Re: I'll judge your pants off

1

"Judgmental" is what people on the Internet call one another before "privilege" gets dragged out and the shooting starts.


Posted by: Flippanter | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
2

I do so love being judgmental.

Fundamentalist Christianity should suit you well, then. You can even reproach yourself (mildly, with a slight hint of irony) from time to time for being too judgmental ("Hate this sin, love the sinner"), just as your Buddhist friends do, then go right back to being judgmental.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:12 AM
horizontal rule
3

Fundamentalist Christianity should suit you well, then.

Sure, I can't see any incompatibilities there.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:14 AM
horizontal rule
4

3: You could join Heebies for Jeebus!


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:24 AM
horizontal rule
5

I'm pretty judgmental about white Americans who consider themselves Buddhists, if eye-rolling counts as being judgmental.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:36 AM
horizontal rule
6

I don't like it when people are judgmental, and I try very hard not to be judgmental myself. This is tricky, because saying "don't be judgmental!" is of course also judgmental.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:54 AM
horizontal rule
7

My secret belief is that everyone is equally judgmental and the only difference is how doggedly they try to conceal it.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
8

The righteous struggle of the truly judgmental is constantly to refine our objects of judgment.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 10:57 AM
horizontal rule
9

Beautiful!


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:00 AM
horizontal rule
10

I'm not very judgmental, which is how I know I'm better than you.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
11

This is tricky, because saying "don't be judgmental!" is of course also judgmental.

I'm glad I'm not judgmental like you guys!


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:02 AM
horizontal rule
12

The friend I have who is always telling people not to be judgmental is basically a giant scold -- not just for telling people not to be judgmental, but for in general pointing out the ways he feels you are falling down in being a truly good person like he is.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:03 AM
horizontal rule
13

here's one of my refined such objects of judgment: ime, "don't be judgmental"= "I will never apologize for anything, or even so much as entertain the possibility that I should". Run. away.


Posted by: queeracademic | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:04 AM
horizontal rule
14

constantly admonishing each other not to be judgmental

This sounds pretty tedious, actually. I judge.


Posted by: Yawnoc | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:06 AM
horizontal rule
15

I am judgmental towards Texas. Sorry nice Texans, but the nutjobs who live alongside you overwhelm your awesomeness with the sheer volume of their stupidity. I will feel appropriately guilty on top of my judgmentalism.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:07 AM
horizontal rule
16

15: jesus christ is that sickening.


Posted by: nosflow | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:10 AM
horizontal rule
17

I so totally hate those people.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:15 AM
horizontal rule
18

15/16: The original version of that article spoke of the witch hunt conducted by "Senator Eugene McCarthy." Who's historically ignorant now, Guardian? (Still TX, but come on.)


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
19

Is it really possible that the textbooks are teaching about the "Triangular trade" without saying that one of the legs of the triangle was slaves? That's obscene.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:17 AM
horizontal rule
20

I know, I know, I can't really face head on how awful the school board is here, and the consequences. It really requires you to partition your brain, to get along down here.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:21 AM
horizontal rule
21

My secret belief is that everyone is equally judgmental and the only difference is how doggedly they try to conceal it.

Briggs and Myers disagree.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:22 AM
horizontal rule
22

Briggs and Myers are jerks.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
23

19: I doubt it's that. There's no way to explain it without at least mentioning the slaves involved. (It's not like the existence of pre-civil-war slavery in the US is going to completely pulled from the curriculum.) I think they're just renaming it, to minimize the negative connotations.

(In my high school, which as far as I can tell was more or less an early forerunner of what Texas wants its schools to be, I'm pretty sure that's how we learned it. And most of the talk about slavery focused on how the slaves were generally better off here than they had been back in savage Africa.)


Posted by: Brock Landers | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:23 AM
horizontal rule
24

20: It's OK Heebie! I unjudge you!


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:24 AM
horizontal rule
25

15: After all this, school book depositories in Texas are going to have an infamous reputation.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
26

I suppose that makes it at least possible. But still creepy as all get out.

Now I have "Molasses and Rum and Slaves" from 1776 running through my head. Weird earworm.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:25 AM
horizontal rule
27

Annoying how the reporting on issues like this cast everything in partisan terms: The curriculum has alarmed liberals across the country .


Posted by: JP Stormcrow | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
28

Interestingly, I'm an ISTJ on the Myers-Briggs test. I don't think "judging" means quite the same thing in that context, though.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:27 AM
horizontal rule
29

20: For 3/4 of my life, the same sort of partitioning went on to square the circle that NC was clearly one of the most progressive southern states but kept sending Jesse Helms back to the Senate every six years.

