Bay 12 Games Forum

The paper and ink used in the production of U.S. paper currency is as distinct as its design.  The paper comes to the BEP in brown paper-wrapped loads of 20,000 sheets (2 pallets of 10,000 sheets).  Each of these sheets is tracked by the BEP as it passes through the production process.   And, the total inventory of 20,000 sheets is continually reconciled to make sure each sheet is accounted for.  Currency paper is specifically made for the BEP by Crane Paper Company.  The ordinary paper that consumers use throughout their everyday life such as newspapers, books, cereal boxes, etc, is primarily made of wood pulp; however, United States currency paper is composed of 75% cotton and 25% linen.  This is what gives United States currency its distinct look and feel.  For denominations of $5 and above, the security thread, and watermark are already built into the paper when it is received.

Now, who knows if that's actually accurate and not some kind of front. But it's from the official US money printer website thingy. Which for some ungodly reason calls itself moneyfactory. Dot gov. That's my wtf of the day.

I'm now conceptualizing a scenario where all of these guys are reading said excerpt in chorus.

Possible to beatbox, I'unno. I think the experience would be improved by it. Maybe they alternate sections, some reading, the other beatboxing. Spontaneous scat performance from the 1600s? I can dig it.

Oh. Uh. Hrm.

Level three is my default state. That's what I see when I close my eyes, ha. S'part of the visual snow package. It's fun to watch, but if you actually pay attention to it, it becomes hell trying to fall asleep. For me, anyway.

Not sure about parts of level four, but active dream-level hallucination while still mostly conscious is not uncommon. The snow never goes away, though, so the 'flat ordered blackness' never happens.

Don't think I've hit five. Does reinforce that I'd really like to give a full out sensory deprivation period a go. Sounds really, really interesting, in relatively short bursts anyway.

And useful. Zip ties have a quite impressive number of uses. Be a fair bit better if they were more reusable, but it's hard to argue with their immediate capabilities. I've got... probably a few hundred laying around somewhere. Will last for a while. S'good to have plenty on hand, just in case.

I mean, I can't actually explain it rationally, either. I'm asserting that I don't have to - that it's as acceptable as stating "I am a woman." I don't understand what the fundamental difference here, because they're both assertions about myself (well, I'm not a woman, but I'm keeping the article's quote for emphasis). I'm not making an assertion about the value of the trans person in question.

I don't understand this second avenue, either. You seem to be essentially saying that either new information is not allowed to change how you act, or you have to justify it. All information is, at some point, new, so the former is clearly unworkable and the second just leads back into my first paragraph.

I'd say what I'm primarily pointing at is that you only have to justify it if the information isn't relevant to the issue "at hand", so to speak. In the hypothetical scenario, you've got a post-op transgender who has no baggage from the transition process and will not develop any in the future. There's no connection, behaviorally or otherwise, between their previous gender and their current one. No impact on their current behavioral patterns or aesthetic appeal. Et cetera, so forth.

In this case, who they were in the past has no impact on the present and will have no impact on the future. In this case... I'm asking why would it matter and, from the other angle, how is it fundamentally different from swapping "previous gender" with "<Insert racial ancestry>"? From a similar angle, why would your partner being grossly overweight (or thin; whichever direction turns you off. Pick any aesthetic consideration, really.) or a mostly-brainwashed <insert heavily disliked ideological group> in the past matter now, if it has no impact on the present? Ties were cut, weight was loss/gained, etc., so forth, so on. If they're what you want now and the past isn't going to be butting into the present, why should it be considered?

If you're discriminating against them in the present (by removing them from romantic consideration) when that previous state has no connection to their present state, you're no longer discriminating against them (which is fine, in this case, and for a romantic partner. You're allowed to have personal tastes, of course), you're discriminating against that previous state; their transgender history, their previous weight, their ancestry, etc. You've stepped from the personal to the categorical, no long judging them as who, but instead as what.

Depending on what that "what" is, that might not be a bad thing, exactly; that's why I mentioned aesthetics specifically, as most have very little conscious control over what they find physically attractive, but why less fundamental/arbitrary measures (such as history or achievement, ferex, especially when one or both has no influence on the present time in question.) I would call into scrutiny.

I mean, I'm essentially arguing that you have an impression of somebody, learn that impression is wrong, and are not attracted to the updated impression, and that there's nothing about this that is particularly wrong - although you can certainly handle it wrongly.

Yeah, that in itself isn't necessarily a problem. It just depends on what causes the loss of attraction. You might be unable to control it, but that doesn't mean it's still not unjustified prejudice, if it's relation to a subject that prejudice requires justification. I'd call post-op transgender in particular a case where justification is required, because there's no present or future difference between them and your desired gender (other than reproductive capability, they're now identical.) and the past is a non-influence on the person in question.

MSH, if it helps any, what they're saying is that the reasoning you're using is very similar to the one that goes, "Well, I've got nothing against <insert culturally appropriate race; it'd be black where I'm at> people, but I wouldn't be marrying (/letting my child marry) one." Alternately, it'd be kinda' like looking at a picture of your (highly desirable) considered from a decade back, finding them to have been grossly overweight, then, and deciding that makes them no longer attractive to you now.

If it'd be a deal-breaker with someone who is physically what you want, now, and in other ways eminently desirable, then... yeah, you're still not comfortable with the idea of transexuality, on a personal/emotional level. Because, despite self-identifying as their current gender and physically matching their current gender in every single way that matters, you don't consider them to be that gender. But rather some other category, which you find undesirable because of what they were, not what they are.

Doesn't mean you're going to go out and burn th'op clinics or whatev', but yeah, you can label that as mild transphobia, or something related to the concept. If you wanted to be otherwise, no, you wouldn't be required to be attracted to post-op transexuals, the transition would just have to be a non-issue, should everything else be in order. It could be an aesthetic thing (there's nothing inherently troublesome with preferring certain skin tones, ferex, though it often rides on other things), but only if there's an actual aesthetic difference between the post-op in question and anyone else of their gender -- and that wouldn't require knowledge of the transition to affect partner selection.

Ninja'd a bit by GC, yeah.

Couldnt be hypochondria. I wasn' ever scared of them. Hell, I played games where i would follow one and my vision would softly move to the left...

That might be a floater, which is a different phenomena (though often concurrent~) and a fair bit more common than full blown snow. There's also those darting light things in the sky (E: "Blue-sky sprites") that's pretty commonly side-along with visual snow. Y'can check th'wiki page for a fair overview.

But yeah, not so much hypochondria as it not getting talked about much. From what I've seen, especially with folks that don't onset, it's not uncommon to be like twenty-something plus and not realize there's anything unusual about their visual interpretation of the world. I didn't even know it was abnormal until I was... twelve, thirteen? Something like. And then only because I was starting to get into meditation a bit.

But, from what I understand, the phenomena (or, more likely, set of similar ones) is somewhat uncommon on a statistical level, especially to a strong enough degree it's noticeable.

You can say the word "sex" you know.

Well, yes, I could, but considering ab00 apparently didn't already know they exist I figured it'd be somewhat polite to be more oblique about it than say, "We've got those beds, and they're made fer fuckin'."

And yeah, beyond the mirrors I'm not really sure what the advantage is, outside of some fringe cases I won't consider due to forum ToS