Friday, July 27, 2012
Thursday, July 26, 2012
Wednesday, July 25, 2012
socialist Bible verse of the day: Proverbs 21:13
"Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself, but shall not be heard." —Proverbs 21:13
Tuesday, July 24, 2012
Monday, July 23, 2012
what should Goodreads—or anyone—do about pseudonymous jerks?
From my comments at Stop the GR Bullies - Goodreads Doesn’t Care:
1. Goodreads shouldn’t care. They’re a forum for free speech about books. So long as no one does anything illegal, they should stay as far away from this entire business as they possibly can.
You’re entitled to share information about the people you think are bullies, so long as those people have made that information public. The bullies are entitled to be vicious and slag books without even bothering to read them. Free speech is messy, but it’s better than the alternatives.
The best thing to do is to keep calling for kindness and honesty. If Goodreads had a solution to the problem of abuse on the internet, I’m sure they would’ve shared it with Youtube by now.
2. More moderation seems like a nice idea, but moderators tend to take sides. Sometimes they make a problem worse.
I like systems in which people can downvote comments, but that has problems, too. People will downvote comments for fun, or because they’re on vendettas.
1. Goodreads shouldn’t care. They’re a forum for free speech about books. So long as no one does anything illegal, they should stay as far away from this entire business as they possibly can.
You’re entitled to share information about the people you think are bullies, so long as those people have made that information public. The bullies are entitled to be vicious and slag books without even bothering to read them. Free speech is messy, but it’s better than the alternatives.
The best thing to do is to keep calling for kindness and honesty. If Goodreads had a solution to the problem of abuse on the internet, I’m sure they would’ve shared it with Youtube by now.
2. More moderation seems like a nice idea, but moderators tend to take sides. Sometimes they make a problem worse.
I like systems in which people can downvote comments, but that has problems, too. People will downvote comments for fun, or because they’re on vendettas.
Friday, July 20, 2012
about Stop the Goodreads Bullies, pseudonymity, and cyberstalking
Stop the GR Bullies is an attempt to stop "bullies" from posting cruel reviews at Goodreads. One of StGRB's tactics is to find information online that the "bullies" made public, then share that information at their site. The "bullies" and their supporters say they are being "cyberstalked" and "outed" by StGRB.
A few things I should state first:
1. Reviewers should feel free to say whatever they like about books and authors.
2. Reviewers should expect their readers to say whatever they like about reviews and reviewers.
3. Cruel reviews have always struck me as pointless. When so many good books are overlooked, why waste time slagging books you don't like? Ignoring books helps them disappear. Adding your negative attention to the positive attention a book has gotten only increases the attention that book will get. It's more effective to promote what you love than to attack what you hate.
4. Pseudonymity and anonymity matter. Anyone who is concerned about their privacy should have their privacy respected. Bradley Manning is one of my heroes, and I despise the people who outed him.
If the StGRB uproar was only about cruel reviews, I probably would not be writing about them.
But it's also about free speech:
Reviews should be honest. When reviewers give one-star reviews to books before they're published, the writer is a liar, not a reviewer. Though Fox News legally established its right to lie, lies are not and should not be defended as "free speech". Free speech is the right to share what you believe is true; it has nothing to do with saying what you know is false in the hope of hurting someone.
It's about metaphors:
If metaphors matter, "outing" and "stalking" should not be used lightly. In real life, people who were "outed" did their best to keep their identities private because they feared the sometimes-fatal consequences of being identified as a homosexual or a socialist. "Stalking" is about following people who are trying to go about their daily lives; it has nothing to do with reading or sharing a writer's public writing.
It's about bullying:
Some of the "bullies" are crying that they're being bullied, and that their reviews were not bullying because they didn't physically hurt anyone. But long before the internet existed, people knew that intellectual bullying existed and could be worse than physical bullying. Physical scars eventually fade, but mental scars last forever.
It's about censorship:
Some of the "bullies" are looking for ways to shut down the StGRB site, by appealing to the law or GoDaddy, the site's host.
