Dear SJ crusaders:

Fuck off. Thanks!

See, here's the thing, and here's why you're really not getting the places you'd like to think you are, at least in my world.

1) You're making assumptions based on no evidence.
- I can, in fact, claim that something proves someone is a "real boy" without ever having in my thought process the contents of their pants. Because guess what, I don't care in the slightest what's in your pants. I can, in fact, be referring to Peter Pan, or to simply the humour found when someone who is godlike-pretty (Geeface, I heart you!) does something stereotypically "boy", or even using a sarcastic grammatical construct for humorous effect.

2) You're asking people to prove a negative.
- What would it take to prove that I'm not "a transphobic creep"? Do I need to get a letter signed by [livejournal.com profile] graeae's partner stating that I'm not? What about my friend J who's not on LJ? What about the coworker I had at my last job who was trans? What about the person I knew in college who was trans? Will it suffice if I contact everyone I've ever had any sort of social relationship with, ever, and get a sworn statement indicating whether I'm a good person or a bad person in their minds? Should I talk to a counsellor about the periods of gender dysphoria I have and get them to state that I don't hate myself, therefore I don't hate trans people? Basically, until and unless you catch me in my KKK robes, please refrain from making unfounded accusations, particularly since whatever provoked this person was not me saying "OMG THERE IS NOTHING BUT CIS EVERYTHING ELSE IS HORRIBLE AND AGAINST GOD." And I can say that with categorical certainty because I have never said or thought that.

Do gay people count to prove that I'm not an asshat? There's a reason that McArcus was my token straight minority for a while - how many gay people in my social circles prove that I'm not actually queer unfriendly? Or can I just state that I'm bi and canvas LJ for anyone who remembers my relationship with srichard for proof that this is true?

But there's the rub: there is no way whatsoever for me to prove that I don't think that thought, because ... you're firing from the hip without waiting to find out whether I'm actually sending out emails about the n****r in the White House to claim that I'm racist. You're not asking me about my stance on social issues - you are, instead, coming in with an accusation. And you don't know me.

3) There's a world of difference between "this bothers me" and "this is what you are".
- I made a comment a while back in [livejournal.com profile] theferrett's journal about how I frequently feel third-sexed because I don't behave like "a girl" but I don't feel like "a boy". [livejournal.com profile] roniliquidity pulled me up short by pointing out, politely, that doing that is a way of avoiding the issue of demonstrating that "femininity" is beyond simply what the religious right would have us believe, and she was right to do so. I haven't made that claim since.

Strangely, however, when someone takes the time to contact me off-thread and make accusations, I'm a lot less inclined to listen to your bullshit.

4) No one speaks for anyone else, even if you are a member of the group. Frequently, you are not.
- This was most pronounced with Racefail a few years back, where a bunch of white people critiqued other white people about not including characters of colour in their works (and yes, I am very well aware that there were participants in that who were not white; I'm only speaking of a section of the population that had that argument). I don't, actually, think that it's your business to come riding in and tell me that, as another white person, I'm using terms you, as a white person, don't like. Tough shit. I pick terms of respect with the best information I have, and I will alter them if I find that people in the group I'm speaking of don't like them, but I find it twee that you think I'm not being PC if I say, for example, that someone is black rather than someone is a person of colour. Are you, then, the sole arbiter of what people in that group prefer to be called? I should tell you right now that I utterly dislike being referred to as Caucasian, but have no problem with white, and think that, in my particularly mutt-genetics case, "Scandinavian-American" or "Italian-American" are misleading, particularly since they are the least true about my genome. "White American" makes me want to throw up a lot. So there you are, that's the term to use for everyone who shares my skin colour!

However, and this is key, I won't actually kill you if you call me Caucasian. I'll just point out that I don't like it, but I won't die, and nor will anyone else.

Because it is not possible to find out what every single person in the group being spoken of would prefer to be called, I find it utterly offensive that people try to define other people's language for them. This isn't so much the intention argument as it is the respect argument. Unless I start hauling off and calling trans people chicks with dicks or whatever the fuck the insulting group terms are (I literally have no idea and I cannot possibly be arsed to google for it) maybe you could do me a favour and step the fuck down until I do something that egregious? You're not going to get me to adopt your standard if you come at me with "OMG BIGOT" as your opening salvo, and personally, I don't think I or anyone else deserves it until and unless you have an actual pattern of behaviour to work with.

