Open Thread with Strelitzia

34 thoughts on Open Thread with Strelitzia

1. So some people think it’s hilarious to set other people up to get SWAT-ed – that’s where a SWAT team breaks down your door with guns drawn in reponse to a hoax report about a hostage situation in your house. Other people think that’s a great way to silence critics. They don’t care that it’s a waste of public resources and they don’t care that somebody might get killed.

   Randi Harper aka freebsdgirl, was SWAT-ed last night. Fortunately, because she’d filed a police report several months ago alerting her local police force that she might be the target of a SWAT-ing, they took the time to knock on her door with their guns holstered to ask if she was OK rather than just going in, and they asked politely if they could check her apartment, and they made a big fuss of her friendly dog.

   It could have been so very much worse, and I’m very glad that it wasn’t. This time.

   1. Ugh. I “know” her, or have at least interacted with her online, and we’re in the same town. I’m glad that OPD handled the situation with some compassion. They’re not well known for that.

2. Its all fun and games and no harm no foul until someone gets killed or injured. I was involved as a responding paramedic to what was claimed to be a spousal battering. When half a dozen patrol cars responded in addition to my paramedic unit it was no longer fun and games……the police went in expecting the worst and were prepared for it. Turned out it was some guy who was just punching on a heavy bag. The person who called it in was a friend playing a joke. Needless to say the police and myself and my partner were not real happy! And when everyone was done laughing (NOT REALLY) the fool who called it in was looking at60 days and 20 thousand in in fines.. Any fool who calls in a fake police trouble call should get a heavy fine and jail time! I have precisely zero sympathy for anyone who wastes police and paramedic or fireman time on bogus call!

3. I’ve been working a lot on my thesis lately and one of my chapters deals with how online feminists think about “toxicity” within their communities. I’m having such a hard time with this chapter because while I don’t want to dismiss anyone’s complaints or feelings, I often struggle to reconcile the idea of toxicity with people’s assumptions that anger (particularly the anger of woc) is something that should be controlled and checked rather than a productive force for change. Honestly I think hurt feelings in response to being called out are a big part of growing as a feminist and pretty inevitable, but they get turned into talks about how feminism that pushes intersectionality is toxic. I’m just not sure how I feel about it I guess, do you folks have any thoughts?

   1. I think well-deserved anger turns into toxicity when the focus shifts from broader political issues to personal fighting between commentators, or when moderators/bloggers begin to use their spaces primarily to enjoy the exercise of power over their readers. At worst, such spaces can end up echoing abusive relationships. When moderators hold commentators to hypocritical, impossible to meet, and ever-changing standards of behavior, while encouraging them to turn on each other, while dismissing any criticism as disguised misogyny (backed up with the threat of shutting down the blog in order to generate financial support).

      If you’re interested, I think a great place would be start would be the huge body of work surrounding Shakesville; there’s a great set of testimonials from people who feel like they’ve been abused/taken advantage of/attacked on that site here:

      http://shakesville.tumblr.com/

      1. The common thread throughout most of those stories is the realization that posting on Shakesville made people deeply afraid, to the point that for at least some people it did major emotional harm. That’s a good standard of toxicity.

4. So the nominations process for this year’s Hugo Awards for science fiction and fantasy works have been gamed by a bunch of malcontents, so for this year the list of finalists is not the usual guide to “this year’s SFF with something new to say” that I have tended to use it as (the malcontents appear to prefer works that entertain them in a narrow range of predictable ways rather than works that challenge preconceptions/conventions, which is fine as a matter of personal taste, but I’m not sure why they think “these authors reliably entertain me” justifies hijacking an award which has historically had a different zeitgeist).

   Crooked Timber has a thread dedicated to reader recommendations for SFF works that more closely align with the “sensawunda” and “ooh, intriguing thought experiment” vibe that the Hugo finalists list normally evokes. There are a bunch more posts about this situation knocking around, if anyone wants to link to some here this is your official invitation to do so.

   1. That’s funny you say that “historical” comment. That isn’t how I’ve experienced it. I always liked the Hugo but it used to be, in my view, more about SF which was inherently fun to read and it seems these days to be more about pushing a message.

      1. From my perspective the Hugos have tended to reward work regarded as extraordinary rather than more of just the same. Sometimes what’s been regarded as most extraordinary has been rollicking space opera with great worldbuilding, and sometimes what’s been regarded as most extraordinary has examined big ideas about possible future technology, and sometimes what’s been regarded as most extraordinary has examined possible ways that future societies might be structured as space pioneers reject the Old worlds they leave behind. Sometimes what’s been regarded as most extraordinary has, indeed, utterly mystified me as to why. What it’s hardly ever done, historically, is reward work where the story being told is just a minor variation on stories we’ve seen hundreds of times before.

