Caitlyn Jenner: The Reveal & The Reactions

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

Well, Llama does have an extensive history of failing to grasp seemingly simple statements and claims, even with evidence, and even when confronted with past quotes.

Yeah. I've tried to avoid blatantly stating that though, in fears of another warning - I've racked up more since my return than I did in the couple years previous.

But seriously. Sometimes people are just obtuse that way.

[Benian Republic]

Do you see the state it's in now... It was a hell lot better under him.

Doesn't make it good. Democracies were far better off during the same time period.

You mean the weak willed one that took power? Yeah he did some bad thing but the people liked him and he was able to keep his country tougether.

[Seangoli]

Thank you. That was actually the exact case I was thinking of when I typed what I said.

I should note, however, that I'm not a "he" (or a "she"), but rather a "they".

Also, I'd like to dive deeper into what you were saying about humans never having been natural. In your professional opinion, where is the dividing line, in our evolutionary history, where we cease to be 'natural'?

Well, that is a sticky question, to be honest.

I think the best way to sum up my stance is to elaborate on the specific issue I take with the assumption that prehistoric people were more "natural" than modern people. The statement may seem innocuous enough, and even "true". They lived off the land to a far greater degree than we currently do, and lacked the technological innovations currently available. It would seem they would be closer to more "naturally" human behavior than we current are.

The issue with this is that it implies a primitiveness to the people in question, not just technologically but also culturally. It is an unintentional implication that they were "less" biologically, and behaviorally, modern than we currently are. This is in fact false; though they lacked the degree of technological advancement that currently exists through out the world, they still had cultures which were often at odds with what would make sense from a "naturalistic" sense. Not only that, but these groups were dependent almost entirely on technology of all sorts to survive. To be blunt, we have been reliant on technology as a species for millions of years, and technological innovation has been a near constant aspect of human existence in all its forms.

At that, if those cultures are "natural", then so are ours in the same sense. Culture in and of itself is natural to humans, in all of its forms. It is part and parcel with our behavioral processes. Western cultural has developed along its own lines, but is no more or less natural than the cultures that were present in the Americas in pre-colonial periods, or in Bronze Age Europe, or during any part of the Paleolithic period. It's certainly different.

The point is that the assumption that prehistoric societies were more natural implies that they are also more primitive intellectual, closer to our "base" evolutionary ancestor than we are in the Modern age. The cultures of all modern human groups are just as alien to those ancestors as we are.

In reality culture as a behavior is a "natural" aspect of humanity; so it's been around, at least in modern incarnation, as long as behavorially modern humans have been around, or about 100k years ago or so depending on who you ask and how they decide to define "culture". Do note that this is if you believe that culture arose in humans, in its entirety, as a fully formed construct, which is not necessarily what I personally espouse (As I choose to interpret the evidence as indicating culture as being developed slowly over time, much like any other trait). However, if I were to give a firm answer of when "Culture" as a modern concept was in its "maturity" I would say approximately 100k years ago, when the first evidence of entirely behaviorally modern humans arose.

So, to answer you question, it's that you are asking the wrong questions. It's not "when were humans more natural?", but instead "When did modern cultural behavior become a part of our species".

To move this all around to the concept of gender again, it's not that transgenderism is natural in humans. It's that gender constructs are not inherent to human nature; these are constructs that occupy a space within a culture (And although culture is a human behavior, it is not the only human behavior). Transgenderism arises simply because the gender constructs are wholly inadequate to contain the entirety of human existence. Specific cultural concepts, such as views towards gender, are not natural in the least, and are instead cultural constructions built to order the world in one way or another. Transgenderism exists as a concept only due to rigid gender constructions. Those cultures which allow non-binary gender to exist would not have some people identify as "transgender", as they in fact have a gender of their own. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case, as there are those who wouldn't fit well within the "expanded" gender system, and thus be transgender in such a system at that.

This is not me saying that transgenderism is "unnatural", either. It's more of a descriptive term to describe people in our society who do not fit within the constructs of a society. Their identity is perfectly natural to them, after all.