I am also fairly sure that the people who know me would, in fact, not hesitate to yank me up short if there was something I was saying or doing that gave the wrong impression of me, and from them, I'll listen to it, because they actually KNOW ME.

5) Whatever happened to living it?
- I cannot, literally, fathom the mindset that says "If I just yell loud enough, frequently enough, everyone will change their minds!" First: no, they won't. Second: if I really were shopping for a new thought system, what about yours is more compelling than anyone else's? I don't really like shouting at total randos about the impurity of their thoughts, and I also like having the asshats self-identify by continuing to espouse their anti-Semitic bullshit or whatever - I don't actually believe that anyone's going to change their mind if I just shout at them for a while, and certainly not if they're actually a bigot.

But here's the thing: you can do a LOT more to help your cause if you cultivate relationships with people first. Or if you just LIVE it - I've said for a long time that the one factor that makes me want to be Catholic is the priest that I had as a child at Catholic school. It certainly isn't the current Church leadership, and it certainly isn't the evangelicals - it's seeing that man live his faith, and I really mean live it. It was a far more compelling argument in favour of faith than, literally, anything I have seen before or since.

Coming around and levelling off-thread insults at me won't change my mind about anything (except that not only are you a crap writer, in my professional judgment, but you're also a crap human as well) and it certainly wouldn't make me change my mind if I really were a transphobic creep. Maybe my problem is that I don't have enough white guilt and whatever else guilt to care that everyone thinks and speaks exactly the same way I do?

WAIT. Maybe my problem is that I don't assume everyone else is a goddamn dick! Yes, I think that might be it!

No love whatsoever,
Cass
channonyarrow: (patriots question pride not america // c)
( Jul. 19th, 2010 02:32 pm)
I have a seriously tempting, crazy idea.

I'm thinking of joining the Tea Party. Like, all officially and shit.

You can hit your away buttons now.

See, though, the thing is this: they claim this, on their website. "Tea Party Nation welcomes all patriots, regardless of gender, ethnicity or national origin to join us and help save this great country."

We can quibble about whether this is a "great" country or one that's really, really fucked up, but the thing is - there is utterly nothing about my politics, which are, at best, liberal, that makes me not-a-patriot.

According to Merriam-Webster, patriot means "one who loves his or her country and supports its authority and interests".

The fact that I'm not waging revolution in the streets suggests that I support America's authority and its interests. I don't love this country the way I love, say, gin, but I'm pretty sure it's preferable to living in Chad. Let's face it: all those things that people currently dismiss as "first-world problems"? I have those, and I have them because I live here. And I like them. So I'm happy living here.

I'm certainly happy living here because I don't have to deal with armed insurrection in the streets. I may not like the people who choose to become police officers, but I find a police presence is better than no police presence. I respect all significant laws of the land. I, in actions if not in words, respect America's authority by allowing it to have some say in what I do as I conduct my daily business. I don't, for example, evade my taxes, and I do carry the state licence that proves I can operate a motor vehicle.

So that's the first part of their statement out of the way.

They are concerned with gender, ethnicity, and national origin next; not a problem for me, since I'm Whitey McWhiterson, born right here in the US, and they don't seem to, on the face of it, have a problem with women in the ranks. That's out of the way.

To save this great country - well, again, we can quibble about whether it's great, but on the face of it, I like living here. So I'll concede that one on the basis of the rest of the argument.

See, I think this country needs saving too.

I think it needs saving from our pollution. I think it needs saving from fiscally-irresponsible corporations. Hell, I think it needs saving from corporations period. I think it needs saving from the fear-mongers and the hate-mongers, and the people who preach something they don't believe because they get money for pandering to the fears and hates of morons who can't figure out a gimmick to make a buck when they're smacked with it. I think it needs saving from people who think that the right to bear arms means the right to bear them right into Wal-Mart. I think it needs saving from the companies and individuals that tout America First and yet manufacture and sell products made overseas, to the detriment of the American economy and the workers at the bottom of the food chain. I think it needs saving from people who don't understand that what we pay for now is what we get later, and think that it's not worth paying for the health care or the education or the feeding or the support of someone who is not-them. I think it needs saving from greed, from hate, from inattention, from me-first, from not-in-my-backyard, from a national posture of arrogance, from the belief that enough armed people can effect a change somewhere we have no business being, from our dependence on oil, from the death penalty, from the people who want other people to shut up, from your god, and from Puritanism run amok.

