Posts by linger
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
Hard News: About Arie, in reply to Russell Brown,
+1 for "Aspie"
certainly preferable to the older label "high-functioning autistic", which, even though I know what it's supposed to refer to, and even though it does correctly stress the existence of a continuum, still strikes me as being inherently meaningless, as in itself it fails to indicate what functions are to be regarded as "high", or what (or whom) "high" is to be measured relative to. -
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Andre Alessi,
You can’t chop alcohol
Hence the phrase "half-cut".
-
I do struggle to keep up with where the moral high ground is at any given moment.
It's usually to be found under the moral high horse.
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to andin,
The really ironic thing is that back in the day, Brian himself was regularly accused of being a “rude” interviewer of foreign celebrities such as Dr Christian Barnard (as described in Edwards’ autobiography The Public Eye, in which he goes to great lengths to point out the necessity of a probing interview style).
Perhaps JC’s Ring interview wasn’t probing enough.
-
OnPoint: On Price Gouging, in reply to recordari,
Isn’t this entire thread basically about a meths problem?
-
Hard News: The First Draft, in reply to Martin Lindberg,
(They're only out for themselves, you know.)
-
Muse: Shelf Life: The Dying Elephant in…, in reply to DCBCauchi,
However, one of the most pervasive concepts making up rules for constructing and interpreting human language is … identity
(necessary for pronoun systems, deixis, definiteness, existential constructions, and possibly, though less directly, even for tense/ aspect systems).
It isn’t clear to me how postmodernism copes with that.Islander: close, it’s hyoid (for other readers, it’s the one above the larynx).
-
Up Front: Say When, in reply to giovanni tiso,
Can we agree that speaking for people is problematic? Wouldn’t it be better if people with disabilities were […] enabled, allowed to speak for themselves?
Sure – speaking for is extremely problematic … if that is all that is happening. (I agree with the remainder of your comments too, and Deborah’s response.)
I was merely suggesting that it can be helpful, if it happens in combination with speaking with (i.e., dialogue between insiders and outsiders) and speaking from (i.e. personal accounts by insiders).
[I was taking the importance of the last of these for granted. Yes, it is better to make it explicit.]
[ETA: meanwhile, Sacha has summed up what I intended!]
I think I was also suggesting that, conversely, merely being a member of a group doesn’t automatically mean you can speak for the group (though of course it does mean you can, and should, speak for yourself).
-
And that my very well meaning advocacy for autism is not the same as an autistic person’s own advocacy.
Agreed – but I’d note that “not the same” is not necessarily “worse”.
The purpose of (social) advocacy is to bring about change in attitudes and opportunities. When the group advocated for is a minority, working towards that goal requires that advocates be able to communicate effectively with the general public and with policymakers – which means being able to frame issues of genuine concern to the minority group persuasively in the audience’s own terms. (Even if, simultaneously, those terms are also to be challenged.)
Hence the most effective advocacy should ideally comprise both insiders and outsiders working as a team.
Issues of legitimacy are likely to arise if advocates are not actually members of the group represented; but all that is really necessary (regardless of the advocate’s membership status) is that the advocates demonstrably fairly and accurately represent that group’s wishes. -
@George
So this becomes:
Dressing and behaving in certain ways may uplift certain members of the patriarchy.As already pointed out in this thread, though -
why should that be allowed to become a problem for women?ETA: which leads into Sally's comment just above.