Divisions

It's depressing how everything becomes a battlefield now, a 'them' vs 'us' war, a 'pro' versus 'anti' thing. It might be somewhat palatable if there were two even sides that each had their own merits, but usually we get one side that's utter shit, and then there's everyone else, if we're lucky.

Politics is kind of a given, what with two party systems, but increasingly what we get is not an even match between competing ideologies, it's... well, here in New Zealand, the best I can say is it's a race to the bottom, one side is selling out as fast as they can while the other side is just fractured and incoherent, last I looked. I could be wrong, I don't usually pay attention to politics... mostly because that's the impression I get.

And America is worse, where one side is just increasingly... well, evil... but the other side has it's own bad track record, even as they try to pretend they're the good guys.

Gaming? We have Gamergate, which claims to be about journalistic integrity but is, I think, at best mostly about whining about political correctness. At worst it's about harassing women and making death threats and all that completely unwonderful stuff. If Gamergate has actually achieved any substantative gains in journalistic integrity I would love to know, because all I see is a bunch of assholes and a bunch of people who claim not to be WITH those assholes but still gather under the same banner. And then there are the people who claim to be avoiding taking sides... but honestly, seem really sympathetic to the bullshit Gamergate spins.

Then there's a group currently aggravating sci-fi fandom. Two groups actually, the Sad Puppies and the spin off, Rabid Puppies. It's unclear to pretty much everyone where the divider between the two is... and I think even for the Puppies it's not clear. It's a bit like Gamergate in that the Sad Puppies claim to be about noble things like bringing under-valued authors to public attention, etc., but all they really seem interested in is whining about 'social justice warriors' and political correctness. One of their leaders especially has a persecution complex big enough to be seen from space, having on several occasions spouted bile about how conservatives like him are oppressed by the nasty liberals, and how he and his fellow travellers live in fear of being rounded up and incarcerated... it almost makes you wonder if it's projection and that's what THEY would do to people they don't like.

As for the Rabid Puppies, they also complain about social justice warriors and all, but they just seem to want to cause havoc. Their main leader and one of their major figures each have a track record of saying some pretty horrible things.

And even World of Warcraft isn't safe. Recently Blizzard, the company that produces the game, decided that they would not be allowing flying in the current content. Ostensibly it's to make it so that players engage more with the world rather than flying over obstacles. This caused a lot of protests with some people complaining because they like flying in game and others saying it's a great idea because they like running around the map, and others who can't care less. Recently Blizzard announced that they WOULD put flying in, but as a compromise you basically have to do several activities that require exploring the world... such as doing all the quests in each zone and discovering all the major areas of the map. This does not seem to have changed the protests much, as people claim to have left the game because they can't fly (or because they reckon it's the latest in a line of issues they have with Blizzard's decisions), and there's still vitriol being flung about towards 'you anti-flying people' or 'you pro-flying people'. Thank god they don't have catchy nicknames like Sad Puppies and Gamergate...

Seriously, tonight I read a comment where a guy claimed in all apparent seriousness that Blizzard got a shock to their 'huge egos' when they realised they were wrong about flying, but because they refuse to back down they're punishing the player base by making them jump through hoops. Or something. Basically, Blizzard as a whole are assholes who hate their players.

What kind of sense does that even make? It's like some of the playerbase think they're actually at war with the company. It boggles the mind to think that they claim to love the game and yet actively hate the people that make it.

Which is not to say that I agree with everything Blizzard does, but geez, it's just a game.

But this is the world we live in, this is the path we're travelling. My way or the highway, if you're not with me then you're scum. Let's not even start on the wingnuts that twist their religion into an edifice of hate...

I can't even.

Unfriending - some thoughts

Whoa, been a while since I posted.

Earlier today I unfriended a guy on Facebook. I have mixed feelings about it, and I thought I'd unpack. Because if there's anything I can do, it's talk at length about inane shit. I'm like the Doctor, but considerably less awesome. Only one heart, not about to test whether I can regenerate, and my sonic screwdriver doesn't even change the TV channel...

Aaaanyways.