I think it needs, above all, to be saved from ignorance, fear, and the beliefs of childhood. Life was easier when I wasn't making the decisions, sure! That doesn't mean that the 80s were a wonder time that should be brought back.

I think, therefore, that the Tea Party had better reconsider their welcoming statement on their website and think about whether they want me in their party - because you bet your ass I wouldn't be working for their definition of what will save America. I'll be working for mine.

And I'll be doing it under their umbrella. In their names.

Why not? They're doing all kinds of shit in my name - I want my name back. I want the right to call myself a patriot back. I want people to not assume, if I call myself a patriot (I generally don't, but that's not the point) that patriot means I want to burn the niggers and the fags and the ragheads. (And the Tea Party had better not try to argue that they don't, because their actions speak otherwise.)

Most of all, I don't want to see their America. Their America is not one I know, recognise, or love, but I seem to be trapped here with a significant number of total blowhards who think they get to dictate out of their own fear and moronic idiocy what I think and do and know and care about. And that shit cannot stand.

So, since the Tea Party and I are in agreement according to their welcoming statement, I think I should join them. I want to save America too.
channonyarrow: (bring me horizon freedom // 100x100)
( May. 28th, 2010 12:08 am)
I am getting REAL tired of being told that my experience with X product is obviously false because it is not the speaker's experience. I am also getting REAL tired of explaining that I have no interest in Y product because it doesn't work for me.

I'm not actually sure how people can hear me say "I want X product" and think that I have said "I want a testimonial about the wonder of Y product because I don't realise that Y product is ever so much better, as I have only recently crawled out from under my rock." (For reference, I crawled out from under this particular rock while the speakers were still in grade school. Literally.)

In other words, I crawled out from under that rock FIFTEEN YEARS AGO. I'm very aware of the options, I've tried most of them, and I've made a decision.

Y may be great. It doesn't work for me. I want people to stop trying to sell it to me, because trust me, I have heard it alllllllll before. (Last Friday, in fact. Last Friday was the last time I heard it.)

I feel like I've just announced that I'm pregnant and now I'd like to hear all the disaster stories disguised as "funny" stories, every time I try to buy this stuff. Or, you know, talk about it in public. Or in private. Or say the words of the name of the product in some order or in pig Latin.

It's kind of like saying "Beetlejuice Beetlejuice Beetlejuice!" apparently.

Maybe the next time this happens, I'll just stare intently at the speaker and start singing the Star Spangled Banner, because that would make about as much sense.
channonyarrow: (smite // enriana)
( Aug. 9th, 2009 11:33 am)
New concept: internet feminism.

This is not, as internet Asperger's is not related to real life Asperger's, related to real-life feminism, as the goal of Internet Feminism is not equality in all its munificent facets. No, the goal of Internet Feminism is "to be taken so incredibly seriously."

This leads to humourlessness. This leads to insulting other women who "aren't feminist enough". This leads to all kinds of incredibly-insulting behaviour to both men and women, all justified under the label of "I'm a feminist."

I am not now, nor will I ever be an Internet Feminist.

Things I will continue to do: make fun of people regardless of gender and without gender as my basis for humour; find rape and abuse jokes hilarious; not conflate MY feminism with only listening to Internet-feminist-approved music (and consuming other media with the same criteria); refuse to take Internet Feminists seriously; find multiple genders and sexualities attractive, without regard to the latest Internet Feminist Manifesto.

You know what? If you gotta defend it that hard, it ain't worth having. If you gotta talk smack about how other women aren't feminist enough, rather than talking about how access to healthcare is being denied to women in far vaster proportions than to men, then you're doing it wrong. If YOUR LIFE is personally threatened by the existence of someone like Millionaires, or the Pussycat Dolls, you need to GET a life.

You know the worst thing about Internet Feminism? It's the sort of "activism" where all you have to do is bitch about it in your blog, you don't have to do anything about it, because Christ knows, it's easier to whine about the Millionaires than it is to write to their parent corporation and suggest that publication of such music is distasteful and you will not be consuming any of that company's media in any form until such acts are off their label.

Except - I forgot! - that the main point of Internet Feminism is that you don't actually have to follow through and curtail your own life - you just have to bitch about it to prove that you're an awesome feminist. Follow through need not exist.
channonyarrow: (writers are liars neil gaiman // refche)
( Feb. 16th, 2009 04:45 pm)
Okay.

