
Love and forgiveness come at a price for everyone, because one day we all will be there in a place we don't like and need those two mechanisms to get back on the road to a real life.
The issue comes in from the back end where we discuss aquifers, take for example the issue of Turkey. Turkey has a lot of dams in the way and holds a lot of water from other nation states, if we presume that the use of this water is "private" then each person who farms takes out a lot more water for their "own self interest" when those waters decrease the people down stream will begin to migrate. They say, "Hey you damaged my property, I want that water." Natural inclinations lead towards attacks. Friedman's argument about his book and "sharing through love" neglects parochial altruism, which is basically "you hurt my friend, I hurt you" mechanism. You see this all the time in youngsters and people who make gangs. Now let us take the Turkish example, you have a gang of farmers who band together into an army and then invade Turkey and carve it up into kingdoms. The Turks can do nothing about that, and lose access to their water. So they either move or stay and integrate with their conquerors. Those who move, tend to invade other peopled areas and either integrate peacefully or invade and conquer.
Frankly, from what I'm seeing with the work you recommend is that he's sidestepping some of the research done by people like Elinor Ostrom over the tragedy of the commons
His axiom because "people believe it is necessary" often comes at a curious question, when we have government we have more wealth and prosperity whereas without government we have anarchy and disorder and death. Without government, you had the issue of the Disease Holocaust which affected the Indian Americans upon the first landings of the explorers spreading disease by accident. The second wave came from the 300 years war against the tribes, that arguably haven't really been satisfied except over time and a more enlightened time about national identity. So we have to time into construct "Guns, Germs, and Steel" to borrow a thesis into this point about both intended and unintended consequences for such things.
If we consider game theory, we can see that it allows people to begin to make decisions through practiced decision making processes rather than trying to "reinvent the wheel." There are also just somethings that people want and cannot be bought, so rather than resort to crime we resort to the courts. Yet, a profit based court without a free press is more inclined to rule for the richer party. The old Grecian argument, "Yea I killed her, and you know what? I did do it, but you see that bridge over there. I built that, and if you like that bridge then, well, let me go. Otherwise, you're not going to see another one." You get all sorts of quirky arguments like that when you begin to make a market based approach to such things as justice. Removing money from some arguments and having a concept of "the law" over "the money" is another access point.
Now, the portion of the problem with the justice system is not a "cheaper justice system" but rather a cheaper defense prospects and more able body lawyers in the US. In Canada, there are more lawyers, yet they earn less than the US and are much more affordable. Whereas Sudan, trying to get justice requires a gun. It's really hard to argue based on realistic outcomes for how people behave without government, because when we see it.. we see some acting okay and others like feral children.
That's also a part of the issue, it's "Obamacare" and seen as a "great evil" that "must be killed." This is the same way that Jackson looked at the American banking industry as "evil, evil, evil, must go away at all costs." Yet, it took an entire economic bubble and crash, Polk to create a new state based system, and then after multiple other crashes to create the Fed.
This reminds me of a lot of NCLB act under Bush, a lot of good ideas strung together with some idiot ideas that came from some think tanks and politicians that focused on a broad goal by telling teachers what to teach and ended up creating a massive problem.
The point is that you can support the ethos behind a bill but not the pathos and exact policy. When you get to policy, you must be very specific. For example, I do not believe in the insurance agency setting life time caps on healthcare spending. Get rid of the healthcare bill, and that comes back. Then "replacing" it will take months, and then for that legislation to come back into vogue, if it does, will require six months to become law, again.
Amendments, reform, and taking your time to be a good editor. However, when conservatives talk like, "Don't judge me by how many laws we pass, but how many laws we repeal."