It's about how to be pseudonymous on the net:
If you want to be pseudonymous, you have to make an effort. What you share in public is no longer private information; when you share it, it becomes public information. (Apologies for spelling out what should be obvious to everyone, but I'm constantly astonished by how many people haven't grasped that concept.)
The easiest way to be pseudonymous online is to be nice. No one tries to "out" anyone for being wonderful.
This doesn't mean you have to be nice. If you want to be abusive, that's your right. But if you want to be abusive pseudonymously, take your pseudonymity seriously. Don't cry that you've been "outed" if your targets, or their friends, or people who don't like abusive people, decide to share information that you've already shared. It may not be nice of them, but the hard version of the Golden Rule applies: Others may do unto you as you have done unto them.
ETA: On G+, I was asked why I mentioned Maning at #4, so I added "and anonymity". Privacy should cover all forms of withholding one's legal identity. Whistle-blowers often want to be anonymous or pseudonymous, and embarrassed people always want to expose and punish them.
A few things I should state first:
1. Reviewers should feel free to say whatever they like about books and authors.
2. Reviewers should expect their readers to say whatever they like about reviews and reviewers.
3. Cruel reviews have always struck me as pointless. When so many good books are overlooked, why waste time slagging books you don't like? Ignoring books helps them disappear. Adding your negative attention to the positive attention a book has gotten only increases the attention that book will get. It's more effective to promote what you love than to attack what you hate.
4. Pseudonymity and anonymity matter. Anyone who is concerned about their privacy should have their privacy respected. Bradley Manning is one of my heroes, and I despise the people who outed him.
If the StGRB uproar was only about cruel reviews, I probably would not be writing about them.
But it's also about free speech:
Reviews should be honest. When reviewers give one-star reviews to books before they're published, the writer is a liar, not a reviewer. Though Fox News legally established its right to lie, lies are not and should not be defended as "free speech". Free speech is the right to share what you believe is true; it has nothing to do with saying what you know is false in the hope of hurting someone.
It's about metaphors:
If metaphors matter, "outing" and "stalking" should not be used lightly. In real life, people who were "outed" did their best to keep their identities private because they feared the sometimes-fatal consequences of being identified as a homosexual or a socialist. "Stalking" is about following people who are trying to go about their daily lives; it has nothing to do with reading or sharing a writer's public writing.
It's about bullying:
Some of the "bullies" are crying that they're being bullied, and that their reviews were not bullying because they didn't physically hurt anyone. But long before the internet existed, people knew that intellectual bullying existed and could be worse than physical bullying. Physical scars eventually fade, but mental scars last forever.
It's about censorship:
Some of the "bullies" are looking for ways to shut down the StGRB site, by appealing to the law or GoDaddy, the site's host.
It's about how to be pseudonymous on the net:
If you want to be pseudonymous, you have to make an effort. What you share in public is no longer private information; when you share it, it becomes public information. (Apologies for spelling out what should be obvious to everyone, but I'm constantly astonished by how many people haven't grasped that concept.)
The easiest way to be pseudonymous online is to be nice. No one tries to "out" anyone for being wonderful.
This doesn't mean you have to be nice. If you want to be abusive, that's your right. But if you want to be abusive pseudonymously, take your pseudonymity seriously. Don't cry that you've been "outed" if your targets, or their friends, or people who don't like abusive people, decide to share information that you've already shared. It may not be nice of them, but the hard version of the Golden Rule applies: Others may do unto you as you have done unto them.
ETA: On G+, I was asked why I mentioned Maning at #4, so I added "and anonymity". Privacy should cover all forms of withholding one's legal identity. Whistle-blowers often want to be anonymous or pseudonymous, and embarrassed people always want to expose and punish them.
Wednesday, July 18, 2012
Tuesday, July 17, 2012
Monday, July 16, 2012
If this quiz is accurate, I'm voting Green this year
I tried the isidewith quiz and got these results:
I am surprised that I'm 1% closer to Obama than the socialist in the race, but the questions I answered didn't focus on sharing the wealth.
If I was in New York, I'd be tempted to vote for Jimmy McMillan purely for the great beard.