This is something that has bugged me for-fucking-ever, and that most authors, I think, don't actually, consciously think about. Hell, I don't like to think about it, if only because anthropology as a discipline has gone so ass-over-teakettle about identifying potential ~influences on one's work that you practically can't get to the essay without reading about how the author was once bitten by a moose or some shit, so obviously that influences their understanding of the natives of Bongobongostan, who cover themselves in paint and feathers pretty much solely because they don't live in a place that moose find very congenial. Yadda yadda yadda, it's important that we know that EE Evans-Pritchard wasn't ACTUALLY living with the Nuer when he wrote his umpty jillion books about them, WHATEVER, DONE.

However, as we all know, the internet is srs fucking bzns. The internet may even be Sparta, for all I know.

So let's all take a deep breath and realise something.

You are reading this through Livejournal. I am writing this through Livejournal. We are communicating via the medium of the internet, and the internet is preeeeetty fucking stratified by class. (It's also stratified by age, but unless someone wants to introduce me to a granny slasher, I don't care about that.)

We are communicating about a subject that I think is pretty fucking firmly the purview of at least the middle class, whatever that means nowadays. The internet, in other words, has become our leisure time.

And this would lead to what logical conclusion?

That we all are at least middle class, relatively privileged people.

We have the education, the skills, and the time to learn to negotiate the internet and use it where past generations used visiting the sick. Fine, so far as it goes, but all of that is the setup for what I wish to bitch about today, so if you're not following, reread the above paragraph. We are all privileged fuckers here.

I'm having trouble with voice in this, actually - this could easily be a dear author: die rant, given how much time I had to spend making some works social-class appropriate. We're gonna go with the fannish context, but know that there is significant overlap with ~real authors here.

So. We're all privileged fuckers, so obviously we invest all our time in figuring out new ways to stick Tab A into Slot B and go UNF UNF UNF as we do it. We are not fighting off cholera, bandits, police repression, censorship, we are not concentrating solely on finding food, shelter, clothing, our missing loved ones, etc. When something is for porn, you know that that thing is about the most decadent of the cultural elaborations since the Kwakiutl were tossing shit off the side of a cliff as a potlatch. In fact, the internet could be considered the willful destruction OF a civilisation, since so few of society's mores actually apply to it.

Why, then, in our pursuit of porn, do we not consider class when we're writing porn? I am not asking this because I get off on fucking Marxist-Leninist theory, or because I want everyone to have pity on the working man (ha! see what I did thar?), I'm asking because it is a reasonable fucking question.

I think that the assignation of bandom-villain status is classist. Here's why.

The three most common villains I've run across, where there is some other information to suggest that, you know, that might possibly be the tiniest bit of a misclassification, are Bert, Gabe, and William. Bert's the skeevy weird dude who - put your tinhats on with me - broke up with Gerard, Gabe's got creepy eyes and an intense personality and seemingly takes nothing seriously, and William is occasionally overly friendly with dudes, so he's obviously a slut.

These are the gimmes of bandom, and I am up to here with them.

Let's take 'em one at a time, shall we. We shall, because I fucking say so.

Bert: Okay, seriously, I kind of want to give him cookies and a hug, but he'd totally get lost in my cleavage. Bear in mind, this is one of the biggest assholes in MCR-centric fandom. He and Gerard were REAL close on Warped 2005 - REAL CLOSE. His mom, I think it was, gave him a picture of the two of them. BEFFIES 4EVA, at the very least. He is little, he is dirty, he is an ex addict, he is possibly slightly crazy in ways out of the norm for bands, who tend to be more than a little off level as it is. His girlfriend died of an overdose while pregnant with their child, his parents threw him out when he was a teenager for not adhering to their faith (Mormonism, BE SURPRISED) and he panhandled and lived at, I think, Quinn's house when he wasn't being homeless as fuck. He is possibly semi-openly bi; I seem to recall this, at any rate, but it's Bert, so who knows. He's pretty fearless about - well, about everything, but about stuff like labelling based on sexual orientation he makes all of FBR look like the shyest straight boys to ever walk the earth. He loves puppies, and his friends, and small children, and he tends not to do the very Scandinavian NO TOUCHY thing. Obviously, Bert is a skeevy dude who broke Gee's heart and deserves to hang, because his other pastime is curbstomping puppies.

