Contributor
- Joined
- Jan 19, 2018
- Messages
- 2,643
There is so much nuance in this chapter but people are just seeing what they want to see. Like, all those people who were like "I can't wait for the SJWs to be triggered by this," then the same amount of ignorance can be used to claim that this chapter actually proves that you are wrong. I'd be saying that this was a chapter showing exactly why the it is good the times were changing, because two men went on a fun trip together despite gender differences, because in the 21st century, that should be a thing that people be allowed to do. Or that this was an entire chapter dedicated to being like "ok boomer," because as we had seen from the chapter with the abused boy, following his philosophy could have irreparably damaged the kid.
But this chapter isn't like that, and jumping at the chance to say that you have been validated because of this guy may not be the best hill to die on.
My interpretation is that this guy is not necessarily wrong, but he is experiencing difficulties with change and being comfortable with oneself. It is not that people are changing, but that people are becoming more accepting of who they are. For example, there have always been transgender people. This isn't conjecture. Literally a one second google search would find you hundreds of out transgender people in history. But it wasn't until relatively recently, in the past few decades, that people have been open about it. Or, in a less heated example, there have always been people who don't like taking trips. But that's strange, couples should be taking trips together, it is what they do. Then Takayanagi (I don't know if I'm spelling that right anymore, my autocorrect changed it too many times) gives the professor an out by implying that maybe it was just because he didn't go out much as a kid.
But then there are people who feel that they have to stop being themselves to allow these others to be who they are. I want to ask whether you really want attacking people unrelated to you to be part of your identity, but that is simplifying the matter. I've found that many people take comfort in their societal roles. They feel attacked when they are told they don't have to be this way, and that many people aren't. It's like their entire way of life is being invalidated. If they are not this, then what are they? And I feel that. This is why the disappearance of nuance is so dangerous. Many people will feel that by saying "it is okay to not be like this," it can easily be skewed as "you are not allowed to be like this." Conversely, "I am like this" becomes "You are not allowed to be anything but this" (Disclaimer, I know there are people who actually say this. I am not fucking talking about them. Use your loaf a little). And yeah, if you interpret it like that, of course you would feel attacked. I think the difference is whether you are saying something to defend yourself or to attack someone else, which even then has nuance and can be treated on a case by case basis
But at the same time, it is important to notice the implications of what someone says. I will use myself as an example. As much as I am trying to respectfully disagree with comments, I may not see that what I am saying will be commonly interpreted as something else. Fuck, I might sound super passive aggressive or better than thou even though I may not intend to mean it this way. Explanation Point has a good video about Death of the Author and literary analysis that can be applied to this as well. But THAT is another discussion that I will not be having here, since they will probably have a more relevant chapter coming up, and I don't think anyone who will be @ ing me will be willing to read that whole thing. Just do everyone a favor and DM me the insults. Don't need to clutter up the comments section with personal attacks(I feel like after this entire comment, I need to point out that I am being jokingly aggressive now. Just to be clear)
But this chapter isn't like that, and jumping at the chance to say that you have been validated because of this guy may not be the best hill to die on.
My interpretation is that this guy is not necessarily wrong, but he is experiencing difficulties with change and being comfortable with oneself. It is not that people are changing, but that people are becoming more accepting of who they are. For example, there have always been transgender people. This isn't conjecture. Literally a one second google search would find you hundreds of out transgender people in history. But it wasn't until relatively recently, in the past few decades, that people have been open about it. Or, in a less heated example, there have always been people who don't like taking trips. But that's strange, couples should be taking trips together, it is what they do. Then Takayanagi (I don't know if I'm spelling that right anymore, my autocorrect changed it too many times) gives the professor an out by implying that maybe it was just because he didn't go out much as a kid.
But then there are people who feel that they have to stop being themselves to allow these others to be who they are. I want to ask whether you really want attacking people unrelated to you to be part of your identity, but that is simplifying the matter. I've found that many people take comfort in their societal roles. They feel attacked when they are told they don't have to be this way, and that many people aren't. It's like their entire way of life is being invalidated. If they are not this, then what are they? And I feel that. This is why the disappearance of nuance is so dangerous. Many people will feel that by saying "it is okay to not be like this," it can easily be skewed as "you are not allowed to be like this." Conversely, "I am like this" becomes "You are not allowed to be anything but this" (Disclaimer, I know there are people who actually say this. I am not fucking talking about them. Use your loaf a little). And yeah, if you interpret it like that, of course you would feel attacked. I think the difference is whether you are saying something to defend yourself or to attack someone else, which even then has nuance and can be treated on a case by case basis
But at the same time, it is important to notice the implications of what someone says. I will use myself as an example. As much as I am trying to respectfully disagree with comments, I may not see that what I am saying will be commonly interpreted as something else. Fuck, I might sound super passive aggressive or better than thou even though I may not intend to mean it this way. Explanation Point has a good video about Death of the Author and literary analysis that can be applied to this as well. But THAT is another discussion that I will not be having here, since they will probably have a more relevant chapter coming up, and I don't think anyone who will be @ ing me will be willing to read that whole thing. Just do everyone a favor and DM me the insults. Don't need to clutter up the comments section with personal attacks(I feel like after this entire comment, I need to point out that I am being jokingly aggressive now. Just to be clear)