This is a very complicated matter, really. Fascinating, interesting, and with a lot of very interesting work that has been and still being done.

[Iidoomaan]

why is everybody loving on caitlyn jenner but nobody gives a shit about chelsea manning

[Prussia-Steinbach]

why is everybody loving on caitlyn jenner but nobody gives a shit about chelsea manning

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

[Llamalandia]

Ok then a source on the theory at least please. I mean hell Descartes claimed to have proved the existence of God via logical thought process alone, (I'm paraphrasing of course) doesn't mean he actually did.

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

If you mean, Grenartia, then that that isn't really a source. I don't know anything about that posters credentials or credibility in postulating such a theory. I mean if that person has a phd in anthropology ok sure, beyond that though...
I mean this is the supposed theory "Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population." as posited by grenartia or do Ineed to go further back in the quote chain. I mean, I fail to see anything that supports that. Just because there are transgender people now doesn't mean there have always been transgender people. It is entirely possible, that transgenderism isn't even biologically determined fact. It could be a combination of environment and genetics or even environment alone and it is entirely plausible to think that our modern environment may be conducive to transgenderism in a manner which early environments were not.

[Iidoomaan]

why is everybody loving on caitlyn jenner but nobody gives a shit about chelsea manning

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

chelsea manning isnt even get half the public support bruce is. and she was a national hero. jenner just some gank-ass b-list celebrity

[Grenartia]

Thank you. That was actually the exact case I was thinking of when I typed what I said.

I should note, however, that I'm not a "he" (or a "she"), but rather a "they".

Also, I'd like to dive deeper into what you were saying about humans never having been natural. In your professional opinion, where is the dividing line, in our evolutionary history, where we cease to be 'natural'?

Well, that is a sticky question, to be honest.

I think the best way to sum up my stance is to elaborate on the specific issue I take with the assumption that prehistoric people were more "natural" than modern people. The statement may seem innocuous enough, and even "true". They lived off the land to a far greater degree than we currently do, and lacked the technological innovations currently available. It would seem they would be closer to more "naturally" human behavior than we current are.

The issue with this is that it implies a primitiveness to the people in question, not just technologically but also culturally. It is an unintentional implication that they were "less" biologically, and behaviorally, modern than we currently are. This is in fact false; though they lacked the degree of technological advancement that currently exists through out the world, they still had cultures which were often at odds with what would make sense from a "naturalistic" sense. Not only that, but these groups were dependent almost entirely on technology of all sorts to survive. To be blunt, we have been reliant on technology as a species for millions of years, and technological innovation has been a near constant aspect of human existence in all its forms.

At that, if those cultures are "natural", then so are ours in the same sense. Culture in and of itself is natural to humans, in all of its forms. It is part and parcel with our behavioral processes. Western cultural has developed along its own lines, but is no more or less natural than the cultures that were present in the Americas in pre-colonial periods, or in Bronze Age Europe, or during any part of the Paleolithic period. It's certainly different.

The point is that the assumption that prehistoric societies were more natural implies that they are also more primitive intellectual, closer to our "base" evolutionary ancestor than we are in the Modern age. The cultures of all modern human groups are just as alien to those ancestors as we are.

In reality culture as a behavior is a "natural" aspect of humanity; so it's been around, at least in modern incarnation, as long as behavorially modern humans have been around, or about 100k years ago or so depending on who you ask and how they decide to define "culture". Do note that this is if you believe that culture arose in humans, in its entirety, as a fully formed construct, which is not necessarily what I personally espouse (As I choose to interpret the evidence as indicating culture as being developed slowly over time, much like any other trait). However, if I were to give a firm answer of when "Culture" as a modern concept was in its "maturity" I would say approximately 100k years ago, when the first evidence of entirely behaviorally modern humans arose.

So, to answer you question, it's that you are asking the wrong questions. It's not "when were humans more natural?", but instead "When did modern cultural behavior become a part of our species".