I have not yet made good on the promise I made in college to piss on his grave if I outlived him, but until I do I'm pleased to see that his entry at findagrave.com includes the following: "The Virtual Flowers feature has been turned off for this memorial because it was being continually misused."


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:31 AM
horizontal rule
30

20: What are you going to do, long-term? Move? Private school? Home school? Or do you think your local school district will be better?


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:33 AM
horizontal rule
31

30: Or just send HP to public school and supplement at home with books and sane conversation generally, which is what I'd probably end up doing.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:37 AM
horizontal rule
32

My college friends were so persistently non-judgmental (and deeply into moral relativism) that I found it a huge relief to get all contrarian one day and decide that there is, indeed, wrong and right, and further, that I am willing to be an arbiter of wrong and right. This was very transgressive at the time, in those circles, but I notice that they all turned to me when it was time to get the sociopath who would later go on to stab and rape a 14-year-old banned from the house.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:47 AM
horizontal rule
33
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:49 AM
horizontal rule
34

30 - the question I was going to ask. 31 sounds perfectly doable, but the ongoingness of it might get wearing. "So, what bollocks did they tell you *today* then?"


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
35

That said, there's an explicit "no judgment" ethic among my sister's friends (that I've adopted less explicitly) among my friends that is very nice to be around.

Crazy, poorly-thought-out plan to accomplish some peculiar goal? Of course you can do that, sweetheart. You'll be wonderful at it. I can't wait to see what comes out of that. That's pretty much the extent of the allowed response, and since we all have good safety nets, it works pretty well. Everyone feels very loved and supported.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:50 AM
horizontal rule
36

No judgment about my parentheses, either.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:51 AM
horizontal rule
37

23.last -- Please tell me you're kidding.

"The Virtual Flowers feature has been turned off for this memorial because it was being continually misused."

That's hilarious. How does one even misuse something like that? I don't suppose they let you create obscene-looking arrangements* or send black carnations.

*One of which plays a key role in Elinor Lipman's The Way Men Act.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:53 AM
horizontal rule
38
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:58 AM
horizontal rule
39

In elementary school, slavery and genocide were definitely downplayed in the curriculum. The Civil War was about states' rights and slavery was incidental, all that stuff. Luckily our high school teachers were pretty dedicated to deprogramming.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 11:59 AM
horizontal rule
40

the ongoingness of it might get wearing.

Not to mention that if it's extreme enough, it's also emotionally tiring for the child to manage the "what am I allowed to say where" issue.

I certainly grew up with a significant disconnect between what my parents taught me and what many of my peers believed, but I wasn't regularly forced to spend significant time around people who actually saw the world from a 180-degree difference in perspective.


Posted by: Witt | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:01 PM
horizontal rule
41

30 - the question I was going to ask. 31 sounds perfectly doable, but the ongoingness of it might get wearing. "So, what bollocks did they tell you *today* then?"

I think we'll try to more-or-less have an ongoing conversation about politics/feminism/how it affects YOU, little Hawaiian Punch. To which she'd be generally invited to share examples from her life.

So in practice, I'd react with praise if she came home and said "Is this how it really went down, or is this a biased account because those no-good skunks in the capitol are fundie freaks?" Then we'd go and look it up or whatever.

But I wouldn't necessarily ask her each day what she learned and what was omitted.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:02 PM
horizontal rule
42

When Thatcher dies they'll need to build the world's biggest memorial pissoir, plus instigate some sort of lottery system to get around the queues that can be seen from space.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:03 PM
horizontal rule
43
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
44

The only solution is to homeschool your child, like all the rightwingers on the public school board who would never dream of setting foot in a public school. You would presumably have to marry someone wealthy to do that, though.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
45

it's also emotionally tiring for the child to manage the "what am I allowed to say where" issue.

Well, she'll be SOL in this arena. My friend is sending her 6th grade son to Quest camp this summer, and apparently he is super excited about being able to talk freely about being an atheist.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:04 PM
horizontal rule
46

39: I can't really remember what we were taught about the Civil War in elementary school per se, but I do remember being utterly shocked by the tv show The Dukes of Hazzard, and their rebel-flag painted car. It was a show about the bad guys!!! Like the Nazis! The people we fought and beat! So I picked up something, clearly.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:05 PM
horizontal rule
47

46: I did not. At the age I was watching the DoH, I must have known that that was a confederate flag, but it didn't occur to me to be shocked at all.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:06 PM
horizontal rule
48

46: I had the same reaction. But then got over it pretty quick, 'cuz flag or not that was a sweet car.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:07 PM
horizontal rule
49

Delagar's blog has a lot of interesting thoughts on raising an atheist liberal feminist child in a very red state. It sounds difficult, but also pretty rewarding, as the kid is having to learn exactly what it is she believes and how to talk about it with people who are insistent that she is going to hell.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:08 PM
horizontal rule
50

Yeah, her situation actually sounds much worse than ours. Our town is rather influenced by Austin and the university, and has a decent hippie bent to it.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
51

I'm pretty judgmental about white Americans who consider themselves Buddhists, if eye-rolling counts as being judgmental.

