Way off topic... What the heck is a "tuck friendly" swimsuit?

[Jeff Leites]

I can't even figure it out with Google 😕

[bill5]

Something tells me I don't wanna know...

 

[o0Ampy0o]

Think girdle for the low notes of the beer belly.

 

[Anderton]

I thought maybe "tuck" was a euphemism for a word that begins with "f."

[Jeff Leites]

Well, naive me finally found a helpful web page...  and you might not want to know 🤯

https://www.them.us/story/best-swimwear-for-trans-women-femmes

 

In short, a swimsuit for the Lola crowd.

 

[Dr Mike Metlay]

This is a fashion statement.

 

The statement is: "Hi, I am trans and I don't want to be beaten up or raped or killed, so I'm going to wear this swimsuit that makes me look like someone folks think is 'normal'.  In a sane world, I'd be safe as I am, but now at least I can try to pass without being called out."

 

It's not something most folks have to think about, but as the father of an adult daughter whose trans friends sometimes show up at our door with cuts and bruises, I got myself educated in a big damn hurry. Some humans truly do make me weep for the species.

 

mike

 

[Notes_Norton]

8 hours ago, Dr Mike Metlay said:

trans friends sometimes show up at our door with cuts and bruises, I got myself educated in a big damn hurry.

That's really sad.

 

Live and let live. Mind your own business. And so on.

 

IMO there is too much unnecessary hate in the world.

 

Notes ♫

[o0Ampy0o]

This is a dichotomous existence in which we live. You cannot have love without hate. The inherent dynamic affords opportunities to learn, experience, change form and positions and grow.  There is no "it" if there is no "not it." It could not be defined if it were constant and so prevalent that you could not see it from the outside or to where it does not extend. So there can never be a world of love absent of hate. We all have some of both within us. There are generally loving people. There are generally hateful people. Both seek targets. Both make more of its significance to themselves and to others. If it wasn't __________it would be something else. A consequence is that we can develop compassion and empathy by having been on the inside and outside of things and relating it to other experiences. What does not make sense is any notion that one side will eventually wipe out the other. While extremes may take turns dominating, they are always intermingling. The most extreme that could ever be is that the bulk of both sides retreat to their respective corners awaiting a stage when the two will meet full force again in the ring.

 

[KenElevenShadows]

If we are to do the right thing, we should not accept that we live in a dichotomous world and hope that we all "develop compassion and empathy by having been on the inside and outside of things and relating it to other experiences"

 

If there's hate, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so forth, we shouldn't stand for it. We should call it out. We should stop it. We should teach that this is wrong. We should battle it every step of the way.

 

We should not simply accept that a dichotomous existence is part of nature and stand idly by with our hands on our pockets. We need to be anti-hate, anti-racist, anti-misogyny, and anti-bigotry.

 

We should not live in a world where Mike's daughter brings home trans friends who have cuts and bruises because we "cannot have love without hate". That's not my idea of a good world for us to live. As always, your mileage may vary, but I hope it doesn't.

[Anderton]

1 hour ago, KenElevenShadows said:

If we are to do the right thing, we should not accept that we live in a dichotomous world and hope that we all "develop compassion and empathy by having been on the inside and outside of things and relating it to other experiences"

 

Hurt people hurt people. We will continue living in a dichotomous world until enough people say "Ok, I was damaged. But damaging others stops with me."  I've known people who've done that, and I applaud them. Their children were not infected with the same poison. Unfortunately, getting the whole world to do that will take a while. 

 

1 hour ago, KenElevenShadows said:

If there's hate, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so forth, we shouldn't stand for it. We should call it out. We should stop it. We should teach that this is wrong. We should battle it every step of the way.

Ken, you know how aligned we are in our beliefs, but I respectfully disagree because battling it sets up a battle. Battles perpetuate conflict. I can only describe my personal experiences dealing with racists/bigots/etc. I assume from the gitgo these people are sincere in their beliefs, and have their own reasons for believing what they believe. You can't win by fighting deep-seated convictions. But you can ask enough questions to start poking holes in their beliefs. Socrates had it right. If you can poke enough holes, the belief system starts imploding from its own implausibility. Then you have an opportunity to persuade them to adopt a better belief system.