To move this all around to the concept of gender again, it's not that transgenderism is natural in humans. It's that gender constructs are not inherent to human nature; these are constructs that occupy a space within a culture (And although culture is a human behavior, it is not the only human behavior). Transgenderism arises simply because the gender constructs are wholly inadequate to contain the entirety of human existence. Specific cultural concepts, such as views towards gender, are not natural in the least, and are instead cultural constructions built to order the world in one way or another. Transgenderism exists as a concept only due to rigid gender constructions. Those cultures which allow non-binary gender to exist would not have some people identify as "transgender", as they in fact have a gender of their own. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case, as there are those who wouldn't fit well within the "expanded" gender system, and thus be transgender in such a system at that.

This is not me saying that transgenderism is "unnatural", either. It's more of a descriptive term to describe people in our society who do not fit within the constructs of a society. Their identity is perfectly natural to them, after all.

This is a very complicated matter, really. Fascinating, interesting, and with a lot of very interesting work that has been and still being done.

A very stimulating, and informative answer. Thank you.

why is everybody loving on caitlyn jenner but nobody gives a shit about chelsea manning

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

Exactly. The last time Chelsea was in the news was back when it was freezing outside, last I remember, so...February? Yeah. Starting a new thread on Chelsea wouldn't exactly be topical.

[Llamalandia]

why is everybody loving on caitlyn jenner but nobody gives a shit about chelsea manning

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

Also, pretty sure one is most likely hotter or at least perceived to be hotter (thanx in part to a pro photoshoot) the other is stuck trying to transition in a military stockade. Not that Ifeel especially for bradley/chelsea, I mean, its fine be transgender once you've served your sentence in my opinion.

[Grenartia]

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

If you mean, Grenartia, then that that isn't really a source. I don't know anything about that posters credentials or credibility in postulating such a theory. I mean if that person has a phd in anthropology ok sure, beyond that though...
I mean this is the supposed theory "Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population." as posited by grenartia or do Ineed to go further back in the quote chain. I mean, I fail to see anything that supports that. Just because there are transgender people now doesn't mean there have always been transgender people. It is entirely possible, that transgenderism isn't even biologically determined fact. It could be a combination of environment and genetics or even environment alone and it is entirely plausible to think that our modern environment may be conducive to transgenderism in a manner which early environments were not.

I have expert testimony backing me up. You, do not.

Haha source plz? No doubt many an archaeologist will leap to your defense.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

Thank you. That was actually the exact case I was thinking of when I typed what I said.

I should note, however, that I'm not a "he" (or a "she"), but rather a "they".

Also, I'd like to dive deeper into what you were saying about humans never having been natural. In your professional opinion, where is the dividing line, in our evolutionary history, where we cease to be 'natural'?

Well, that is a sticky question, to be honest.

I think the best way to sum up my stance is to elaborate on the specific issue I take with the assumption that prehistoric people were more "natural" than modern people. The statement may seem innocuous enough, and even "true". They lived off the land to a far greater degree than we currently do, and lacked the technological innovations currently available. It would seem they would be closer to more "naturally" human behavior than we current are.

The issue with this is that it implies a primitiveness to the people in question, not just technologically but also culturally. It is an unintentional implication that they were "less" biologically, and behaviorally, modern than we currently are. This is in fact false; though they lacked the degree of technological advancement that currently exists through out the world, they still had cultures which were often at odds with what would make sense from a "naturalistic" sense. Not only that, but these groups were dependent almost entirely on technology of all sorts to survive. To be blunt, we have been reliant on technology as a species for millions of years, and technological innovation has been a near constant aspect of human existence in all its forms.

At that, if those cultures are "natural", then so are ours in the same sense. Culture in and of itself is natural to humans, in all of its forms. It is part and parcel with our behavioral processes. Western cultural has developed along its own lines, but is no more or less natural than the cultures that were present in the Americas in pre-colonial periods, or in Bronze Age Europe, or during any part of the Paleolithic period. It's certainly different.