Why? Buddhism is pretty insignificant right now in its country of origin, and is as as much a foreign import to places like China and Japan as it is to us.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:11 PM
horizontal rule
52

This, however, is super awesome and giving me the warm-fuzzies.


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:12 PM
horizontal rule
53

I don't remember noticing the Confederate flag in the Dukes of Hazzard, but I was shocked as a child by their flouting of authority. I was raised to have wary respect for the police.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:14 PM
horizontal rule
54

Also, I had a crush on Eric Estrada, so.


Posted by: Jackmormon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:15 PM
horizontal rule
55

51: Mostly as a result of the ones I've known who, if pressed, couldn't actually tell you anything about it beyond what you might find in a Wikipedia entry.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:17 PM
horizontal rule
56

55: Maybe they also saw a statue.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:21 PM
horizontal rule
57

Is that the only Dinosaur Comics in which the dialogue has anything to do with the action?


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
58

55: There isn't much more to Buddhism than you'd find in a Wikipedia entry. There's a bunch of extra crap that various people like to tack on, but the core of the not-really-a-religion is very simple.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:22 PM
horizontal rule
59

Is that the only Dinosaur Comics in which the dialogue has anything to do with the action?

No, a lot of the early ones comment on the action, and a few of the more recent ones at least mention it.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:24 PM
horizontal rule
60

There's also the convenient summary of Buddhism in the form of Little Buddha, starring Keanu Reeves.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:25 PM
horizontal rule
61

Mostly as a result of the ones I've known who, if pressed, couldn't actually tell you anything about it beyond what you might find in a Wikipedia entry.

This differs from 95% of all Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Ron Paullies, etc how?


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:26 PM
horizontal rule
62

This differs from 95% of all Christians, Democrats, Republicans, Ron Paullies, etc how?

Give me a second. I'm sure there's a difference, but I'll need to go consult Wikipedia first.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:27 PM
horizontal rule
63

58: And yet a standard edition of the Pali Canon has 50 volumes.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:28 PM
horizontal rule
64

I think Apo doesn't like labels because that way he doesn't have to learn any Wikipedia entries.


Posted by: heebie-geebie | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:31 PM
horizontal rule
65

64: There's that.


Posted by: apostropher | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 12:34 PM
horizontal rule
66

For me, the chief appeal of The Dukes of Hazzard was the way they entered their car. I remember being in awe the first time I saw them leap into the car through its open windows, rather than opening the door. They did it so smoothly!

But yeah, I had vague notions at the time that the confederate flag was a symbol of something not-so-good, and thus recall feeling somewhat unsettled the few times I watched it as a child.


Posted by: Otto von Bisquick | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:10 PM
horizontal rule
67

My college friends were so persistently non-judgmental (and deeply into moral relativism) that I found it a huge relief to get all contrarian one day and decide that there is, indeed, wrong and right, and further, that I am willing to be an arbiter of wrong and right.

I would, for the record, just like to disentangle being non-judgmental from being a moral relativist. To me being "non-judgmental" is, as the OP suggests, a matter of highlighting contextual/situational factors as the main cause of someone's good/bad behavior, rather than their character.

You can still believe there is objective right and wrong, but instead of making your moral judgments about people (i.e. she is good person, he is a bad person), you will make them about the states of affairs that people contribute to.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:18 PM
horizontal rule
68

I'm not sure what the Buddhist non-judgmental friends in the OP are being non-judgmental about: they don't judge people's clothing choices? They don't judge whether someone has dreadfully overcooked the vegetables? They don't judge whether the Texas school board's recent moves are a very, very bad idea? Or is it that, on a more global level: they don't judge whether misogyny, homophobia, and racism are problematic?

Calling out that you're relieved to return to your own judgmental ways lacks content for me in the absence of understanding what the friends aren't allowing themselves to do.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:32 PM
horizontal rule
69

Do y'all remember that episode of Dukes of Hazzard where Boss Hogg hatched a dastardly plot which was going to cause Uncle Jessie to lose the farm? But then the Duke Boys were able to trick Enos into letting them out of jail. And then there was a car chase in which the General Lee jumped over a gulch and Rosco crashed into a barn. At the end, there was a country music show at the Boars Nest, and Daisy was looking fine.


Posted by: Spike | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:40 PM
horizontal rule
70

Yeah, I'm having a hard time figuring out (a) exactly what being "non-judgmental" (or "judgmental") means here and (b) what, if anything, it has to do with Buddhism.