93%
Jill Stein
on immigration, healthcare, social, environmental, science, and foreign policy issues.
82%
Barack Obama
on social, immigration, healthcare, science, and foreign policy issues.
81%
Stewart Alexander
on immigration, healthcare, and social issues.
72%
Gary Johnson
on domestic policy, foreign policy, and immigration issues.
67%
Jimmy McMillan
on domestic policy, social, healthcare, and economic issues.
59%
Ron Paul
on domestic policy and foreign policy issues.
27%
Virgil Goode
on domestic policy and foreign policy issues.
21%
Mitt Romney
on domestic policy issues.
83%
Pennsylvania Voters
on domestic policy, economic, science, social, and foreign policy issues.
83%
American Voters
on domestic policy, economic, science, social, and foreign policy issues.
If I was in New York, I'd be tempted to vote for Jimmy McMillan purely for the great beard.
Friday, July 13, 2012
the least sexist countries have gendered languages
The title of Gendered Grammar Linked to Global Sexism is misleading; the short article is worth reading because it notes that the link is weak and many exceptions exist.
I googled for a simpler test of the relationship between gendered language and sexism.
Here are the top 20 least sexist countries in the world
So if I re-embrace the generic "he", you know why.
PS. The Tagalog peoples are a third of the Philippines, so you could argue that language is a factor there, but they're still outnumbered by people speaking gendered languages.
I googled for a simpler test of the relationship between gendered language and sexism.
Here are the top 20 least sexist countries in the world
20. Canada 19. United States 18. Latvia 17. Netherlands 16. Sri Lanka 15. United Kingdom 14. Belgium 13. Germany 12. South Africa 11. Spain 10. Switzerland 9. Philippines 8. Lesotho 7. Denmark 6. Ireland 5. New Zealand 4. Sweden 3. Finland 2. Norway 1. Iceland
And here's a partial list of genderless languages:
Estonian, Finnish, Hungarian, Persian, Basque, Chinese, Japanese, Korean, Malay, Quechuan, Tagalog, Dravidian languages, TurkishOnly the Finns make both lists. They're great, but the evidence suggests it's not because of their genderless language.
So if I re-embrace the generic "he", you know why.
PS. The Tagalog peoples are a third of the Philippines, so you could argue that language is a factor there, but they're still outnumbered by people speaking gendered languages.
Wednesday, July 11, 2012
Robespierre executes the last executioner, and some of my favorite links
I made a page for some of my favorite links: race, feminism, Israel, Tibet, etc.
Tuesday, July 10, 2012
linkfest: race, class, gender, censorship... you know my obsessions
The Reproduction of Privilege - NYTimes.com: "Instead of serving as a springboard to social mobility as it did for the first decades after World War II, college education today is reinforcing class stratification, with a huge majority of the 24 percent of Americans aged 25 to 29 currently holding a bachelor’s degree coming from families with earnings above the median income."
linkfest: race, class, and the Social Justice League
If the Justice League behaved like the online Social Justice community
do words change reality?
Language Wars : The New Yorker: "as David Foster Wallace points out in his essay “Authority and American Usage,” it’s not at all clear that “society’s mode of expression is productive of its attitudes rather than a product of those attitudes.” In other words, Wallace continues, it’s bizarre to believe that “America ceases to be elitist or unfair simply because Americans stop using certain vocabulary that is historically associated with elitism and unfairness.”
about Witch Blood
Witch Blood was my second novel. I was totally blocked on what to write after Cats Have No Lord, so I decided to write a simple sex-and-adventure sword-and-sorcery disposable novel. I figured whenever I didn't know what to write next, I could yell at Emma, "I'm stuck!" and she could yell, "What did you write last?" and if it was an adventure scene, I could yell, "Adventure," and she could yell, "Sex!"
