On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 18:50:18 -0000, "Jymn" 
blethered:

>In urp, Halla  wrote in response to Jymn:
><snip>
>>> The political correctness line has pushed the tolerance of
>>> groups, and has sought to pigeon hole people into neat
>>> little groups. There's a legally forced tolerance of these
>>> groups, and in reaction there seems to be less tolerance of
>>> anyone who doesn't fit into these neat little pigeon holes.
>>> Whereas in the past there was a lot less tolerance of
>>> groups, but a greater tolerance of individuals.
>>> Make any sense?
>
>> Ah, I see. Yes. Instead of taking people as they come, folks
>> use up their patience and understanding on the categories
>> they've been given, and become irritated by any deviation
>> from those categories?
>
>Yep, and the loss of the tendency to accept any individual who wasn't neatly 
>labelable/your type as OK as an individual (which I know could be a highly 
>bigoted form of acceptance)
>

Better than nothing I suppose, but not ideal. I wonder if it's a
throwback to a more tribal mindset - this person is an outsider, but
previously an outsider of this type has proved their worth, so I will
suffer this new person more readily?

><snip>
>>> I think difference is seen as more threatening, but if it
>>> can be limited and pigeon-holed it becomes easier for
>>> society to accept. I think there are a lot less mixed
>>> groups,but people form smaller homogenous groups, or
>>> structure their lives around more focussed groups to which
>>> they belong, rather than having interplay and commonality
>>> between the various activities that make up their lives.
>>
>> I wonder how much of that is due to a sort of
>> office-culturalism? I've worked places where it's tricky to
>> strike up a conversation if 1) you don't like dance music and
>> dance clubs 2) you don't watch whatever reality programme is
>> on the telly and 3) you never watch soaps. Perhaps I've been
>> unlucky, although I've met people like that outside of work
>> too - leads to lots of silences, as other subjects seem to
>> cause puzzlement. Seems natural then to seek out more
>> like-minded folk outside of work.
>
>The perfect tie-in to your post regarding the FT essay I've just replied to.
>People being far to focussed that they lack any breadth, or being to shallow 
>to have any depth.

But then, does breadth not also imply shallowness? 

<snip>
>
>>> It can be argued that Edward VIII  was selfish or mindful of
>>> duty when he abdicated (in theory at least, he could have
>>> taken the Crown and forced a constitutional crisis by
>>> insisting on marrying Mrs Simpson as King.)
>>
>> Although of course he could have been mindful of duty and
>> ditched her, too.
>
>He reckoned he couldn't do the job without her.

OK then. 

>Funny how history repeats, Similar strictures were placed on Charles and 
>look what that lead to.

I suppose that's us seen what the alternative worked out as. 

>
><snip>
>>> Hopefully I'd have the sense to avoid the (admittedly very
>>> remote) possibility. But given the wealth and access I'd
>>> probably make the most of enjoying the situation.
>>
>> Although I'd admit all those servants would make me jumpy. I
>> could cope with someone cooking and cleaning for me, but
>> picking out clothes and helping me to dress?
>
>I have enough problems with the idea of hotel valets and chambermaids. 

Heh, yes, especially having known a few and knowing how much work they
get for what wages. 

>Personal servants wouldfreak me - someone to do the ironing would be nice 
>though ;~)

Ironing? What is this ironing? ;-)

>
>>>> Who is the other one tapping at my memory? Queen Mary? Took
>>>> those three things so seriously she made herself very very
>>>> miserable, if I remember correctly.
>>>
>>> She married a stamp collector ;~)
>>
>> <quickly checks> My apologies - I was thinking of Mary Tudor.
>> :-)
>
>Why don't consorts get numbers, would make life easier ;~)

*snort* Dunno about that - can you imagine the scraps if they were
numbered wrong or a previously unknown, er, 'unofficial consort' came
to light? ;-)

>
>>> Her personal style was more austere than many of her
>>> predessors (possibly a result of family background where
>>> moey was in very short supply) Much is written about her as
>>> being cold and hard but usually respectfuly. "above
>>> politics.magnificent, humorous, worldly, in fact nearly
>>> sublime, though cold and hard. But what a grand Queen."
>>> Henry Channon in his diaries.
>>> She certainly set the tone folowed by Queen Elizabeth II.>
>>> Would you regard the current monarch as miserable?
>>
>> What a good question. Constrained, maybe. Miserable? Hmm. She
>> doesn't seem so. She does give me the impression that she'd
>> shatter if she was asked to move too far from her role though.
>
>I think she's changed the role substantially over the years, but has been 
>very quiet and subtle about doing so.

Possibly. Probably even - I can't claim to have paid a lot of
attention. :-)

>I think there's quite a contrast between her public off duty and on duty 
>personas (not that she is ever off duty, but watch her racing to see what I 
>mean) 

Yes. Also I saw a clip of Catherine Tait (I think that's her name?)
doing her stroppy teenager routine at the Royal Variety, and the Queen
was giggling away.

>I think she sees constitency and stability as part of what she 
>provides to the country.

<nods>

>
><snip>
>> I was watching that the Power of the Planet programme earlier
>> - how fascinating. I'm coming to believe that there's not a
>> lot we can do to stop the world changing in a drastic way
>> (although that's no excuse for burning everything we get our
>> hands on) and that we're going to have to do a lot of
>> adapting pretty sharpish.
>
>Agreed, and it shouldn't stop us trying to stop the changes.

Oh good grief no - apart from anything else, we would sort of have to
get used to living in a different way than the way we have now, so
parcticing for that would seem sensible. 

>
>>  The programme this evening
>> mentioned that the two great leaps in human evolution
>> coincided with the widest spread of the northern ice sheet in
>> the last Ice Age and that as a species we've never known a
>> planet without ice, so of course I'm wondering if we'll die
>> with it or evolve. There's lots of changes coming, fer sure.
>
>Frightening thing being, we could be around long enough to find out.

Yep. That's the bit that still gives me pause. I can feel vaguely
concerned for the species (despite the fact that I've said I don't
*like* the species) but I can't *care* as such for the six billion or
so people that I've never met. So that leaves me with concern for me
and mine, family and friends and all the things I *do* know. 

<snip>


-- 
"I can still see her face at thirty.
When will I be most myself?
I thought I'd always be their child.
In my sleep it's never winter."