 

I truly believe the key isn't telling people what to do, it's asking people why they feel the way they do. With that data, you can start dismantling the parts of their belief system that are doing nobody, including them, any favors.

 

The bonus is that when someone does see their beliefs made no sense, most of the time they will work hard to make up for their past. I knew one person who was super anti-trans. After asking questions, the data I got was that he had dehumanized them in his mind. So, I told him that I knew several, and they were human beings who were smart, did their jobs well, and worked hard to get through life. They drove cars, went to concerts, paid taxes, and were just like us, except in one respect that wasn't relevant to our lives. The light bulb went on over his head. Granted, I had an unfair advantage because he was smart   But after that, he would not let anyone cast the same kind of aspersions he used to cast. No battle required...simply disarmament.

 

The one place where I see a definite venue for "battles" is in the courts, which are based on conflict anyway. But a victory in the courts is a band-aid, because it usually won't change peoples' hearts. That's the only lasting solution IMHO. 

[KenElevenShadows]

I fervently believe that we have to be actively anti-(what we are discussing above). I will not budge from this.

 

I know many here will not agree with me, especially if they have not had the same experiences that I have had. But I hesitated in writing that because I knew that it would be deemed "political" or "controversial". But if this even helps one person, then great.

 

So I've written it. And I'm doubling down.

 

There are times in which you have to get in someone's face and say, "This is not acceptable." And there are times in which you seek understanding, teach, encourage, as I touched upon before. There are times when you battle tooth and nail to enact change in policies and stop institutionalized misogyny/racism/sexism/whatever.

 

ALL of these actions and more are anti-(racist, misogyny, bigotry, etc.). And they're sorely needed.

 

Going to battle for what people believe doesn't necessarily mean a literal battle...although as last resort, it can mean exactly that. If someone is being and threatened and harassed because they are trans/a woman/a man/gay/whatever, that may not be the best time to ask, "So I understand that you're angry. And I want you to know that I am listening impartially. Please tell me why you are threatening that person." When someone is coming at Mike's daughters' friends and kicks, scratches, and hurts them, maybe that IS the time to tell someone what to do. When someone is grabbing a woman's ass at a concert, maybe instead of saying, "Well, the other side does it too", we should say, "Hey, that's not cool, stop. We need to treat people with respect."

 

Going to battle can also mean seeking understanding, teaching, and encouraging.....BUT NEVER ACCEPTING OR NORMALIZING HATE/BIGOTRY/RACISM/MISOGYNY.

 

Going to battle means fighting anything that is inherently, institutionally wrong. That means writing your Congressman, changing racist ideologies, battling piss-poor policies. It means rolling up your sleeves and not backing down.

 

Going to battle means not just setting an example, but saying WHY we treat people with respect and letting them know that we would never let THEM be treated disrespectfully.

 

In my opinion, it's the only way forward if this country is going to last and move forward as a decent society that genuinely accepts people with respect, love and dignity.

[David Emm]

Years ago, a group of us were having a park picnic and during a conversation, I inadvertently referred to a new trans friend as "he."

 

She cleared her throat dramatically and I said "Excuse me, SHE. I'm still learning how to plant my feet over it, but you don't have to worry about that. Whatever works for you will work for me."

 

Her face softened and she said "Thank you. Most people don't even try."

 

I said "Well, most people are welcome to chow down on a big ol' bucket o' barbecued baboon balls."

 

Everyone laughed, so it was a pleasure to puncture the balloon of her discomfort with the right kind of dart.

 

Letting people off the proverbial hook is rarely a bad play.  

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

If we are to do the right thing, we should not accept that we live in a dichotomous world and hope that we all "develop compassion and empathy by having been on the inside and outside of things and relating it to other experiences"

 

If there's hate, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so forth, we shouldn't stand for it. We should call it out. We should stop it. We should teach that this is wrong. We should battle it every step of the way.

 

We should not simply accept that a dichotomous existence is part of nature and stand idly by with our hands on our pockets. We need to be anti-hate, anti-racist, anti-misogyny, and anti-bigotry.