Mostly I keep my Facebook list to people I actually know. In more recent times I've expanded it out a bit to people I've met online, generally sci-fi fans who have been involved in discussions I've been part of, who have for some reason decided it was worth sending me a friend request. (I hardly ever send out requests myself, I don't want to bother people). But apart from that, mostly family or people I know from offline.

This particular guy is someone I knew from high school, so not exactly a fleeting online acquaintance. Still, we've never been friendly. Probably met twice offline since leaving high school, and sure, those encounters were relatively cordial, but... not much more. And we've not exactly clashed and had any horribly acrimonious arguments online... mostly.

I hate to say it, but my issues with him stem from his religion. We went to a Catholic high school, and while I didn't actually end up all that religious myself, he seems to have become a bit... zealous. Frankly, some of the views he's espoused would be at home with the religious right in America.

A few years ago, New Zealand went through its own ructions over marriage equality. First we had civil unions, then it became fully legal a couple of years ago. At this time, the dude had a Facebook thread about it. He was against it, of course. I got involved, tried to argue... didn't go so well. Before I gave up and... well, ok, I flounced. In my defense, he was arguing that giving equal marriage rights to gay people was the same as giving your cat the right to speak to fairies.

I still don't know what that means!

He seemed to think it meant giving them the right was pointless. For reasons. Like I said, I don't get it.

Lately, he's shared a couple of articles relating to the Planned Parenthood debacle going on in the States. Predictably, he's in the camp that believes Planned Parenthood is dissecting unborn babies for profit. I had one relatively low key discussion with one of his, shall we say, fellow travellers, which went considerably less low key when the second guy asserted that Planned Parenthood... you know what, I'm just gonna say PP from here on. So, PP were, in his words, hiding behind the mantle of 'women's health' so they could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb to maximise profits'.

I'm sorry, but when people start evangelising their conspracy theories, I tune out. Turned off notifications for that thread rather than see any more idiocy from him.

The guy from high school, though.... today, Facebook put in my feed a comment he made on someone's thread. In it, he asserted that because the PP employees had been matter-of-fact in the videos, and didn't use the usual euphemisms like 'products of conception' or 'fetal tissue', it somehow proves the point. Because, ZOMG, they talked about harvesting eyes and livers!

And I'm thinking... well, DUH. As far as tone? They thought they were talking to legitimate PROFESSIONALS involved in MEDICAL RESEARCH. How else are they supposed to talk? They were talking business with their peers (they thought). Just not the kind of business done for profit.

And as for being specific about organs and stuff... again, DUH. You can't test for brain chemistry in a foot. Scientists are gonna want to be specific about what they're doing. Then again, having no clue what they're talking about is pretty much par for the discourse.

But it was at that point I realised... there's no reasoning with that level of lunacy. No talking to people who sincerely want to believe that anyone would and could 'brutally dissect babies in the womb'. That kind of world view is just beyond fucked up.

And I'm better off without it.

Like I said on Facebook, I don't mind differing opinions, but I can do without regurgitations of hateful nonsense.

Of course, if a PROPER and THOROUGH investigation by LEGAL authorities reveals that PP are as bad as accused, I will be very contrite. I can admit when I'm wrong.

But I still wouldn't friend that guy again.

The latest in Sad Puppy Madness

So about those Puppies (and sorry to anyone who has no clue what I'm blathering about yet again).

To put it in general terms, a bunch of people have now decided they want to boycott a major sci fi publisher. In part this seems to be because they don't like the publisher anyways, but the stated reasoning is given as an objection to something one of the art directors said (more or less referenced in my previous post). Basically, they reckon she insulted them.

There is some debate on the specifics. *cough*understatement*cough*

And so they want an apology. Which they got, but they don't feel it was appropriately worded. So some of them want her fired, or think she should have been fired, and some... the publisher has a few other staff who have been openly critical, if not as incendiary, and so some of the group may want them fired as well.

It's getting ugly. Uglier. Whatever.

I won't get into the wheres and whyfores, let alone the whereasmuches, but there are a few things I wanted to note after spending a few hours as part of a thread on Facebook relating to this palaver.

One, the Puppies have adopted a few new memes. Such as 'she insulted us on company time!', which is... bizarre? How would they know what her break schedule is? I'll concede that the egregious comment occurred in relation to a post relating to one of the publisher's upcoming releases, albeit on an official press release or company communique, but... company time? Really?