Gabe: Conflicted dude. Don't believe me? Go read the lyrics to Being From Jersey Means Never Having To Say You're Sorry and come back. Done that? Good. Gabe wrote that song, so far as anyone knows, and this is a theory that flies to me, as a goodbye to the Jersey hardcore scene when he started Cobra Starship - and the scene, like it or not, is not really a place to float major, groundbreaking work. This song, for example, would not fly in the scene. He takes EVERYTHING waaaay too seriously (almost as seriously as William, actually) but is better at pretending like it's all bullshit, life's a game, and he's throwing the party at the end of the world. He started a band to change the world, for fuck's sake, and he's not shy about saying that - but unlike MCR, who also started a band to change the world and are deadly earnest about it, he hides it by saying that he had a vision of a cobra, who told him that humanity was fucked, and in the time left to us Gabe had to start a band to teach emo kids not to be such pussies and hipsters not to take themselves so seriously. He's not in this to save your life - except he totally is, he's just not saying it the same way. Obviously, Gabe is a creepy rapist because he wrote a song called "It's Warmer In The Basement" and also "The Church Of Hot Addiction".

William: This dude is a hider. Seriously. Don't believe me? Watch TAITV - there are very few shots of William where he's not acting like he's completely and totally aware of the camera even though he's TRYING not to be. He has no ability at ALL to forget that there's a camera in the room, and he comes off super earnest when he talks to the camera. He's a smart dude - 4.0 all the way through high school - and he's eloquent (sometimes I wish he would stop, actually, because it makes me a little bit nuts). But he is, from all I can see, simultaneously a nice guy - no one has ever said he was a fucking dick and they're not shy about saying that about Mike Carden, his bandmate - and a very shy one. So when he opens up physically, it's with pretty much three people: Gabe, Travis McCoy, and Nick Scimeca, who is not in a band. He's not even particularly touchy-feely with his band - unlike with MCR, or Panic, or FOB, some members of whom cannot get through a very short interview without touching. William also left home as a high school senior to live with Mike Carden and play music because his family disagreed so intensely with his choice of music as a profession that they wanted him to stop. He was working part time at the Gap, playing music part time, and going to school full time - and still making straight As and, for all I know, still playing on the baseball team. Obviously, William is a slut and never has had a problem in his life that couldn't be resolved by, basically, being white and pretty.

Now that I've proved I can regurgitate sufficient portions of the work other people have done, there is a point to this. The backgrounds and the crimes have been listed. Bert: skeevy because he broke Gee's heart. Gabe: creepy rapist because he's got weird eyes (I am never making this up). William: slut because he's shy and takes comfort from three very specific people.

Let's toss a monkeywrench in there.

Brendon: I don't like Panic, not one tiny bit. I will never like Panic. There is literally nothing they could do to get me to be a fan of theirs. As such, I am a lot fuzzier on the timeline of events here, but you can't be in scene fandom and not pick up a few things, so I'm gonna go the fuck ahead and hope that I have gotten this right. Brendon was also kicked out of his house for being not-sufficiently-Mormon and wanting to play music instead of going on mission. Brendon also worked part time and went to school. Brendon and his parents have, evidently, reconciled since it became obvious that playing music was the right decision, though everything I've seen suggests that relationship is a touch bit strained (I also expect it to fly apart if Spencer does any more ground-laying work for Brendon to come out as bi or gay.) Personally, if it were me, they could crawl on fucking broken glass to grovel at my feet and I'd not have shit to do with them, but that's me.

Brendon, however, does not get a bad rap in fandom. Brendon's a spaz, he's a musical prodigy, he looks hot in girl jeans (he has, I think, actually SAID that he HAS to wear girl jeans because of his butt, which is, uh, womanly at best) and he's VERY pretty, if you're into that sort of thing. I will never not want to slap Brendon in the face with a haddock, so I won't judge you, but I also won't judge whether he's hot. I don't even care if he is. But he is not a rapist, a slut, or a generally-all-purpose bad guy; in fact, when Brendon is characterised as a slut, the times I've seen, it's entirely more positive than it is when it's William being labeled.

Normally, I would throw my hands up in the air and stomp off and say "FINE, FUCK YOU ALL, BE WRONG IF YOU WANT," because there is nothing I can do about it if someone is wrong on the internet, short of stalking them, caging them, and gradually brainwashing them into believing MY point of view, which is obviously correct. (Yours is wrong.) But! Two more MASSIVE points to introduce, in case you've lived through the wall of text so far!

The Gimme: A writing "technique" wherein nothing needs to be explained, it merely needs to be accepted.