One of the things I like about organized religion, or at least my own idiosyncratic version of Christianity, is that it helps to solve one problem with being "judgmental"; someone or something is out there keeping track of the standards, but you know that both you and everyone else aren't meeting them, and that you're being forgiven for doing so, and you should keep a healthy dose of humility and there-but-for-the-grace-of-God attitude when looking at the perceived failings of others, while not renouncing the possibility of thinking about the behavior of others or judging it.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:42 PM
horizontal rule
71

Thanks for the distinction, CB. I wasn't using the terms precisely. If they have precise meanings in some field, I didn't mean those, either.

(I do, on occasion, make moral judgments about people, as well as the state of affairs that people contribute to. I'm that defiant of my hippie college mores. Although, of course, I still compost and eat only local produce.)


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:46 PM
horizontal rule
72

But I wouldn't necessarily ask her each day what she learned and what was omitted.

No, that would be fairly odd. Especially as she might not even know what was omitted.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 1:55 PM
horizontal rule
73

In my public school they made us learn about the kingdoms of Mali, Ghana, and Songhai and the five pillars of Islam, but the Roman Empire and the Church got the shaft.

70: I think some of the confusion stems from the ambiguity of "judge" in Matthew 7:1.


Posted by: foolishmortal | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:05 PM
horizontal rule
74

flag or not that was a sweet car.

Had I lived north of the Manson-Nixon line, I might have had Tweety's reaction. As it were, all the confederate flag waving redneck kids at my school loved The Dukes of Hazzard and since they were the ones most likely to threaten to beat me up on any given day, I hated everything about that show.


Posted by: Populuxe | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:11 PM
horizontal rule
75

70: Who's organizing religion that includes a healthy dose of humility these days?

Also, that a religious person is evaluating me by whether I'm meeting the standards of someone or something out there rather than by his own standards, or that he believes he's forgiven for not meeting them himself (but I'm presumably not), or that while perceiving my failings he pauses to count himself lucky, doesn't actually make me feel any better about being judged. What's the problem it solves, exactly?

Not that I'm judging.


Posted by: Mr. Blandings | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:16 PM
horizontal rule
76

You can still believe there is objective right and wrong, but instead of making your moral judgments about people (i.e. she is good person, he is a bad person), you will make them about the states of affairs that people contribute to.

This seems like a useful distinction.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:17 PM
horizontal rule
77

76: the distinction is useful, but here's another useful one: people can be of mixed character, and saying that there's some aspect of a person's character that's really asshole-ish is compatible with thinking that they might be half decent in another respect. a person can contribute to a very bad 'state of affairs' on account of a particularly bad aspect of their character (e.g. is bigot) without being thereby in every respect a bad person. one has to be committed to a really virulent version of the unity of the virtues to think that the only options are 'states of affairs' or 'bad/good person'.
and yes, I am feeling like judgy mcjudgerson today.


Posted by: queeracademic | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:30 PM
horizontal rule
78

It seems like different people in this thread are thinking of this issue in very different contexts.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:40 PM
horizontal rule
79

But only one of those contexts is correct, and the rest are wrong.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:46 PM
horizontal rule
80

75 -- This subject is personal enough, and tentative enough, for me that I don't want to get into an online debate, but there are plenty of answers to "Who's organizing religion that includes a healthy dose of humility these days?," including but not limited to big sections of reform judaism, liberal mainline protestantism, significant, though much-suppressed elements of the Catholic church, some buddhists, etc. All of these groups have foundational principles that may turn you off for one or another reason, and that's totally fine, but I do think that it's wrong to associate religion per se with Scary Conservative Christian Fundamentalism(tm), as much as the Scary Conservative Christian Fundamentalists (tm) want you to do so. At least I hope so.

that a religious person is evaluating me by whether I'm meeting the standards of someone or something out there rather than by his own standards, or that he believes he's forgiven for not meeting them himself (but I'm presumably not), or that while perceiving my failings he pauses to count himself lucky, doesn't actually make me feel any better about being judged.

This is pretty much the exact opposite of the religious impulse I'm trying (badly, and without much authority) to describe here. For one, the whole point of kicking morality up to the heavens is that the ultimate standards are not necessarily clear, and probably unknowable. The "but I'm presumably not" is exactly the opposite of the point -- you both are forgiven, and equally so, regardless of who seems better or worse. The "while perceiving my failings he pauses to count himself lucky" is also the exact opposite of the point, in that the implication is that the response from the religious person is smugness, whereas the response I'm trying to describe is something more like radical empathy.