The other one is to claim that she personally insulted a particular person who spent years fighting actual neo-Nazis in the struggle against apartheid. Except I'm not sure anyone outside their group, let alone the lady at the centre of the dispute, even knows who the dude is. I didn't. To top it all off, he doesn't even claim to be PART of their group, just supporting from the sidelines... so how was he personally insulted, anyways? Even if you accept that she did call the group 'neo-Nazis', he's not part of the group, right?

One genius claimed apartheid was in South America. I just really hope that was an autocorrect failure.

Also, do not ask for proof that he did the fighting. Just... don't.

The other thing I really want to note is the absurdity of the boycott itself. So.... you're not buying their books. Some of you wouldn't anyways, either because you have a grudge against the publisher to begin with, or against some of their authors, or you reckon they just don't publish anything you like.

To those people, you're trying to punish them by not doing something you were never gonna do anyways. Congratulations on achieving less than nothing.

For everyone else... so you're not buying their books. As opposed to all the other days you were not buying their books. Unless you're someone who buys a book a day, but who the hell has that kinda time and money? So anyways, you're not doing something that... say, anywhere from 50-90% of the time, you weren't gonna do it anyways. Congratulations on achieving nothing. It's more than less than nothing, but it's still nothing.

Seriously, if they can stir up the greater mass of readers out their to join them in their batshittery, I will be impressed. Mostly, I suspect they won't make much difference.

The other bizarre part is that, on at least one blog, they're getting people to take photos of their collection of books from this publisher to, I dunno, demonstrate what good customers they are? Or were. One guy sent in a picture of two books. A whole two books. Man, I can feel the bottom line plummet, losing a customer so dedicated and loyal.

On the flipside, some people have a lot of books. Like, a LOT. Shelves and shelves worth. They have been good customers.... and if it were me, I would be looking at such photos and thinking, "Well, we already have their money anyways".

The whole thing is a farce.

Oh, and another thing I noted from the thread? It's really hard to take seriously people whose argument consists of "You assholes called me names!" and other such potkettles. Basically everything they accuse other people of doing, they do themselves, often in the accusation. Also, on top of that, it seems like they're coopting ideas and language from their opponents. It's weird.

And lastly... I mocked one guy for being a twit, and he told me he did not find me funny.

Somehow, that being the whole point seemed to escape him.

Some days, it's like being in a Monty Python skit.

Standing up

DISCLAIMER: I speak for no one but myself, the pixie folk of the Lost Wilds, the Five And A Half Kings of Ennui, the Dark Riders of the Widdershins Plain, and a wombat. No, not that wombat, the other one. None of them asked me to.

After a small internal debate I thought I'd post this. Mostly the debate was because a good chunk of my Facebook friends, which, as a whole, is most likely a good chunk of my blog readership, will have no idea what I'm talking about unless they've followed where I comment on Facebook. Even then I've not said much on this issue. So.  It is time.

If you don't understand, don't worry about it. Consider yourself fortunate.

Here goes.

I stand by Irene Gallo.

Perhaps I would not have said the same thing as she said it, but it's essentially the same sort of thing I've said. I do not disagree with the essence of it.

There are two right wing groups, Sad Puppies and Rabid Puppies, and they are calling for an end, not to social justice in science fiction, but to what they see as a glut of social justice messages in science fiction.

(Personally, I suspect it's a perspective thing, that they see an overload because there's simply more than previously. It's like rain in a desert... no, wait, let's go SF with this. It's raining on Dune and they're sandworms.)

Are they 'unrepentantly racist, sexist, homophobic'? One or two certainly are. Others have made some statements and comments I see as very dodgy, skirting the lines here and there. Others certainly scoff - and some scoff quite vigorously! - at the concepts and precepts of social justice. And it seems like a number simply don't give a tinker's cuss about social justice and are perfectly happy to let the bad actors keep acting badly. Others are more concerned about not being called racist for being associated with racists, rather than not associating with racists.

Remember, the true evil is not racism, it's calling someone racist. Oh, the horror, the soul-searing, festering wound of being called a, gasp, bigot.