 

We should not live in a world where Mike's daughter brings home trans friends who have cuts and bruises because we "cannot have love without hate". That's not my idea of a good world for us to live. As always, your mileage may vary, but I hope it doesn't.

 

1 hour ago, Anderton said:

 

...We will continue living in a dichotomous world until....

 

I never suggested we should accept everyone the way they are or that we should sit around and hope people we disagree with come around to our ways of living life.

 

You can deny it and refuse to accept it but that does not change that this is a dichotomous existence here. It is not by psychology, philosophy or belief system. It is the reality reflected everywhere. You might say you can escape it by choosing death. But that is the dichotomous counter to life. Yet all we can say about death is that it ends life as we know it here at least. From the perspective of those who keep living, those we have known who die change into something that is very different than what we ever experience of them when they were living. What we could experience of them while living has died. People like to say people keep living through the results of the work they did while living. That is stretching the truth. They don't live on. (I am not speaking of religious or even mystical concepts there I am speaking of how we experience people here on this planet in everyday existence). The results of what they did while living may or may not have a lasting quality to be experienced after their death is all that is.

 

 

[CHarrell]

All I'm gonna say is I saw this thread on the trending sidebar and with this forum being populated with mostly older people I got a little nervous 😅 I've been pleasantly surprised by how respectful and understanding everyone on here has been.

[KenElevenShadows]

I have zero reason to be anything but respectful here. I am confident that the other people in the discussion feel the same way.

 

I have generally made my point. A few will agree; most will disagree. I fully anticipate that. That is life. Thank you for anyone who considers what I am saying as a whole.

 

"Evil prevails when good people do nothing." - Edmund Burke (I am likely paraphrasing, but the essence of the quote is there hopefully).

 

 

[CHarrell]

1 hour ago, KenElevenShadows said:

I have zero reason to be anything but respectful here. I am confident that the other people in the discussion feel the same way.

 

I have generally made my point. A few will agree; most will disagree. I fully anticipate that. That is life. Thank you for anyone who considers what I am saying as a whole.

 

"Evil prevails when good people do nothing." - Edmund Burke (I am likely paraphrasing, but the essence of the quote is there hopefully).

 

 

 

For sure but I was referring more to the thread topic itself. 

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

 

"Evil prevails when good people do nothing." - Edmund Burke (I am likely paraphrasing, but the essence of the quote is there hopefully).

 

On that quote, one person’s evil is another person’s good. When you see everything as a battle of good and evil you are perpetuating an unwinnable battle. Know your enemy by knowing yourself. The inspiring, focused and passionate crusader can lead themselves and others to ruin because of stubborn blindness, inflexibility, self-righteousness and self-deception. When we are anything we are also its opposite. When we are not something we are also that very thing. For instance, when asked to list what we are not afraid of we don’t think of just anything we only think in terms of fear and consequently list things we are afraid of but do not realize it. So you may say you are not afraid of something because it is not something you associate with fear, you don’t get scared and worry about that thing. You would not even think of it if you did not fear it. We don’t think “I don’t fear that” on our own. We only think in terms of fear when we are afraid of something even as an exercise. This example is only meant to illustrate how we deceive ourselves and ignore what we could already know. 

[Anderton]

4 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

I fervently believe that we have to be actively anti-(what we are discussing above). I will not budge from this.

 

I agree completely. Where we differ is I feel if you stop people from doing unacceptable behavior by force - whether physical force or force of law - while there are obviously situations where that's justified and needed, it's may simply be a temporary solution. But if you can alter the mindset that led to the unacceptable behavior, that can have long-term results.

 

Here's an example.

 

Years ago my first wife kept getting obscene phone calls from the same guy. This was back before caller ID. One day she got the call and I said "don't hang up." I got on the phone and asked a question - can we talk for just one minute? Silence, so I kept asking questions. We ended up talking for about  20 minutes. I told him I understood his loneliness and fear of women, but making obscene phone calls would only perpetuate those issues, and never solve them. I said I could tell that he needed someone to talk to, or he wouldn't have held on and talked to me. I gave him some phone numbers of crisis centers and such, and asked him to do me a favor and call them the next morning. I said I was just some guy, but he could probably get serious benefits from talking to actual professionals. He promised he would. I asked if that was a real promise, because I was counting on him to follow through. He assured me he would.

