zvi likes tv

Twelve generations from now, people like me will still be writing posts like this. by helens78

Because the phrasing isn't trans-specific, it's easily read as not including trans people, because gender is often written/read/understood as binary. That is the issue with the failure of inclusiveness in the diversity statement, further conversation revealed.

I confess, there is a dark prescriptivist corner of my soul which finds "gender identity and gender expression" an inelegant phrase, the meaning of which should be encompassed by "gender" (if only the rest of the world would BOW DOWN TO MY GENIUS.) But that's not going to happen. Seriously though, queer people of all types need to look up "pithy turns of phrase" and "colorful language" and start applying it to our rallying cries. LGBTQ (is there an I on the end of that now? I seem to think there's an I, but hell if I know what it might stand for. Ah, my friend the Internet informs me that I means Intersex) makes me want to cry. It is completely unpronounceable, only decipherable if you already know what it means, constantly expanding, and leaves out non-monogamists and leather people, who have usefully overlapping concerns, even when they're cisgendered heterosexuals. Although maybe what we're defining ourselves as not is cisgendered heterosexuals.

Other phrases which I could cheerfully throw down a hole this year: "throw under a bus", "make it your own", "artist", "you can really sing". This list heavily influenced by the watching of American Idol. (Save the rocker! Put the Go in Gokey! Mrs. Anoop Desai!) Okay, the last one is not a rallying cry, it's just me. (It would be really neat if my default icon (the Weemee with the bunny slippers and the TV) were redone with a picture of Anoop on the tv and the words Mrs. Anoop Desai on it. Possibly in sparkly pink letters. Possibly putting a gold ring on my little cartoon fingers! *makes big eyes of entreaty*)

Speaking of Anoop and AI, I feel that Anoop's performance was hampered by the fact that he chose an actual disco song to peform, as was clearly not required by the rules, see She Works Hard for the Money. Disco songs are basically the repetition of one long hook after another, having neither melody nor story to make them interesting to listen to. Disco is strictly a dancing music. He should have chosen MacArthur Park to perform, of course, and he would have shown up Adam's weepy, screechy ballad with his emotastic discourse on baking, weather, and the negative interactions thereof.

Allison was faboo if decidedly not stylish, Chris was his usual solid rework into really good smooth jazz, Gokey and Lil sucked ass, and I don't actually care about Matt, except in the sense that a vote for him is a vote against (boring, shouty) Gokey.

Speaking of social injustice (okay, I wasn't really, and I'm not actually about to, but I felt that some sort of transition was called for, and also, I appear hyped on sugar from my banana peanutbutter chocolate drink)….

What was I saying? Oh yes. I've gotten multiple reports of people dumping their LJ/IJ friends for talking too much about/promoting DWO and sending nasty notes detailing the reason for the lesions* break up.

Look, I'm a total believer in defriending amnesty, and defriending/unsubscring from people because they choose to talk all the damn time about something one does not want to hear about, either because one thinks the subject is bad or one's friends views on it are bad or one is hearing about it too much from other sources is fine.

Telling people they are bad people for being interested in software one doesn't like is voluntarily putting on a tinhat and joining the ranks of those who interpret Elijah Woods' clothing for secret declarations of love, declare that the beatiful Blaise Zabini is no longer beautiful because he is black, or think it's appropriate to ask people who work in television about the sex they should be having with their costars.

Let me tell you a secret. Even though I use Ubuntu, I don't think people who use Microsoft are the spawn of the devil. The fact that my text editors of choice are gvim and gedit does not mean people who use Emacs are deluded, dirty, or dangerous. Having your main webpresence be Myspace or Facebook does not make you a bad wrong person, even if it does mean that I will almost never interact with you over the internet.

So, you know, hate Dreamwidth. Worry that it will bring the splintering of fandom instead of increased federation and fandom independence from a single platform. Mock Denise for having been on LJ Abuse. But don't roll up on people who have chosen to move their journals as if they've started sacrificing babies. Because it makes you sound like one of those kinds of fans: the ones that have chosen to leave the reality-based community.

*Sorry, sorry. Reason for the lesions is a line from a Gym Class Heroes song. Go back to text.

Now I don't have to write my post on intentionality, ever: The elephant in the room.

Really, really interesting post on frames and specifically metaphors for communication, and how our most common one is making this conversation nearly impossible. Cultural Appropriation and Frame Conflict.

Also, a thing I didn't appear to make clear to nellorat, but which I just want to state for the record. The following things are not tied to each other in a 1:1 relationship:

1. How wrong or racist a statement is
2. How hurt I am by that statement
3. My judgment of the speaker's conscious attitudes toward race and racism
4. My judgment of the speaker's intent to harm with their statement
5. My judgment of the speaker as an ethical being
6. My willingness to challenge the speaker on their racist statement
7. The anger, politeness, or fellowfeeling with which I issue that challenge
8. The extent to which I am willing to explain the nature of the racism involved
9. My reassessment of the speaker's attitudes towards race, intent to harm, and status as an ethical being, in light of the speaker's response to my challenge
10. My assessments of the speaker's defenders' attitudes towards race, intent to harm, and status as ethical beings, in light of their responses to my challenge
11. My reassessment of the speaker's attitudes towards race, intent to harm, and status as an ethical being, in light of the speaker's defenders' responses to my challenge, and the speaker's reactions thereto.

There's no magical formula involved; there's a lot of questions of context, prior relations with anyone who involves themselves, prior public acts of those who involve themselves, as well as more mundane matters such as whether my tv watching was a disappointment last night and whether or not I remembered to eat breakfast and lunch on the days of the discussion.

Given tnh's deletion practices, I assume this comment will not survive on her original post, so I reproduce it here. The comment was in a thread where two participants modeled making an apology for unintended homophobia and racism, and nellorat made the statements quoted below. The quotes contain the entire content of nellorat's comment.

( Read more... )

I'm trying to work some thoughts out in my head, so bear with me, LJ, while I talk about your younger, prettier sibling.

( Trust: What is it good for? )

Umm, I said at the start this was intended to be me thinking aloud. I seem to have ended my thinking by being more convinced of the position I had before I began. This doesn't actually mean I'm uninterested in the thoughts of those who believe differently than I do. I'd like to understand your position better, and, if you post about it here, I may ask you (for fairly aggressive values of ask) to clarify your thinking so I can better follow your thoughtpaths. But all opinions really are welcome.