         The publishing market has plenty of room for Yet Another Variation Of Horatio Hornblower In Space because that is genuinely what many people want to read, and why not prefer simple escapism [eta: for one’s leisure reading]? But YAVOHHIS is almost never going to manage to be extraordinary SFF no matter how excellently entertaining it might be, because of the limitations of YAVOHHIS as a subgenre – it’s about giving the fans all the rockets and battles and derring-do they expect instead of exploring different ways for humans to manage being human, and if a SFF work isn’t exploring different ways for humans to be human then in my opinion it’s not nearly speculative enough to be considered as a candidate that exemplifies the traditions of the Hugo Awards.

         1. YAVOHHIS

            I like this, I’m stealing it. And I absolutely co-sign the rest of your comment.

         2. Oh, and also, if you haven’t read Echophraxia and Blindsight, you have to.

         3. Now why is that in moderation? It must be a very specific and very rare word in the mod filter, which is interesting!

         4. What, David Weber and Honor Harrington aren’t unique enough for you? (That always seemed to be the ultimate translation of Hornblower to space, albeit not nearly as good as the actual Hornblowers.)

            No, seriously: I hear you about the Hugo. It’s hard to find a middle ground between one group and the other.

            I mean, not that I don’t enjoy reading Jim Butcher, but Skin Game isn’t a hugo-award-caliber novel. Then again, it’s only a nominee on one person’s slate… and neither was Ancillary Justice which, amazingly, actually won (what was so extraordinary about that book?)

            I just hope that the Hugo doesn’t become only about “unusual” without the “….and insanely good” part at the end. I used to read the Hugo winners and most of the nominees, and now I find myself less interested in doing so.

         5. And don’t forget that our own EG’s work is always award-worthy! (A lot of it can be read on Tor.com, including her newest story.)

   2. I know nothing about this particular battle or even much about the Hugo Award in general. I mean, I read a lot of scifi, so I’ve read a lot of Hugo winners and nominees, but I confess I’ve never paid the award much attention.

      However, I do know Jim Butcher. I’ve read just about everything he’s ever published, and I’m a HUGE fan of the Dresden Files, which a delightful urban fantasy series that never fails to entertain. If the idea of a not-so-hidden wizard operating out of an office in Chicago protecting the mortal world against various forces of darkness sounds even remotely appealing, then pick this series up right away – you will not be disappointed.

      That said, Skin Game has NO business being nominated for a Hugo. None. It’s a highly entertaining book in a long series of highly entertaining books, but there’s nothing remotely visionary about it. I mean, it’s not even the first book in the series – it’s number 15! How the hell did THAT book get on there?

      Well, whatever. Still looking forward to Butcher’s new series.

      1. I have a mastiff mix named Mouse. 🙂

   3. GRRM has the most interesting posts up about this issue, like 5 in a row and more to come:
      http://grrm.livejournal.com/417125.html

5. TRIGGER WARNING — SUICIDE

   ————————————-

   Another trans teen suicide. And the usual burocratic double-talk from the principal.

   “How many deaths will it take ’til they know / that too many people have died?”

6. Why I Love Janelle Monae, Part Infinity-times-Infinity:

   Janelle Monae Shuts Down Twitter Troll Like The Queen She Is

   @mellow_saa sit down. I’m not for male consumption.

7. Deeply, deeply disappointed to see that Garry Trudeau, author of Doonesbury, gave an utterly contemptible pro-censorship speech accepting the George Polk award- ironically, an award names after a journalist killed in a war. Ken White at Popehat sums it up well (excerpts below):

   Trudeau views the controversy over “blasphemy” as a conflict between privileged Western journalists and oppressed Muslim minorities. Hence the “punching down.” But this is an uninformed, parochial, and privileged view of how blasphemy norms actually operate in the world…

   Most blasphemy incidents don’t involve a struggle between the West and the East, between “colonizers” and “colonized.” Most blasphemy incidents involve the majority — the strong — oppressing the minority — the weak…

   Attacks on Western journalists are the exception. More typically, blasphemy norms involve things like author Zainub Priya Dala being beaten by a mob in South Africa because she spoke approvingly about Salman Rushdie at a writer’s conference. It’s about Farkhunda, a mentally ill woman beaten to death by a mob of Afghan men upon a rumor that she had burned a Koran. It’s about Aasiya Noreen, a member of Pakistan’s Christian minority sentenced to death for blasphemy on the word of her fellow field hands after a dispute. It’s about 68 lawyers charged with blasphemy for protesting police abuse, on the grounds that they had criticized a police inspector by name and that name was shared by one of Muhammad’s companions. It’s about Washiqur Rahman, a secular activist and blogger hacked to death with machetes in Bangladesh…

   Garry Trudeau and Lydia Polgreen are the useful idiots of the brutal and the powerful. By obligingly framing the “blasphemy debate” as an issue of West v. East and journalistic power vs. Islamic powerlessness, they support and advance the blasphemy norms used to murder and oppress the genuinely powerless. They are punching down.

   https://popehat.com/2015/04/13/garry-trudeau-punches-down/

8. Scattered thoughts:

   I don’t like how some people call people Gold Star Gays/Lesbians if they’ve only ever had sex with people of the same gender. Like that makes them more gay, or makes their gayness more authentic or better somehow? Um, no.