 

I'll never know if he did or not, but there was never another obscene phone call. I'd like to think that having someone reach out to him and try to understand helped him more than my condemning him for making obscene phone calls.

[KenElevenShadows]

1 hour ago, o0Ampy0o said:

On that quote, one person’s evil is another person’s good. When you see everything as a battle of good and evil you are perpetuating an unwinnable battle. Know your enemy by knowing yourself. The inspiring, focused and passionate crusader can lead themselves and others to ruin because of stubborn blindness, inflexibility, self-righteousness and self-deception. When we are anything we are also its opposite. When we are not something we are also that very thing. For instance, when asked to list what we are not afraid of we don’t think of just anything we only think in terms of fear and consequently list things we are afraid of but do not realize it. So you may say you are not afraid of something because it is not something you associate with fear, you don’t get scared and worry about that thing. You would not even think of it if you did not fear it. We don’t think “I don’t fear that” on our own. We only think in terms of fear when we are afraid of something even as an exercise. This example is only meant to illustrate how we deceive ourselves and ignore what we could already know. 

Well, this is rather disappointing. 

 

Just above that, I wrote: "Thank you for anyone who considers what I am saying as a whole."

 

If you were to have read everything I wrote, you would know that I don't see everything as black/white or good/evil, and you would certainly not use the words blindness, inflexibility, self-righteousness, and self-deception in a discussion with me. The very thing I am suggesting here is indeed flexibility. But it's also having the spine to carry it out...not as a crusader, but as someone who actually gives a s***.

 

It's for these reasons that I almost never express any real opinions on this forum. I was hoping that once - just this once - people would be able to understand the essence of what I am saying without misunderstanding or twisting my words or reading one line and extrapolating from there. 

 

Anyway, if one person gets something from this, it'll be worth it. Otherwise, I'm not really enjoying this at all.

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

29 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I agree completely. Where we differ is I feel if you stop people from doing unacceptable behavior by force - whether physical force or force of law - while there are obviously situations where that's justified and needed, it's may simply be a temporary solution. But if you can alter the mindset that led to the unacceptable behavior, that can have long-term results.

 

Okay, the ONLY reason I am continuing to respond to this is because I feel like you and everyone else are not reading everything I am writing. I am literally writing a laundry list of ways in which we can be anti-racist, anti-etc. and saying we need to battle this. 

 

There are times, as a LAST RESORT, when one must use physical force or force of law. It's always a last resort, only to be employed when nothing else has worked. Using physical force or force of law should be used with the understanding that we have failed at every other effort.

 

And I'm not saying that we need to literally be waging war with this 24/7. Because, well, you can't do anything 24/7, so that's silly. But we need to be cognizant and really utilize opportunities to be anti-racist, anti-homophobic, anti-misogynist, etc.

 

 

MY MESSAGE AGAIN IS THIS: WE MUST BE UNWAVERING IN YOUR ATTEMPTS TO FIGHT MISOGYNY, ETC. AS MENTIONED ABOVE. As my plethora of examples show, it can be something as simple as kindness, setting an example, compassion, good teaching, continually contacting our government Representatives, enacting sensible laws, explanations, school policy, what we leave out and what we choose to teach in our curriculum, institutionalized issues, and an enormous continuum of strategies that I haven't even touched upon. Sitting idly by and saying, "Welp, I'm not <racist, misogynist, homophobic, whatever>, so I'm cool. Pass the gouda please?"

 

 

[Anderton]

6 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Okay, the ONLY reason I am continuing to respond to this is because I feel like you and everyone else are not reading everything I am writing. I am literally writing a laundry list of ways in which we can be anti-racist, anti-etc. and saying we need to battle this. 

 

I don't have any issues with any items on your laundry list. I responded the way I did because you did not mention asking people questions about why they do what they do. All I'm doing is adding to your laundry list, not invalidating any of it.

[Anderton]

As to what others say, I believe they are sincere in their beliefs. However there are many ways to express perspectives, and those perspectives aren't always expressed with clarity. Asking questions is the only way I know of to make sure I understand someone's perspectives, because my first reaction may or may not be correct.