Wherever they fall on that spectrum, they are unrepentant about that.

Some may have expressed misgivings with the darker portion of the overall movement, but it hasn't really led to much self analysis that I've seen. They still cling to what they believe the Puppies stand for.

I envy that self-delusion.

As for the charge of bringing in Gamergate... not going to argue that one. I've certainly seen tweets and post from prominent Puppies that constitute reaching out.

As for the quality of the works on the ballot, that is a matter of opinion. I haven't heard much good, but I haven't read the works myself.

The response from Tor is... not surprising? An attempt at PR and damage control, in the craptastic way that only a corporation can do. Psst, hey, Tor, most of them already hate you for their own bullshit reasons. This doesn't help, but it does undermine Ms Gallo. Well done! Two thumbs up!

And I stand by all of that.

So I stand by Irene Gallo.

Game on.

First little steps

So I tried joining an informal work out class tonight.

I aten't dead.

We'll see how next week goes.

((Yes, for those familiar with Discworld, I did make this blog post just to make that joke.))

The Knight of Flame and Bone

And so the Knight set forth. He -

“The Knight of Flame and Bone.”

I beg your pardon?

“The Knight of Flame and Bone. It's my full title.”

It's a bit of a mouthful, isn't it? This is just the start of the story, there'll be plenty of time to get into that. We don't want to overwork the reader just yet, do we? Let's ease them into it.

“But how will they know I'm the Knight of Flame and Bone if you don't tell them?”

You can introduce yourself to someone later.

“Like who? It's just me here.”

Well, I don't know yet. We haven't got that far.

“Well, hurry up then.”

Right. As I was saying, the Knight set -

“Flame and Bone. Remember the title.”

Look, what kind of armour do you wear, hmmm?

“Oh, you know. Knightly stuff.”

Lots of metal plates? Steel or something like?

“Well, yes.”

No bones?

“That wouldn't make very good armour, now would it? Give me good, strong steel any day!”

No bones. Is your armour, or maybe your weapon or shield... are they decorated with bones? Or skulls? Even in motif?

“Ummm... nooooo...”

What about flames? Is there a particular flame motif? Is your armour the colour of fire? Is the blade of your sword orange, or edged with jagged waves like tongues of dancing flame? How about your shield? Any flames there?

“Um. No, no, no.... and no.”

So you are the Knight of Flame and Bone... but there are no visible flames or bones at all.

“I suppose not.”

You are, in fact, only a man in plate armour, riding on a horse. You do have a horse, I assume?

“Oh yes, of course! What kind of knight would I be without a horse?”

Indeed. So, to sum up, you are in fact indistinguishable from any other knight at all. Nobody would know just by looking at you that you are, in fact, the Knight of Flame and Bone. You look like any other ordinary, common or garden knight..

“Well, when you put it like that...”

Shall I continue, then?

“... Alright.”

Ahem. And so the Knight set forth. He -

“Why are you doing that, anyway?”

… Doing what?

“Starting the story like that. 'And so'? What do you mean, 'and so'? You're making it sound like you're carrying on from a previous event, but the story just started! There aren't any events yet!”

There won't be at this rate, either. Look, it's a literary device. Now, if you don't mind, I -

“And 'set forth'? What does that even mean? It sounds like there were three people having dinner and a friend popped round so they needed another place setting.”

It's not that kind of 'forth'. Setting forth means you begin a journey.

“Oh, I see. Why not just say that then?”

Because 'set forth' is more concise. This is a short story, after all. At least, it's supposed to be.

“I don't think I like your tone.”

Oh, really? And what are you going to do about it, hmmm? I'm not a character, you can't touch me.

“Well, I... I could refuse to do the story. You can't have a story without your main character, and that's me!”

That's beginning to sound very appealing...

“What was that?”

Oh, nothing... Are you quite finished? Can we go on?

“Well... If you like.”

Right. Let's see...

He sat proud upon his steed, and -

“That's not the beginning!”

What's your problem now?

“That's not how it begins! It should have that 'and so' and 'set forth' stuff.”

I've already said that twice now. It saves time if I just carry on where we left off.

“Ah. Gotcha. But what's with that steed business? I don't have a steed. I think I'd know if I did.”