I'm just trying to describe how I think the response should work; the other trappings of religion may totally turn you off and not feel consistent with your version of rationality, and that's totally fine. And someone bringing a religious perspective at all to these kinds of issues may feel weird or pointless or offensive, which is also something that I totally get.


Posted by: Robert Halford | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 2:57 PM
horizontal rule
81



Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:09 PM
horizontal rule
82

EVERY MAN FOR HIMSELF


Posted by: OPINIONATED BUDDHA | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:12 PM
horizontal rule
83

For some reason I keep skipping over the "off" in the post title and reading it as "I'll judge your pants". What's wrong with my pants? They're just jeans.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:26 PM
horizontal rule
84

This blog has seen extensive pants-judging in the past.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
85

Also floor-judging.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
86

They're just jeans in the way a movie is just a series of images.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:32 PM
horizontal rule
87

Being judgmental, like holding a grudge, is exhausting.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:38 PM
horizontal rule
88

But then, anything worth doing takes effort, I guess.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:39 PM
horizontal rule
89

86: my jeans are... art? My jeans... contain an emotional narrative?

Both so very true, I suppose.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
90

Being judgmental, like holding a grudge, is exhausting.

Not universally true, IMextensiveE. For some people, it comes easy and natural.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:43 PM
horizontal rule
91

89 - your jeans have several supporting characters. And are in theatres from Friday.


Posted by: asilon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:46 PM
horizontal rule
92

MY JEANS HAVE MICHAEL CAINE IN THEM.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
93

Being judgmental, like holding a grudge, is exhausting.

Yes. I spent yesterday at a non-apostropher-approved Buddhist retreat. One of the things the teacher mentioned we might try during our meditation was having patience and acceptance for ourselves and what we were experiencing. (This is actually a big part of the work of meditation, getting used to not judging on a moment-to-moment basis). It was very nice, energizing actually, to drop self-judgment to some extent for a while.

Not sure what Heebie's friends were talking about, though.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:51 PM
horizontal rule
94

Never underestimate the ability of Texas school board members to get ever crazier: TX Textbooks Proposal: Students Must Discuss Gutting Social Security, Explain How U.N. Undermines U.S..


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:56 PM
horizontal rule
95

94, meet 15.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 3:57 PM
horizontal rule
96

95, meet the content of 94, which is different nonsense from that highlighted in 15. I could, perhaps, have made a clearer reference to the earlier comment.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:01 PM
horizontal rule
97

But of course you always add value, Kraab. No judging!


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:02 PM
horizontal rule
98

Damn. Almost failed to seem like a jerk. Also could have convinced people I actually read links. Next time, next time.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:03 PM
horizontal rule
99

90: One interesting thing about compulsive behavior is that it can be both exhausting, in the sense that it saps a lot of physical and mental energy, and natural in the sense that it takes a conscious mental effort to stop doing them.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:06 PM
horizontal rule
100

I would find my own judgmentalism more rewarding if I were able to effect appropriate punishments for the judgees.

From on high, I forgive you, Sifu.


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:07 PM
horizontal rule
101

I would find my own judgmentalism more rewarding if I were able to effect appropriate punishments for the judgees.

The problem with that is that then you'd have to think about whether the judgment was appropriate before firing the thunderbolt. Impotent scorn is much less demanding.


Posted by: Not Prince Hamlet | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:13 PM
horizontal rule
102

Giving up perfectionism and self-flagellation (along the lines of the conversation we just had about thinking oneself great) made my life much easier and more relaxed. If that's the kind of judging people are doing, giving it up is definitely giving up a burden.

But I still maintain that I can hold grudges indefinitely without an energetic cost (and indeed, even experienced the lessening of a grudge recently, with no corresponding energetic surge). I'm happy to believe that it costs some people concentration and effort to maintain a grudge. But I'm sure that's not true of me.


Posted by: Megan | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
103

86: my jeans are... art? My jeans... contain an emotional narrative?

Were you Alix Olson, your art would be bleeding through your jeans.


Posted by: NickS | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:24 PM
horizontal rule
104

I would find my own judgmentalism more rewarding if I were able to effect appropriate punishments for the judgees.

For some people, the hurtfulness of being judged is punishment enough.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:27 PM
horizontal rule
105

But what if I am not holding a pants-off? Or if the pants off already has enough judges?

Or maybe we are holding a nonjudgmental pants off. Everyone is a winner when the pants come off!


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:28 PM
horizontal rule
106

Everyone is a winner when the pants come off!

Now you're talking.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 4:56 PM
horizontal rule
107

102: I come from a long line of grudge marathoners, so I get the "naturalness" of it. And from afar, it's not so hard. But dealing with the grudgee in person is exhausting imho. Still apparently less demanding than letting go of the grudge. But draining nonetheless.