[Anderton]

This is why voice communications are better than text. It's so easy to follow up.

[KenElevenShadows]

8 minutes ago, Anderton said:

 

I don't have any issues with any items on your laundry list. I responded the way I did because you did not mention asking people questions about why they do what they do. All I'm doing is adding to your laundry list, not invalidating any of it.

 

1.) I wrote this: "And there are times in which you seek understanding, teach, encourage, as I touched upon before." Isn't this "asking people questions about why they do what they do"?

 

2.) I thought you and David Emm had already established this, giving solid examples. I felt it had been said. Obviously, having been a special education teacher, I did this every single day for decades.

 

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

 

 

[KenElevenShadows]

2 hours ago, CHarrell said:

 

For sure but I was referring more to the thread topic itself. 

 

Ah hah. Yes, I suppose that coulda gone south on a horrific way!  

[Anderton]

34 minutes ago, KenElevenShadows said:

1.) I wrote this: "And there are times in which you seek understanding, teach, encourage, as I touched upon before." Isn't this "asking people questions about why they do what they do"?

 

It could be. But for whatever reason, I interpreted "seeking understanding" as analysis, not questioning. That doesn't make me wrong for thinking that's what you meant, or you wrong for not saying what you meant in a way that was obvious to me. Same goes for when you said "battle," that word has a definite meaning I associate with it which is literal, not figurative. Intead of saying "We should battle it every step of the way," I would have said "We should identify and address it every step of the way." People are wired differently in how they communicate. Remember, I write manuals

 

If you had originally said "If there's hate, misogyny, racism, bigotry, and so forth, we shouldn't stand for it. We should call it out. We should stop it. We should teach that this is wrong. We should battle it every step of the way. We should question these people why they behave this way, so we can develop better tools to prevent their behavior from happening in the first place" I wouldn't have responded because I would have had nothing to add.

 

Ultimately I think the answers to resolving differences lie in the Socratic Method. In a way, that's what we're doing here:

 

The Socratic method is a form of cooperative argumentative dialogue between individuals, based on asking and answering questions to stimulate critical thinking and to draw out ideas and underlying presuppositions.

 

The Socratic method searches for general commonly held truths that shape beliefs and scrutinizes them to determine their consistency with other beliefs. The basic form is a series of questions formulated as tests of logic and fact intended to help a person or group discover their beliefs about some topic, explore definitions, and characterize general characteristics shared by various particular instances.

[o0Ampy0o]

2 hours ago, KenElevenShadows said:

Just above that, I wrote: "Thank you for anyone who considers what I am saying as a whole."

 

...If you were to have read everything I wrote, you would know that I don't see everything as black/white or good/evil, and you would certainly not use the words blindness, inflexibility, self-righteousness, and self-deception in a discussion with me....

 

The opposite of you not considering what I actually wrote and instead reacting to something that wasn't there in my words?

 

In your self-righteousness you don't see how you bring conflict with you.

 

I did not suggest that you see everything as black/white. If you practiced what you expect of others and "considered what I was saying" I have been writing of dichotomy. That is different than reducing things to black and white. B&W implies oversimplification. Dichotomy addresses the duality of nature. Two significantly different implications.

 

 

[analogika]

15 hours ago, o0Ampy0o said:

This is a dichotomous existence in which we live. You cannot have love without hate. 

 

An entire major religion has been based around the opposite of that notion. Ostensibly. 

 

I am not a "Christian" myself, and I have people and concepts and ideas I love with all my heart, and things I will fight with everything in my power, but "hate"? 

No. 

[Joe Muscara]

Keep doing what you're doing, @KenElevenShadows. I do think you're seeing more disagreement here than there is, but you're standing up for the right thing (as are the others) and we're all on the same side here, we all want the same thing. I appreciate what you've contributed.

[o0Ampy0o]

1 hour ago, analogika said:

An entire major religion has been based around the opposite of that notion. Ostensibly. 

 

Is that supposed to be evidence that it is correct or incorrect? To date has the opposite ever existed besides as an ideology? Belief is only belief. An idea is only an idea.