It's your horse, you.... 'steed' means your horse.

“His name isn't Steed. It's Jacob.”

Jacob. Your horse's name is Jacob.

“That's right.”

Any particular reason? Usually a knight's horse has a grand name like Gallant or Maximus.

“You'd have to ask him, he chose it.”

He chose... no, never mind. I don't want to know.

“Is something wrong?”

Yes. You keep interrupting.

“Well, if you'd tell it right I wouldn't have to.”

Tell it right?! Look, who's the narrator here?

“Well, you...”

Have you ever done any narration?

“Well, no. Not professionally, anyways. I do have this funny story I tell around the campfires. It's about this turnip, see...”

SO, since you are not, in fact, the narrator, and you have never BEEN the narrator, don't you think you might want to leave the narrating to... oh, I don't know... the narrator? Hmm?

“... I suppose.”

Good. You just stick to your dialog. One more word out of you at the wrong time and you'll find yourself riding off a cliff.

“You can't do that!”

I'm the narrator, remember? What I say happens, happens.

“But I'm far too smart to just ride off a cliff!”

That is debatable.

“Oi! There's no call to be rude! And what about Jacob?”

What about Jacob?

“No horse is just going to run off a cliff. It's contrary to all survival instinct!”

Maybe you're being chased. Horses tend to panic easily in high stress situations, and you would be distracted... It could happen.

“Nice try! There are no chases in this story!”

There could be. Or perhaps you'd prefer to have an encounter with bees? That would probably do it. I wouldn't think that having bees crawling around inside your armour, stinging you, would be too nice. 

“Now you're just reaching.”

You know what? I've had enough of this.

On the far side of the world, two gods fought. Furiously they strove to overcome the other, pitting vast strength against vast strength. Such was the force of their battle that it shook the earth to its core, causing ruptures and volcanoes to occur across all the known lands. The shifting of the tortured earth tore at a previously undisturbed fault line, opening a chasm beneath the Knight of Flame and Bone. Down he fell, still astride his steed, Jacob, only to land in a river of molten rock spewing up from the deepest regions of the earth.

What do you think of that then?

“It's a bit unlikely, isn't it?”

A bit unl... you're up to your armpits in molten lava and all you can say is, 'a bit unlikely'?

“Well, yes.”

… Why aren't you burning in agony?

“I'm the Knight of Flame and Bone, remember? Fire doesn't bother me.”

But your armour must be melting, surely.

“Nope. Fire resistant. Would have to be, wouldn't it? Imagine I'm fighting a dragon and he breathes on me, right, all fiery like an inferno. I'd survive, but I'd be stark naked. I can't fight dragons naked!”

But you never said... You said your armour was ordinary steel!

“Well, it IS steel. It's just enchanted. You didn't ask if it was enchanted.”

I'd at least think you'd be a bit more worried about Jacob.

“Why? He's fine.”

He fell into lava!

“Yes? What's your point? He's a pyrostallion. He was born in a volcano. Lava doesn't bother him. He's having a nice swim.”

This is the first I've heard of it.

“You never asked.”

But still... a pyrostallion? That's the silliest thing yet.

“What else would a fireproof knight ride? Imagine I'm fighting a dragon and he breathes on me, right -”

Yes, yes, I get the idea. Well, I guess there's only one thing for it then. I'm leaving. Goodbye.

“Hey, wait! Where are you going?”

“Are you still there?”

“Hello?”

“Well, that's great. Just great. Now who's going to sign off my timesheet?”

CSI ventures into Cyberspace

So we've just watched the first episode of CSI: Cyber. ((And no, not about cybersex. Just wanted to get that out of the way)).

The danger with a franchise show such as CSI or NCIS is that they could become stale or formulaic. Thus NCIS moved from Washington to LA to New Orleans. CSI moves from Las Vegas to Miami to New York, and now to cyberspace. Unfortunately, it's not cyberpunk-style hacking with jacking in directly to the computer and mentally skating the ICE. There's some holographic stuff though, and lots of computerised representations of computer connections and the like, which is cool.