As a conservative, I just do this:
............................................________
....................................,.-'"...................``~.,
.............................,.-"..................................."-.,
.........................,/...............................................":,
.....................,?......................................................,
.................../...........................................................,}
................./......................................................,:`^`..}
.............../...................................................,:"........./
..............?.....__.........................................:`.........../
............./__.(....."~-,_..............................,:`........../
.........../(_...."~,_........"~,_....................,:`........_/
..........{.._$;_......"=,_......."-,_.......,.-~-,},.~";/....}
...........((.....*~_......."=-._......";,,./`..../"............../
...,,,___.`~,......"~.,....................`.....}............../
............(....`=-,,.......`........................(......;_,,-"
............/.`~,......`-...................................../
.............`~.*-,.....................................|,./.....,__
,,_..........}.>-._...................................|..............`=~-,
.....`=~-,__......`,.................................
...................`=~-,,.,...............................
................................`:,,...........................`..............__
.....................................`=-,...................,%`>--==``
........................................_..........._,-%.......`
...................................,
It's called quality management and editing, it's also called human centered design. When those are applied to the private sector those designs have worked quite well, however it may have come time to look at the structure of the committees themselves. For example, many of the top posts are based on seniority. Why? Why aren't they merit based, how do we make those merit based?
Would I rather have Steve Jobs nominated and elected as head of the technology related committees for a few years when he was alive? Perhaps, might have been interesting. At the very least I would rather have some young person followed up by a CEO then by a regulator dependent on the zeitgeist of the times with the people. Rather than being totally about court politics in the system.
We must also look at that the rules aren't being always followed, such as the "return to regular order" under the budget process. Why did it take 5 years? Because Congress had a bunch of neophytes that didn't understand process that wanted to change the process and a bunch of old timers that had to tame the social sphere.
For example, Michelle Bachman reached out for greater power multiple times without building the relationships inside of the system, nor were her merits very well known such as being a tax lawyer. That certainly damaged her ability to gain power, whereas Ron Paul was known to be a medical doctor and a devout Austrian follower that wanted the Fed destroyed. He also had the relationships to gain that power.
Raises a point, though, about the persistence of blue eyes in Spanish blood, though, was more of my thinking.
"What are you?"
You've got no idea how many times my kids get asked that, the wife's white. At least your own children won't be compared to a cookie...
Considering what they did with Woopi Goldberg in The Associate, if it's done tastefully or a social statement I enjoy those sorts of things. However, I think with modern movie make-up if it's done extremely well and people aren't able to tell the core race. Then why not engage in those experiments? Having white people play black people, having black people play Asians, and on and on in regular, real roles. Granted in some places it would require heavy make-up, but it would make for one hell of a performance.
If you look at Young Justice... Batgirl, white and a red head just like every other version, was voiced by an African American. If we have the technology, then why not have something challenge? I think it'd be fun. Certainly there's problems like with Sean Connery playing an Arab with a hilariously thick brogue but I digress. Sometimes you just have to move on.
I have a tendency to view East Asians with great respect, a halo effect. Mostly because of some friends and mentors who were loyal, had a good sense of humor, a wit and wisdom that helped me at a dark time in my life.
Life's weird.
Although I have to say weirdest question I ever got was on this forum, "What is your education level?" Never ever got what those PM's on how to take them. Strange. But people will always ask strange questions, it's like being a trans and being asked whether you have a ***** or a ******. Or an American Indian that gets asked what % blood are you? Each person gets their stupid question in polite society.
I've lived in a lot of different places, I've been called everything under the sun.
What strikes me is whenever people start to pull different ethos based on race, and differences in human beings. I've reacted myself to certain things myself, first time I met an Amish woman and another time was a Sikh. Mostly because I read so much about them, was more like a "cool, never met one of you people before!"
Reminds me more recently I met a younger woman who after a while got to know her as a person well, found out she was gay. Was like, "You're the first openly gay person I've ever met that I knew was gay." She was like, "Well, pleased to meet ya." Was pretty funny really, and we get along great.
Occupy Wall Street peoples, gays, whites, Asians, transpersons, and on and on. So much fascination on how each suffers in their own unique way, yet they all look for a certain commonality among their fellow people. An old mentor once taught me, "Treat your employees as human beings, always. If anyone tells you different, fire them."
Neat.