The point is that the assumption that prehistoric societies were more natural implies that they are also more primitive intellectual, closer to our "base" evolutionary ancestor than we are in the Modern age. The cultures of all modern human groups are just as alien to those ancestors as we are.

In reality culture as a behavior is a "natural" aspect of humanity; so it's been around, at least in modern incarnation, as long as behavorially modern humans have been around, or about 100k years ago or so depending on who you ask and how they decide to define "culture". Do note that this is if you believe that culture arose in humans, in its entirety, as a fully formed construct, which is not necessarily what I personally espouse (As I choose to interpret the evidence as indicating culture as being developed slowly over time, much like any other trait). However, if I were to give a firm answer of when "Culture" as a modern concept was in its "maturity" I would say approximately 100k years ago, when the first evidence of entirely behaviorally modern humans arose.

So, to answer you question, it's that you are asking the wrong questions. It's not "when were humans more natural?", but instead "When did modern cultural behavior become a part of our species".

To move this all around to the concept of gender again, it's not that transgenderism is natural in humans. It's that gender constructs are not inherent to human nature; these are constructs that occupy a space within a culture (And although culture is a human behavior, it is not the only human behavior). Transgenderism arises simply because the gender constructs are wholly inadequate to contain the entirety of human existence. Specific cultural concepts, such as views towards gender, are not natural in the least, and are instead cultural constructions built to order the world in one way or another. Transgenderism exists as a concept only due to rigid gender constructions. Those cultures which allow non-binary gender to exist would not have some people identify as "transgender", as they in fact have a gender of their own. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case, as there are those who wouldn't fit well within the "expanded" gender system, and thus be transgender in such a system at that.

This is not me saying that transgenderism is "unnatural", either. It's more of a descriptive term to describe people in our society who do not fit within the constructs of a society. Their identity is perfectly natural to them, after all.

This is a very complicated matter, really. Fascinating, interesting, and with a lot of very interesting work that has been and still being done.

[Llamalandia]

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

chelsea manning isnt even get half the public support bruce is. and she was a national hero. jenner just some gank-ass b-list celebrity

That is debateable. I mean, I was all for supporting manning when he was still anonymous. But I don't support people who make such utterly dumbasses decisions, like revealing their identity to someone and expecting him not to tell the feds. I mean, duh, that is pretty much how he got caught. At least Snowden had the good sense to immediately flee the country before he was discovered.

[The Liberated Territories]

I always liked Josh better.

[Iidoomaan]

chelsea manning isnt even get half the public support bruce is. and she was a national hero. jenner just some gank-ass b-list celebrity

That is debateable. I mean, I was all for supporting manning when he was still anonymous. But I don't support people who make such utterly dumbasses decisions, like revealing their identity to someone and expecting him not to tell the feds. I mean, duh, that is pretty much how he got caught. At least Snowden had the good sense to immediately flee the country before he was discovered.

that's really stupid. how does her getting caught in the process invalidate her moral desicion.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

If you mean, Grenartia, then that that isn't really a source. I don't know anything about that posters credentials or credibility in postulating such a theory. I mean if that person has a phd in anthropology ok sure, beyond that though...
I mean this is the supposed theory "Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population." as posited by grenartia or do Ineed to go further back in the quote chain. I mean, I fail to see anything that supports that. Just because there are transgender people now doesn't mean there have always been transgender people. It is entirely possible, that transgenderism isn't even biologically determined fact. It could be a combination of environment and genetics or even environment alone and it is entirely plausible to think that our modern environment may be conducive to transgenderism in a manner which early environments were not.

I postulated the theory farther back in the quote chain.

But we now have expert testimony backing us up, so yeah, you lose, bud.