Unlike previous CSI teams which were attached to the local police departments, Cyber is FBI based, which apparently means they're based in Washington and travel all over the US. It's also a change in theme, taking on a particular focus, which makes it akin to Law&Order's two spin offs, SVU and Criminal Intent.

But is it any good? Well... yes, so far. Bit of action, bit of cool investigatey stuff, interesting characters and banter... I like what I've seen.

It's also the first of these shows to have a female lead, Avery Ryan, played by Patricia Arquette. She's a former psychologist turned behavioural analyst. Cool, determined, strong willed, and always two steps ahead.

Then there's Elijah Mundo, a former Marine. He's kinda the action-dude of this team, and, surprisingly, he's played by James Van Der Beek. For anyone who doesn't recognise the name, ever hear of Dawson Creek? It was a angsty teen drama some years back, and Van Der Beek was the titular Dawson. He's actually fairly likable and convincing in Cyber.

We also have Peter MacNicol as Ryan's boss, Simon Sifter. He's kind of a departure for MacNicol so far, as he's not at all geeky or quirky as he was in Ghostbusters 2, Ally McBeal, or Numbers. Instead, he's a fairly normal guy who is perhaps (I'm not sure of this) not entirely comfortable with technology or maybe just with cybercrime, but is willing to give Ryan the benefit of the doubt to do what she needs to.

Those are the big names so far. The team is rounded out by three more:

1. Krumitz (Charley Koontz), a white-hat hacker who is so far the stereotypical fat computer geek.
2. Raven Ramirez (Hayley Kiyoko), who the Wikipedia page describes as a former black-hat hacker, now working as a specialist in social media and trends.
3. Brad Nelson (Shad Moss), another reformed hacker who apparently works through complex problems by speaking out loud in rhyme. He's the only black guy on the team, so it miiiiight be a rap or hip-hop reference.

Overall they seem to be a fairly good mix of characters and relationships. Everyone is distinct and has a role to play. The banter between them wasn't too bad, although at the end of the episode Sifter cracked a joke about "You can all go home to your basements". Sigh.

Diversity wise, for those keeping score... if we take Sifter out of the mix because he's not really part of the team per se, then you get five altogether. Three are white. Two are women. One black guy. And Raven Ramirez is a slight puzzle, Spanish name but the actress has Japanese ancestry, so it's a toss up whether she's meant to be Latina or if it's just a name, like Penelope Garcia from Criminal Minds. Oh, and one fat guy.

If you're wondering why I bothered listing all those, I like that the show is somewhat diverse. And it might help anyone who wants to see more diversity on screen if they decide to take a chance on the show.

I'm not a professional critic, so I don't have the highly tuned senses or the long experience of trope and cliche. But I know what I like, and this is a pretty good start so far. Time will tell if it lives as long as CSI Miami and New York, or if it goes the way of Criminal Minds: Suspect Behaviour.

Today's slice of WTF

I learned something today.

Some people have no perspective, no clue, and no depths to which they will not sink.

Well, I knew the first two... and I guess I should have known the third.

So, long story short, there is a conflict. I am on one side, at least in spirit, and I have at times been arguing/discussing with people on the other side. Some are reasonable, some are not, as you do.

One of the key points, at least for me, is that last year the other side linked arms with a notoriously foul bigot, famously titled by one of his targets as a Racist, Sexist, Homophobic Dipshit. They brought him in, alledgedly, just to piss people off, and those people remember it this year, and there is criticism.

Especially since the bigot has formed his own campaign and mucked everything up even more.

However, the Other Side keep trying to make it about THIS YEAR's campaign, and not their movement as a whole. They disavow any connection with the bigot (but they neither confirm nor deny how they feel about his views and actions), and they claim that the perceived connection is just a handy means to attack them. (It's not that so much as it is one point of criticism among several).

Now. A bit further back, back to the 60s, there are a couple of people who were, ostensibly, liberals. One a popular fantasy author, the other a known figure in the local scene with a couple of claims to fame of his own. Except he eventually becomes known as a child molester, and his wife, the author, is known as his accomplice... until recently, when she's been accused of molestation as well. It's all very horrific and weird and tragic, but both of them are dead now so all we can do is debate and try to help the victims pick up the pieces.