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:00 PM
horizontal rule
108
Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:11 PM
horizontal rule
109

93: One of the things the teacher mentioned we might try during our meditation was having patience and acceptance for ourselves and what we were experiencing. [...] It was very nice, energizing actually, to drop self-judgment to some extent for a while.

Yeah. I've never tried to meditate per se, but this was a central aspect of the yoga I was taught by my most-excellent-and-revered yoga teacher back when. Breathe; observe how your body feels; don't judge whether the tension there or the stiffness there is a problem; this is not a time to fight; just observe. Breathe. Things are as they are at the moment, this is not a time to fret. (She had a delightful soft, rhythmic voice in which this was delivered -- it was guided meditation to open the yoga session.)

I've no doubt it sounds goofy, and in fact it took me a while to get past the urge to snicker, but getting into that headspace is truly rejuvenating. Such a relief.


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:12 PM
horizontal rule
110

I come from a long line of grudge marathoners

You Westerners are but amateurs.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
111

Bave and Pars, what you describe sounds truly rejuvenating. Thoughts on where one looks to learn more?


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:18 PM
horizontal rule
112



Posted by: | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:21 PM
horizontal rule
113

what you describe sounds truly rejuvenating. Thoughts on where one looks to learn more?

I see where this is heading.


Posted by: Knecht Ruprecht | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:25 PM
horizontal rule
114

111: This is a very good introduction to the type of meditation I've been doing. Bonus: it's written by an actual Asian dude for that special frisson of authenticity.


Posted by: Bave Dee | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:37 PM
horizontal rule
115

Thanks, Bave. I will give it a spin!


Posted by: Di Kotimy | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:42 PM
horizontal rule
116

104: yeah, but they are not the ones who most deserve such judgment as is spoken of here. I'm with Sir Kraab on this one.


Posted by: queeracademic | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:52 PM
horizontal rule
117

111: Sorry, just saw this. Bave is a better guide than I can be, because I sadly don't remember just what blend of types of yoga my teacher practiced and passed on to us. I should one day figure it out if I want to pick up organized yoga classes again; as it stands, I do at home what I learned from her (when she moved out of town, she left us all with a couple of tapes of herself guiding a class).


Posted by: parsimon | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 5:57 PM
horizontal rule
118

116: See, this is what I was talking about in 78.


Posted by: teofilo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:10 PM
horizontal rule
119

118: well, the thread would never get passed 100 if people were talking to each other about the *same* issue...


Posted by: queeracademic | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:14 PM
horizontal rule
120

ugh. past.
haven't slept in two days. must sleep. night all.


Posted by: queeracademic | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:15 PM
horizontal rule
121

|| I just misread "Meretz Party" as "Marty Peretz" and those things are like opposites. Weird I hadn't noticed that before.|>


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 6:59 PM
horizontal rule
122

23: There's no way to explain it without at least mentioning the slaves involved.

Sure there is:

Step 1: Molasses
Step 2: Rum
Step 3: ???
Step 4: Profit


Posted by: Benquo | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 9:09 PM
horizontal rule
123

Speaking of judgmental, heebs, you hung out with friends whom you love. Objective pronouns are part of Right Speech.


Posted by: Jesus McQueen | Link to this comment | 05-17-10 9:26 PM
horizontal rule
124

Step 1: Molasses
Step 2: Rum
Step 3: ???
God's will
Step 4: Profit


Posted by: Sir Kraab | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 12:22 AM
horizontal rule
125

I didn't have American history, just European plus international diplomatic, however, this version did not include colonialism except as an exercise in balance of power and international rivalry. Also WWII as diplomatic and military history but no Holocaust. We got a fair amount on the Indian independence movement, perhaps because Indira was an alum, but again, race was barely mentioned. No national narrative history either, presumably because with dozens of nationalities represented that would have caused problems. Judgment of anything, whether positive or negative was mostly avoided.


Posted by: teraz kurwa my | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 1:25 AM
horizontal rule
126

124: The appropriate term for slavery is of course "states' rights". The appropriate term for the slave trade, however, is "importing diversity".

The other triangle trade is even less mentioned: cotton cloth from the Midlands to India, opium from India to China, silk and tea from China to Britain.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:31 AM
horizontal rule
127

re: 126

We covered both at school, but I don't remember the opium element being mentioned much. But cotton cloth to India was definitely discussed, and even put in some sort of context -- industrialization, capitalism, primitive accumulation, etc. I'd imagine you would have to? Although I suppose it depends whether you did Higher History [and which topics].


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:57 AM
horizontal rule
128

||

My flatmate didn't know Ian Curtis committed suicide.

|>


Posted by: Keir | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 5:19 AM
horizontal rule
129

Who was Ian Curtis?