Which worked fairly well when I started writing, but then the story started becoming more interesting than I had expected. So I made it a little more ambitious in the next drafts, and Terri Windling bought it. It got nice reviews:
"Shetterly is a genuinely witty writer." —West Coast Review of Books
"A funny, exciting adventure story that delighted me from beginning to end." —Orson Scott Card in Worlds of IfThe current draft of the short sales pitch goes like this: Rifkin Outcast, hunted by the assassins of Moon Isle, becomes trapped in a ruined castle where a tiny band of witches are besieged by an army that's ten times their size. His choices? Save them, betray them, or die with them.
And here's a lightly revised version of the original back cover sales copy:
When I was a boy in the western fishing village of Loh, I was chosen by the wandering priests of the Warrior Saint to master her Art. Though no one would think me a priest or a saint, I learned my lessons well. I've had half the assassins of Moon Isle on my trail, and still I survive.
After all these years, the art of war runs in my blood. And now—without warning—the art of magic as well...
It's available:
In Kindle format at Amazon.com: Witch Blood
As an epub file at BARNES & NOBLE | Witch Blood
In multiple formats at Smashwords — Witch Blood
And it'll be showing up at other ebook sites soon.
People have been nagging me to do a sequel for ages. This may be the year that finally happens, if life doesn't throw any major surprises.
white trash names
"White trash" is the only insult I know that's often used by people who pride themselves on being exquisitely politically correct. Here are two manifestations that might actually be useful to writers writing about working class white folks:
The White Trash Name Generator | Rum and Monkey
And, from Ted:
PS. My niece's name is Brandi, and she's a better human being than anyone who's amused by her name.
ETA: Poor whites in the USA
The White Trash Name Generator | Rum and Monkey
And, from Ted:
PS. My niece's name is Brandi, and she's a better human being than anyone who's amused by her name.
ETA: Poor whites in the USA
Friday, July 6, 2012
civil rights vs. social justice
I'm fascinated by the differences between the civil rights movements of the '60s and '70s and the social justice movements that followed. Superficially, only the names changed, because to most people, civil rights and social justice are both about treating everyone fairly. But if you think word choices matter—which the social justice community does vehemently—these changes must be significant.
1. Civil rights workers defined their causes by what they supported: equality, integration, peace. Social justice activisits define their causes by what they oppose: anti-racism, anti-war, anti-capitalism, etc.
2. Civil rights workers spoke of humanity as brothers and sisters. Social justice activists divide humanity into groups based on physical or ethnic identity and their "allies".
3. Civil rights workers had goals that could be legally accomplished. Social justice activists bristle when asked what specific measures they support.
4. Civil rights workers worked, and social justice activists are active. Examining that single difference could result in a book, but I'm not fascinated enough to write it.
Feminism bridged the change, which is why contemporary academic feminists kept the old name that says what they support and adopted the recent terminology of women and "male allies".
Later:
Two examples of the inclusive language of the civil rights movement:
"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." —Martin Luther King
"I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being, neither white, black, brown nor red. When you are dealing with humanity as one family, there's no question of integration or intermarriage. It's just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being." —El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)
1. Civil rights workers defined their causes by what they supported: equality, integration, peace. Social justice activisits define their causes by what they oppose: anti-racism, anti-war, anti-capitalism, etc.
2. Civil rights workers spoke of humanity as brothers and sisters. Social justice activists divide humanity into groups based on physical or ethnic identity and their "allies".
3. Civil rights workers had goals that could be legally accomplished. Social justice activists bristle when asked what specific measures they support.
4. Civil rights workers worked, and social justice activists are active. Examining that single difference could result in a book, but I'm not fascinated enough to write it.
Feminism bridged the change, which is why contemporary academic feminists kept the old name that says what they support and adopted the recent terminology of women and "male allies".
Later:
Two examples of the inclusive language of the civil rights movement:
"The marvelous new militancy which has engulfed the Negro community must not lead us to a distrust of all white people, for many of our white brothers, as evidenced by their presence here today, have come to realize that their destiny is tied up with our destiny. They have come to realize that their freedom is inextricably bound to our freedom. We cannot walk alone." —Martin Luther King
"I believe in recognizing every human being as a human being, neither white, black, brown nor red. When you are dealing with humanity as one family, there's no question of integration or intermarriage. It's just one human being marrying another human being, or one human being living around and with another human being." —El-Hajj Malik El-Shabazz (Malcolm X)
Wednesday, July 4, 2012
free on the web: "Never Come Monday" by Eric Knight
"Never Come Monday" by Eric Knight, the creator of "Lassie", made me grin more than once. Emma forwarded it to me, knowing I would appreciate the humor, which takes the right side in the class war.
writing strong women: political act or realistic art?