   If Hillary Clinton becomes president, I don’t think people will say “Now any girl can dream of being president!” I think they’ll just say she got it because she was first lady, which I don’t think is fair. And I think there’s something to be said against political dynasties, but I find it really frustrating that people talk about how she’s the candidate of yesterday when we’ve never had a woman president. And I think *some* democrats who are all concerned about dynasties now are being unfair because they turn around and swoon over the Kennedys and the Roosevelts.

   I think the campaign to put a woman on the $20 is pretty cool. What do you all think?

   1. EDIT: I think they’ll just say she got it because she was first lady, which I don’t think is fair which I don’t think is fair because she was also senator and secretary of state, and if she had just been first lady i don’t think she could have been elected.

   2. I think the campaign to put a woman on the $20 is pretty cool. What do you all think?

      50% because yay representations of women, and 50% because Andrew Jackson is straight-up the worst President in history

9. Also: I don’t like the phrase “straight-acting” because it implies all straight people act the same and all gay people who aren’t stereotypically gay need to have a special word for that.

   Also: I’ve been getting mistaken for gay/trans since I cut my hair short and started lifting weights. I’m not insulted, and obviously LGBT people go through a lot worse than I do, but I do wish people would remember not all straight cis women are girly-girls. It kind of annoys me when people are like “You’re straight?! But you wear comfy clothes and have short hair and…”

10. I ha e lost 22 lbs since January, and just bought a size 5 jean shorts, for the first time since I was 23! And no, I’m not starving myself or dieting. I just started eating better and walking for half an hour several times a week, plus I’m back to work as a massage therapist and that burns calories like strength training does.

    I’m so pleased!

    1. Congratulations!

    2. Congrats! I just started a diet last Thursday and I have sort of been starving myself. I also joined a gym for the first time in my life (I’m 46.) I was always worried I would be one of those people who paid for a gym membership but never went, but I found that having spent the money and not wanting to waste it has been a good motivating factor and I’ve managed to go every day so far.

       1. I work at a gym, so it’s been a lot easier.

          1. Congratulations <3

    3. Congratulations, Pheeno 🙂

       It’s a nice feeling, yes?

       I stopped looking at my scale months ago (partly in a ‘fuck the numbers’ way and partly in a ‘I don’t wanna look, I’m going to cry if I do’) but I did find a pair of pants that I couldn’t do up a couple months ago that now fit *almost* comfortably. I’ve been swimming three times a week, kick-boxing once a week, and taking walks when I get the chance.

       It’s nice to start to feel strong again. Recovering from surgery last year did a number on me.

11. TW

    Also: Who knows what Hillary would have accomplished if she hadn’t been married to Bill? She probably wouldn’t have been First Lady, but it’s not like that’s the only possible way she could have ended up running for president today. After all, she was valedictorian at Wellesley (and featured in Life Magazine for her. And considering we can’t read her mind,, I find it really insulting and unfair when some people talk like the only reason she could possibly have stayed married to Bill after Monica was because she’s power-hungry. (Unlike all the selfless men who want to be president, no doubt.)

    Also: Considering women are much more likely to be murdered or forced into unwanted sexual activity than men are if they go home with the “wrong” stranger, and considering that our society tends to define heterosexual sex as starting when he sticks in and ending with his orgasm, with any pleasure for her optional, I don’t think it’s fair to say that if straight women have less interest in one-night stands or sexual intercourse than straight men that means they crave sexual pleasure less. (And let’s not forget that women are under a lot of pressure to look good, while men are told “women aren’t visual.” And women are told that rejecting that nice sweet guy who really likes you just because the thought of screwing him makes you puke is selfish and shallow and mean.)

12. “and featured in Life Magazine for her valedictorian speech, the first ever given by a Wellesley student” I meant.

13. Queen Elizabeth II turns 89 today. If she continues she could become the longest-serving monarch in British history on September 9. So I want to point out that’s not just a matter of how long and healthy she lives, but also her choosing to work rather than abdicating due to age or other reasons.

    1. her choosing to work rather than abdicating due to age

       God, not to suggest that Hillary Clinton is a 100% awesome political candidate, but can we PLEASE compare her to someone better than that murderous imperialist?

       And as for the idea that Elizabeth and her horse-faced spawn “work”, don’t make me laugh. Those assholes haven’t done an honest day’s work in their lives that wasn’t outweighed sixty times over by the putrescent, bloated, stolen luxury they live in.

Comments are currently closed.