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 5:25 AM
horizontal rule
130

The first time I read 121, I thought, "but that's the same phrase twice".


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 5:49 AM
horizontal rule
131

127: The point about the other triangle trade was that there was a lot of stuff Britain wanted to buy from China, and a lot of stuff that Britain could export to India, but almost nothing that the Chinese government would permit Britain to import from India (or anywhere else) to China; thus, massive trade imbalance. Opium was simply a way of redressing the imbalance - it was the best way of doing so because it was relatively high-value, low-volume, and popular with Chinese people even after it was made illegal in China in the late 18th century. (It was legal in Britain, of course.)


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:04 AM
horizontal rule
132

Oh I knew the point of the other triangle, I just meant that when the trade relationship between Britain and India was discussed at school the opium leg was only given minimal coverage, whereas with the Atlantic trade, slavery was given a more prominent role.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:10 AM
horizontal rule
133

Fair enough. We covered the opium trade at school, and the trade with India, but they never connected the two up - I'm not even sure I knew where the opium was coming from.

128: this is about the only thing I know about Ian Curtis.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:12 AM
horizontal rule
134

re: Ian Curtis

And he voted Tory, and he had a face that looked very good in black and white photographs.


Posted by: nattarGcM ttaM | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:18 AM
horizontal rule
135

134. No loss, then.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:19 AM
horizontal rule
136

I had a History teacher in High School who wouldn't miss the slightest opportunity to bash the British, so the opium trade was well covered. The thing that surprised me was the prevalence of opium use in Britain itself. The fact that society didn't disintegrate as a result seems to me a good argument for legalization.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:20 AM
horizontal rule
137

Regarding Curtis: I could swear it was someone around these parts that recommended watching Control, which was good if gloomy, but it might've been eekbeat's suggestion (as she's fond of Joy Division).


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:29 AM
horizontal rule
138

Given that British society contrived to survive the Gin craze of the early 18th century, when by fairly respectable estimates one house in four in the east end of London was selling bad hooch at a penny for a quarter of a pint, I'm inclined to think it can survive anything.

But yes, it's a good argument for legalisation. Let Coleridge and de Quincy fuck themselves up and sponge off their friends, and the rest of the poor sods without rich friends can just get fucked.

(I'm actually in favour of legalising drugs. I just don't think it would be cost free.)


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:31 AM
horizontal rule
139

"Good heavens! I thought it was Wednesday. It is Wednesday. What d'you want to frighten the chap for?" He sank his face onto his arms and began to sob in a high treble key.

"I tell you that it is Friday, man. Your wife has been waiting this two days for you. You should be ashamed of yourself!"

"So I am. But you've got mixed, Watson, for I have only been here a few hours, three pipes, four pipes-I forget how many...


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:34 AM
horizontal rule
140

138: Not cost free by a long shot. The realistic question (that the US public refuses to confront) is whether the negative impact of abusing legal drugs is worse than that of having those drugs be illegal. I'm on the side of letting people hurt themselves if they choose, and providing plenty of resources to help them when they decide to stop, but that's a minority view on this side of the pond.


Posted by: togolosh | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:40 AM
horizontal rule
141

It is at this juncture that I'd like to note that I've been reading the post title as if heebie were thinking of some website along the lines of hotornot.com except it would be something like pantsonoroff.com, and she's averring that she'll judge your pants (to be) off (no matter what). In Wisconsin.


Posted by: Stanley | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:44 AM
horizontal rule
142

Everyone in Wisconsin wears pants at all times. They're very strict.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:51 AM
horizontal rule
143

140. Entirely. Minority view everywhere, AFAIK, but obviously the right way to go. Usually, you could try to persuade the right by pointing out that it would save money, but there are so many corporate interests invested in the War on Selected Drugs, that I suspect it's a non-starter.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:52 AM
horizontal rule
144

142. You could try playing it in Hampshire.


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:55 AM
horizontal rule
145

"I get skittish when i think of how the British put the opium in Asia"
"Osagyefo said they called it primitive accumulation/ Plantations, TV stations, wealth is very stationary/ I learned the game and I became a revolutionary/ Scarin' the corporate asses 'cause the masses are a loaded gun/ Killin' the World Bank and International Monetary Fund"

Sigh. Has everyone read about the Aiyana Stanley Jones murder?

Another casualty of the Drug War.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:59 AM
horizontal rule
146

145. That shut us all up, didn't it?

Yeah, I've read it everywhere. I think I've reached outrage saturation with American law enforcement, it seems to be never ending. We have one decent cop here, is he the only non-psychopath in 50 states?


Posted by: OFE | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:18 AM
horizontal rule
147

141: That's just the sort of think I was imagining in 105. I still prefer the nonjudgemental pants-off.