[Llamalandia]

If you mean, Grenartia, then that that isn't really a source. I don't know anything about that posters credentials or credibility in postulating such a theory. I mean if that person has a phd in anthropology ok sure, beyond that though...
I mean this is the supposed theory "Indeed. Go back in time to before the dawn of civilization (arguably, the point in time when we as a species were in our most 'natural' state), and you'll most likely find transgender individuals in the population." as posited by grenartia or do Ineed to go further back in the quote chain. I mean, I fail to see anything that supports that. Just because there are transgender people now doesn't mean there have always been transgender people. It is entirely possible, that transgenderism isn't even biologically determined fact. It could be a combination of environment and genetics or even environment alone and it is entirely plausible to think that our modern environment may be conducive to transgenderism in a manner which early environments were not.

I have expert testimony backing me up. You, do not.

As an actual archaeologist, who has been doing archaeology professionally for half a decade, and has had nearly seven years of schooling on top of that including graduate studies, he's not actually wrong. Some Native American tribes had a term for what we would call transgender people, known as two-spirits (known by Western anthropologists as berdaches, a term used by french explorers and traders). Gender Archaeologists have also noted some interesting finds within burials in early americans, and the presence of typically male associated artifacts within female burials and vice versa, indicating a certain gender fluidity present. You can read up on it on wikipedia a bit, if you really care. It's pretty accurate, but there are plenty of books and articles on the subject of gender archaeology to be found.

This isn't even at all a particularly rare or unique phenomenon through-out the world. A couple years ago, a 5000 year old, copper age skeleton was unearthed near Prague that was a male buried in a typically female fashion. This is rather unusual for the region, as typically bucking tradition generally requires a reason to do so.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/ ... ear-prague

Interestingly, rather than enforce a two-gendered system, archaeologically work with a gendered approach has only provided a murky and muddied mess, with indication that gender roles in many societies were not simply a male-female dichotomy; for every "rule" there is almost always an exception that can be found, and it is seemingly cross-cultural.

Of course there are some criticisms that have been levied; that we are interpreting the data from a modern day and western lens towards gender identity; that the material culture present in burials is not necessarily a reflection of the class or life of individuals; etc. and so forth. But there is a good deal of work that has been done, and not an insignificant amount of evidence provided, to indicate that transgenderism was certainly present in the past, at least as we label it.

That said, the idea prehistoric societies are closer to our "natural" state is not only utterly false, it's also somewhat insulting to say the least. They were remarkably different from one another, and were just as far removed from our "natural' state as we are, at least in how the poster was using the terminology.

To be blunt, all evidence does indicate that gender constructs, particularly western binary constructs, are not particularly "true" constructs. They are convenient labels that were created to organize people within society, but was by no means the only means of doing so.

Well, that is a sticky question, to be honest.

I think the best way to sum up my stance is to elaborate on the specific issue I take with the assumption that prehistoric people were more "natural" than modern people. The statement may seem innocuous enough, and even "true". They lived off the land to a far greater degree than we currently do, and lacked the technological innovations currently available. It would seem they would be closer to more "naturally" human behavior than we current are.

The issue with this is that it implies a primitiveness to the people in question, not just technologically but also culturally. It is an unintentional implication that they were "less" biologically, and behaviorally, modern than we currently are. This is in fact false; though they lacked the degree of technological advancement that currently exists through out the world, they still had cultures which were often at odds with what would make sense from a "naturalistic" sense. Not only that, but these groups were dependent almost entirely on technology of all sorts to survive. To be blunt, we have been reliant on technology as a species for millions of years, and technological innovation has been a near constant aspect of human existence in all its forms.

At that, if those cultures are "natural", then so are ours in the same sense. Culture in and of itself is natural to humans, in all of its forms. It is part and parcel with our behavioral processes. Western cultural has developed along its own lines, but is no more or less natural than the cultures that were present in the Americas in pre-colonial periods, or in Bronze Age Europe, or during any part of the Paleolithic period. It's certainly different.

The point is that the assumption that prehistoric societies were more natural implies that they are also more primitive intellectual, closer to our "base" evolutionary ancestor than we are in the Modern age. The cultures of all modern human groups are just as alien to those ancestors as we are.