So anyways, in response to a comment I made about the bigot, one guy from the Other Side makes this startling claim: "If I'm responsible for [the bigot], then you're responsible for [the molesters]".

Wow.

I can see why this might make sense if you're not really thinking. I mean, the Other Side is nominally right-wing, and so is the bigot. I'm nominally left-wing and so were those two. Same same, right?

Not really. Asking a group to take responsibility for THEIR OWN actions LAST YEAR is in no way comparable to.... well, demanding that I accept responsibility for things that happened before I was born.

The molester dude died in '93, so I was only 12 at the time. Even if he kept offending, I was waaaaaay to young to have any part of it, or to be part of the community that supposedly turned a blind eye and enabled him. Not to mention I live on the wrong continent.

But, y'know, taking responsibility for the asshole from last year is JUST THE SAME THING as taking responsibility for one who's been dead 20 years...

Oh, and one more example of no perspective and no clue.

The response to the bigot mucking things up has been a rumble of basically shutting everything down. And the bigot has gleefully announced that if people shut it down on him this year, he'll make sure it all gets shut down NEXT year... and so the dude running the Other Side, who has been playing the plausible deniability card all this time, is jumping up and down and screaming about it.

"It's just what he wants!" he says.
"Listen to me!" he says.
"Follow the proper rules and do things right!" he says.... even though he bent those rules himself and has gone on record as saying that ethics don't matter anymore because OTHER PEOPLE did it first.

And, of course, he blames anyone but his side. He acts the victim because everyone's so against HIM that they let the REAL monster in the door...

The monster that his friends were only too happy to invite to the party.

But that was last year, right?

On empathy...

Empathy.

The ability to see people as creatures distinct and separate from yourself, with their own ideas and motivations, and from there to understand those

I swear some people lack this. Completely and utterly.

Like, not just the ability to understand how someone else feels, but the ability to understand that anyone could feel any differently about anything.

And, worse, they tell themselves that other people LIE about how they feel. For reasons.

There's a series of books which starts with 'The Black Jewels' trilogy and expands into several sequels and anthologies. They're extremely dark and disturbing in places, especially the first book, but there's one part that has always stuck with me, because it tickles the bit of my brain that is fascinated by human nature.

See, the bad guys are always coming up with plots, setting traps, sending spies. But nothing ever goes their way, and much of the time the good guys don't even know they've foiled a plot. Oh, they fought an enemy or something weird happened, but they don't put the pieces together for a while.

And the reason that the bad guys keep losing so badly is because they honestly believe the good guys think the same way they do. They even think that the good guys only pretend to value things like honour. Every single plan is basically, "I would react like this in that situation, so we'll do this to trap her".

Every single time. Like, "We'll get this guy to drug her so she's easy to seduce, trick her into getting married, and then she has to do what her husband says! And if we control the husband, we control her!"

Except the young woman in this equation has A) severe PTSD regarding sex (again, very dark books), and B) near-omnipotent magical power (which the bad guys are trying to control through this plot). So the seduction ends with the guy being pretty much vaporised.

And while I won't defend the darker aspects of the book, the inability of these characters to even comprehend that other people have different perceptions... it just rings true for me.

As Puck says in one of Neil Gaiman's Sandman stories, "It's true! It never happened, but it's true!" I may have paraphrased that, but it's the essence. And that's one reason books are so wonderful.

So where does that bring us? Well. Partly I've just been wanting to express that about Black Jewels for a while. But also, I swear I've seen the phenomena come up in the Hugos kerfuffle (yeah, lot of things revolve around the Hugos these days).

See, there seems to be this idea... well, first it starts with the assertion that the winners in recent years were somehow swayed by a secret cabal of liberals or SJWs or something. Which is weird enough, really, because people suck at keeping secrets and if anything like that had happened there'd be a lot more evidence than just 'This book won, that story got nominated'.

But then it seems like some people ride that bus into a corkscrew high dive off a cliff. They imply, or even assert, that some stories are ONLY voted for so the voters can show off how progressive they are. Like, they didn't REALLY like the story, they didn't REALLY rate it higher than anything else, they possibly didn't even READ it. But because there's a one-legged Korean transsexual hobo character, or some other combination of diversity and intersectionality  it's the Holy Grail, and so of course all those brainwashed liberals will vote for it!