Posted by: rob helpy-chalk | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:20 AM
horizontal rule
148

Don't worry, rob. I'm sure you're very handsome with your pants off.


Posted by: Walt Someguy | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
149

145: there's been opium in Asia for millennia, Natilo. That's where opium evolved.


Posted by: ajay | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:22 AM
horizontal rule
150

We have one decent cop here, is he the only non-psychopath in 50 states?

You don't need a high percentage of psychopaths to screw everything up. And mostly the psychopathery is back in the office, where some moron in a suit thinks that throwing 'flashbang' grenades into a residential home before breaking in with weapons drawn is a reasonable way of trying to arrest a suspect, and that the risks of hurting innocent people aren't important.

The guy who actually shot the little girl might be a psychopath or might not be, but there's no particular reason to think she'd be alive now even if all the cops on that stupid raid were decent people just trying to do their jobs in the stupid, stupid, criminal way their bosses told them to.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:26 AM
horizontal rule
151

137: Maybe me or Bave? We enjoyed it.


Posted by: A White Bear | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:37 AM
horizontal rule
152

CA and I liked it, too. There was also the documentary about them that came out at the same time. We liked one better than the other, but I can't remember which (although I note that the foxy Germarn lady that Curtis semi-demi-maybe-would-maybe-did leave his wife for is *still* a stone fox).


Posted by: oudemia | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:43 AM
horizontal rule
153

I also enjoyed 24 Hour Party People people for a more standardly raucous rock-movie take on the Manchester scene.


Posted by: Criminally Bulgur | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 8:54 AM
horizontal rule
154

You know, I'm actually evolving towards just pitying cops. Like soldiers in the Wehrmacht, you know? "You can always hire one half of the working class to kill the other half." Cops, rabbis, spies, priests, soldiers, imams, informers, terrorists, gangsters -- they're just pawns after all. Interchangeable parts in the same vast, hateful machine. Don't worry, I'm not going all Gandhi or anything, but I think I need to keep my hatred fresh and fiery to direct against the bosses and generals and popes.


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 2:48 PM
horizontal rule
155

I'm not sure why Natilo is calling this a casualty of the drug war. The suspect was wanted in the murder of a 17 year old. The accounts I've seen said he got into an argument with the kid, left the scene, and came back with some friends and shot the 17 year old to death on the street in broad daylight.

There's times to go in with dynamic entry to take someone into custody. Like with groups of guys with a penchant for shooting who are facing life sentences. That being said, I have no idea what the background info, intel, or lack thereof that might or might not justify the time, place, and manner of entry.

A&E was along on that raid filming for their show, The First 48 Hours. Christ I hope that little girl isn't dead because someone decided to make a raid looking exciting for the cameras.


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:36 PM
horizontal rule
156

A&E was along on that raid filming for their show, The First 48 Hours

That is one seriously fucked up show.


Posted by: Sifu Tweety | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:38 PM
horizontal rule
157

155: I have no idea what the background info, intel, or lack thereof that might or might not justify the time, place, and manner of entry.

Because I'm cranky, can we agree that the manner of entry was not in fact justified -- that the chance of arresting a murder suspect does not justify shooting into a building with children and adults not suspected of anything in it? It's possible (I doubt it, but I don't know) that the background info the cops were working from was false in a manner that caused them to believe that their mode of entry was justified, but good lord what happened there has to be at the very least a terrible, terrible mistake, and would still have been a terrible, terrible mistake if they hadn't actually shot anyone.


Posted by: LizardBreath | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:50 PM
horizontal rule
158

A&E was along on that raid filming for their show, The First 48 Hours.

Wouldn't this mean the police didn't expect to be in any danger when they entered the place? You wouldn't take your camera crew along if you expected any chance of a gun battle.


Posted by: Cryptic ned | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 4:52 PM
horizontal rule
159

From bOING bOING:
"A Saudi woman whose male friend collapsed on being questioned by a member of the notorious morality policy (the Commission for the Promotion of Virtue and Prevention of Vice) snapped, and laid a beating on the religious cop. The cop went to hospital with bruises, the woman faces prison and lashings."

But the poor officer was just following orders!


Posted by: Natilo Paennim | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 5:15 PM
horizontal rule
160

at the very least a terrible, terrible mistake

That's what I'm hoping it was. If they knowingly started lobbing flash bangs into a living room with kids in it... gah.

You wouldn't take your camera crew along if you expected any chance of a gun battle.

Yeah, I'd be interested in seeing what kind of agreement they had with A&E. Not allowed at dangerous warrant service? Paying extra and signing a waiver to go to potential shoot outs?


Posted by: gswift | Link to this comment | 05-18-10 7:33 PM
horizontal rule