In reality culture as a behavior is a "natural" aspect of humanity; so it's been around, at least in modern incarnation, as long as behavorially modern humans have been around, or about 100k years ago or so depending on who you ask and how they decide to define "culture". Do note that this is if you believe that culture arose in humans, in its entirety, as a fully formed construct, which is not necessarily what I personally espouse (As I choose to interpret the evidence as indicating culture as being developed slowly over time, much like any other trait). However, if I were to give a firm answer of when "Culture" as a modern concept was in its "maturity" I would say approximately 100k years ago, when the first evidence of entirely behaviorally modern humans arose.

So, to answer you question, it's that you are asking the wrong questions. It's not "when were humans more natural?", but instead "When did modern cultural behavior become a part of our species".

To move this all around to the concept of gender again, it's not that transgenderism is natural in humans. It's that gender constructs are not inherent to human nature; these are constructs that occupy a space within a culture (And although culture is a human behavior, it is not the only human behavior). Transgenderism arises simply because the gender constructs are wholly inadequate to contain the entirety of human existence. Specific cultural concepts, such as views towards gender, are not natural in the least, and are instead cultural constructions built to order the world in one way or another. Transgenderism exists as a concept only due to rigid gender constructions. Those cultures which allow non-binary gender to exist would not have some people identify as "transgender", as they in fact have a gender of their own. Of course, this wouldn't always be the case, as there are those who wouldn't fit well within the "expanded" gender system, and thus be transgender in such a system at that.

This is not me saying that transgenderism is "unnatural", either. It's more of a descriptive term to describe people in our society who do not fit within the constructs of a society. Their identity is perfectly natural to them, after all.

This is a very complicated matter, really. Fascinating, interesting, and with a lot of very interesting work that has been and still being done.

Meh, that's all you had to say, more or less. I mean, you may have support for your assertions, so show the link, or in this case have someone else do it for you. But i'm not just going to take your word for it, when you think that this is how it was. But hey, ok, an archaeologist says it, fair enough, until I can find other archaeologists to refute it or else can, demonstrate some flaw or obvious error in what he has posted (which is unlikely) I'm willing to concede the point to you.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

People have given plenty of shits about Chelsea Manning. Topics only last but so long, however.

chelsea manning isnt even get half the public support bruce is. and she was a national hero. jenner just some gank-ass b-list celebrity

Chelsea Manning got a shitload of public support - but if she got less, it's probably because she was considered a traitor by a decent amount of people.

Not that I could give a fuck, just an observation.

[Llamalandia]

Follow the quote chain and observe the process. It's nowhere near as deep as you seem to think.

Well, Llama does have an extensive history of failing to grasp seemingly simple statements and claims, even with evidence, and even when confronted with past quotes.

What evidence and quotes? I mean, I see that post that was made after yours here. But I saw no evidence, just your theory, like I said, how far back in the chain was I supposed to go, I'm honestly asking here.

[Llamalandia]

chelsea manning isnt even get half the public support bruce is. and she was a national hero. jenner just some gank-ass b-list celebrity

Chelsea Manning got a shitload of public support - but if she got less, it's probably because she was considered a traitor by a decent amount of people.

Not that I could give a fuck, just an observation.

No offense but that actually seems kinda passionate and pointed an assessment, for a post on that you are merely making an observation of and give not a fuck about.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Meh, that's all you had to say, more or less. I mean, you may have support for your assertions, so show the link, or in this case have someone else do it for you. But i'm not just going to take your word for it, when you think that this is how it was. But hey, ok, an archaeologist says it, fair enough, until I can find other archaeologists to refute it or else can, demonstrate some flaw or obvious error in what he has posted (which is unlikely) I'm willing to concede the point to you.

You're being deliberately and stubbornly obtuse just so you don't have to flat-out admit you're wrong. It's been swung into your face like a hammer, but you only dig yourself in more and more with each blow.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

Chelsea Manning got a shitload of public support - but if she got less, it's probably because she was considered a traitor by a decent amount of people.

Not that I could give a fuck, just an observation.

No offense but that actually seems kinda passionate and pointed an assessment, for a post on that you are merely making an observation of and give not a fuck about.