Except... that's not how people work? I mean, if we're doing it to show off... who are we showing off to? Each other? But if we don't really believe what we're doing, shouldn't we know that nobody believes it, and... what would be the point?

But that's what the Sad Puppies apparently believe. After all, their motto basically boils down to 'Vote for FUN!'. As if anyone votes for anything else. They really think 'lefties' are that stupid.

Personally, I'm inclined to believe they can't comprehend that things they don't like could be fun for someone else.

"Don't give me messages, give me entertainment!"

I believe they call that 'reality TV'.

Don't give me messages. Bah. Don't ask me to think, more like.

Honestly, I don't understand this idea that if you don't like something, you have to trash it into the ground, and assume the worst, the most stupid motivations, of people who do like it. That they don't REALLY like it. Secretly they agree with you, they're just PRETENDING not to. For reasons.

But maybe that's a lack of empathy on my part?

The lies we tell ourselves

There's a thing I keep seeing in discussions of politics and social justice and free speech. When comic book covers get pulled, when things get criticised, when stuff happens that some people don't like. Those people blame someone, sometimes in pejorative terms like 'SJW' and 'feminazi'. And sometimes it escalates into full-blown, paranoid conspiracy. Such as this gem from a Facebook thread:

"So the left excludes, bans, shouts-down, censors, banishes, demonizes, all badthought and badthinkers everywhere they can..." 

There was more to it, but the rest is not germane.

I have no doubt that this person feels strongly about this, and from his point of view it may even seem true. Somehow. I don't know, it seems pretty distorted to me. It's like, if anyone was excluded, banned, shouted down or what have you, a lot of the time it's because that person was being an asshole. Not simply because they said stuff that people didn't agree with. Although that may also happen. I dunno, I wasn't there.

Also, censorship? Man, I didn't know the government intervened in stupid Internet squabbles.

But then there's the second part of the scree, "badthought" and "badthinkers". Wrongthink. Groupthink. Whateverthehellthink they lifted from 1984 and Minority Report. The idea that THE ENEMY are marching around jackbooting anyone who isn't 'ideologically pure', who doesn't 'toe the party line'.

Which, again, I don't buy, see point above about being an asshole.

So they lie to themselves about their own behaviour, justify it in their own minds so that it's THE OTHER GUYS that are at fault. But that's not the only lie they're telling themselves.

The other lie is that they don't do it too.

Oh, they (in this case 'the right', right wing, conservatives, etc.) use different words. Libtard, prog, 'cultural marxism'. Statements that the people to the left of them are all programmed drones, all fakers posing for the moral high ground. And so on.

Different words, same thing. Don't toe their party line? Don't match their politics? Say something they deem to be too liberal? BAM.

Not all of them, sure, but it happens. Like so, from earlier tonight:

"Of course it was also specifically chosen to point out that, like the good Prog you are, you would go right for the perceived "injustice" just like you've been programmed to in order to engage in moral status preening."

Yeeeeeah. I'm not the only one who's been programmed, buddy boy. You're basically a wind-up toy with springs made of frustration and anger.

But of course he doesn't see it that way.

People are weird.

All things must come to a beginning...

I've been thinking for a while that I should do a blog of my own. Nothing fancy. Just a place to publish my thoughts and opinions. I used to use Twitter, but the character limit is, well, limiting, and it's time consuming staying on top of everything people say. Maybe I did it wrong.

I have Facebook, of course, but I don't want to flood my family and various friends, many of whom don't share all of my interests, with arcane rants about stuff happening in the wild and woolly intarwebs. This way, I can link it and they can read if they choose. Or not.

Mostly this space will be for me. Too often I read something moronic online ('Someone on the internet is WRONG') and I really, really want to say something, but I don't want to get into a stupid slap fight. But I still want to say it. But, again, I don't want to bog down my Facebook.

Or I have some random thought or philosophical notion, or half baked idea... Maybe review a book or a tv show...

This is the space for all these things.

I don't know if I will allow comments. Maybe not all the time, but as long as everything's chill and the discussion is interesting, I can go with it.

So. Yeah. Here we are.