A few days ago, Steve Brust said that with a few exceptions, he tried to keep his politics out of his writing. Elizabeth Bear told him that wasn't so; he wrote strong women, and that was political.
Which made me see a difference in people's definition of political. For Steve and Emma and me, a political act requires choice. We never sat down at the beginning of our careers and asked, "Should we write strong women or weak ones?" We wanted to write realistic women, which meant our female characters had to be as capable as the women we know. For us, writing strong women isn't a political act; it's an artistic one.
To be blunt, some writers don't write any characters convincingly, and some only write one sex well. If you have simplistic ideas about gender, your characters will reflect the limits of your ideas. If your audience shares your simplistic ideas, that won't hurt your career, of course—there are always people who want their facile ideas about men or women validated.
But if you want to write men and women well, you must always test your assumptions. A fine place to start is Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender.
Which made me see a difference in people's definition of political. For Steve and Emma and me, a political act requires choice. We never sat down at the beginning of our careers and asked, "Should we write strong women or weak ones?" We wanted to write realistic women, which meant our female characters had to be as capable as the women we know. For us, writing strong women isn't a political act; it's an artistic one.
To be blunt, some writers don't write any characters convincingly, and some only write one sex well. If you have simplistic ideas about gender, your characters will reflect the limits of your ideas. If your audience shares your simplistic ideas, that won't hurt your career, of course—there are always people who want their facile ideas about men or women validated.
But if you want to write men and women well, you must always test your assumptions. A fine place to start is Cordelia Fine's Delusions of Gender.
Apocarteresis, a natural way to die, and strangulation, a good, quick way
Another of this blog's greatest hits, updated with bonus links:
If I ever choose to kill myself, my preference would be apocarteresis, a word I hadn't known until I saw it in Suicide methods:
Strangling may be a better choice for those who are afraid someone will find and force-feed them. Most other methods seem awfully inconsiderate to those who have to deal with the body. Suicide is your last chance to live well, so choose wisely.
Possibly of interest: More Patients Choose Starvation Than Assisted Suicide:
Daily Kos: Schiavo: Bothered by the Starving to Death? Don't Be.
Santhara - Wikipedia
Death from Dehydration Is Usually Serene - ABC News
Terminal dehydration - Wikipedia
If I ever choose to kill myself, my preference would be apocarteresis, a word I hadn't known until I saw it in Suicide methods:
Starvation has been used by Hindu, Jain and Buddhist monks as a ritual method of suicide. Albigensians or Cathars also fasted after receiving the 'consolamentum' sacrament, in order to die while in a morally perfect state.I had once thought I would try to get lost in the snow, but people don't just go to sleep in the cold. Often they tear off their clothes. Most likely, they feel like they're burning up.
The explorer Thor Heyerdahl refused to eat or take medication for the last month of his life, after having been diagnosed with cancer.
A hunger strike may ultimately lead to death.
Strangling may be a better choice for those who are afraid someone will find and force-feed them. Most other methods seem awfully inconsiderate to those who have to deal with the body. Suicide is your last chance to live well, so choose wisely.
Possibly of interest: More Patients Choose Starvation Than Assisted Suicide:
"We were surprised that patients who chose this means to hasten death were, according to their nurses, more peaceful and suffered less in the last two weeks before death than patients who choose assisted suicide," Ganzini said.See also: The New York Times > Experts Say Ending Feeding Can Lead to a Gentle Death
Daily Kos: Schiavo: Bothered by the Starving to Death? Don't Be.
Santhara - Wikipedia
Death from Dehydration Is Usually Serene - ABC News
Terminal dehydration - Wikipedia
Sunday, July 1, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)