I don't give a fuck about whether someone is a traitor or not.

I get the feeling you're the kind of person that is good at covert shit-talking in real life, until someone picks up on it and beats your ass.

[Seangoli]

A very stimulating, and informative answer. Thank you.

I will be honest and say that I'm not nearly as well versed or as well disciplined as Archregimancy in subjects pertaining to all things archaeology, but I certainly have studied the subject of gender archaeology to a significant degree for various reasons. I'm particularly bad with sourcing at times, as I don't have the capacity to drum up resources on a whim nearly to the same extent as him. And I'm by no means the last word on the subject (As much as there is one in the field of archaeology; a common idiom is that if you get ten archaeologists in a room to discuss a topic, you will come out with eleven different opinions). Just relating what I have studied in the past in a broad sense, as I have been out of academia and in the private sector for a couple years. I most certainly could bring up more specifics if I were at home, but I'm currently off on a project and don't have my bookshelf to delve into for more specific information at the moment.

[Llamalandia]

That is debateable. I mean, I was all for supporting manning when he was still anonymous. But I don't support people who make such utterly dumbasses decisions, like revealing their identity to someone and expecting him not to tell the feds. I mean, duh, that is pretty much how he got caught. At least Snowden had the good sense to immediately flee the country before he was discovered.

that's really stupid. how does her getting caught in the process invalidate her moral desicion.

It doesn't I just don't like stupid people, I guess? Idk. It's just like she or Iguess he at the time or whatever should have been able to anticipate what would happen and act accordingly. I mean, obviously the military wasn't just going to let this go, he released a ton of shit and honestly I'm even a little ambivalent on the morality of the situation. I mean on the one hand exposing the abuse and lies of the military is good, on the other hand, there was the possiblity not a high probability, but still a possibility that some leaked info could have cost the lives of soldiers.
Plus, he wasn't so much a leat haxor as just someone who exploited an obvious and gaping hole in security. I mean, how did no one, notice or more impotantly why in the hell was the system designed in such a way to make basically all information available to even low level intel people like manning, who had also already been disciplined, without at least some oversight. I mean he was downloading shit that couldn't possibly have been related to his work.
So in part, my issue was with the media callng this guy a hacker. No he was just a guy with some blank cd's and access to secure computers.

[Llamalandia]

No offense but that actually seems kinda passionate and pointed an assessment, for a post on that you are merely making an observation of and give not a fuck about.

I don't give a fuck about whether someone is a traitor or not.

I get the feeling you're the kind of person that is good at covert shit-talking in real life, until someone picks up on it and beats your ass.

Given that no one has ever beat me up IRL, I have to say, you are incorrect my friend. Dammit, i need a word that is observation now though to not look like I'm doing that. Idk, my post was just a comment on yours I guess?

[Llamalandia]

Meh, that's all you had to say, more or less. I mean, you may have support for your assertions, so show the link, or in this case have someone else do it for you. But i'm not just going to take your word for it, when you think that this is how it was. But hey, ok, an archaeologist says it, fair enough, until I can find other archaeologists to refute it or else can, demonstrate some flaw or obvious error in what he has posted (which is unlikely) I'm willing to concede the point to you.

You're being deliberately and stubbornly obtuse just so you don't have to flat-out admit you're wrong. It's been swung into your face like a hammer, but you only dig yourself in more and more with each blow.

No I'm not like I said, I've essentially conceded the point. I mean, until I can find evidence for ad forulate a rebuttal, I fully defer to the judgement of Seangoli. He's the archaeologist after all.

[Prussia-Steinbach]

You're being deliberately and stubbornly obtuse just so you don't have to flat-out admit you're wrong. It's been swung into your face like a hammer, but you only dig yourself in more and more with each blow.

No I'm not like I said, I've essentially conceded the point. I mean, until I can find evidence for ad forulate a rebuttal, I fully defer to the judgement of Seangoli. He's the archaeologist after all.

Which was in agreement with Gren and I.