Social class: Remember what I said above about the internet and its users? Yeah. We're all privileged, and presumably, in the sectors of fandom I've interacted with, we all have someone in our family who loves us without reservation and supports us. Few, if ANY, of us, have dealt with the things that Bert and William and Brendon have. Few of us have seemingly felt so strongly that we would be mocked for doing something that we felt was necessary that we had to hide why we were doing it, like Gabe.

Your social class informs your vision of the world. If you don't think that's true, let me rent you a $500/month apartment in South Park for a few weeks and we'll see how you function, living in Seattle's version of fairly extreme, ethnically-based poverty. I don't think that's gonna go well.

I think - and this is where I sound deadly earnest, PLEASE SHOOT ME - that because of social class there is very little credence given to Bert, Gabe, and William's situations. I think that they are very abstract at best to most writers, and completely alien at worst - so it's easy to demonise later actions rather than placing them truly into context. So WHAT if Bert and Gerard broke up? Isn't it possible that Gerard, whose life more closely mirrors the middle-class ideal, could have been the one to say "No, this isn't working"? The pretty one is not always dumped by the skeevy one, people! Isn't it POSSIBLE that Gabe isn't actually a creepy rapist, despite his eyes? That he actually DOES want to save your life and maybe his own as well, with his music, and that he DEFINITELY wants to see a fucking change in the world? Isn't it possible that William is so overwhelmed by the stardom that he also courts that he takes refuge in comfort with a very small group of people, yet is not, actually, fucking all of them, much less anyone else whose path he crosses?

Brendon didn't make a choice, true. But it's a lot easier to accept what's happened to him, and to empathise with it, because he did not go on to become a fucking junkie. Bandom is an amazingly virginal place, and I don't mean that physically; for all I know, everyone in bandom goes to an orgy every night of the week. But in terms of extrapolating from what is known to what could be, there is an AMAZING sympathy gap, and that gap happens the moment that someone exhibits behaviour that is difficult to reconcile. What would you like Bert to have done, while living on the streets? SHOULD Gabe never have formed Cobra? If William had a choice in the matter now, do you think he might choose to be a baseball player instead of a musician?

No. You think - you have decided, through your lens of privilege and comfort, that hard choices equal easy answers, and the answer for those three people is that they are demons, sometimes very, very fucking dangerous ones. But you have not faced the same choice. You can't extrapolate what YOU think should have happened into what IS because you don't know what happened, what the motives were - all you know is that Bert is not nearly as pretty as Gerard, and that Gabe can't take a reasonable picture to save his life and that William likes to very, very openly grab Travis or Gabe whenever they are performing together - and three quarters of the time, "grab" is the wrong fucking verb. The actions you judge are not placed into the context of where they came from; I think that's because, for much of bandom, where they came from is literally unthinkable, unsympathisable, and not understandable.

You have, through lack of empathy, turned these peoples' very real lives and choices into a fucking gimme.

Take off your fucking glasses the next time you decide who your villain is. Don't go with a fucking stock character just because you don't understand how they came to be where they are, and who they are. Find someone who's really a fucking villain and use them instead.

Don't let your privilege inform your work. Don't let your privilege keep you from trying to see and understand what might really be going on, rather than whatever the hell construct fandom is fucking playing with today.
channonyarrow: (stab you in the eye // kill_hilary)
( Dec. 24th, 2008 10:10 am)
Panic at the Spambot and I were at terms, once I realised how much they reminded me of a spambot. Comfortable terms, even: there were no drawn swords, and I only marginally frothed at the mouth when I heard their name. I even downloaded a song of theirs because I didn't actually realise I had a remix version of it on the Snakes On A Plane soundtrack. I am also a big enough person to say that it was a typical remix: in other words, the original version is better. I managed to admit (to myself) that if their songs actually matched their titles, I would be a lot happier with them: not even I could hate a song that actually was titled "Build God, Then We'll Talk", assuming that the lyrics lived up to that title. (They don't. Also, Ryan Ross, please shut up about prostitutes.)

So things were okay. They weren't necessarily great: I have no desire at ALL to paint birds on my face. (Parenthetically, when I kidnap TAI..., my only request may very well be that Butcher designs a tattoo for me because I love his trees.) It was kind of a case of, at some point, needing to annex the county because this town isn't big enough for both of us. But for the moment, it was okay.

I have just had to annex the county, and I am going to drive Panic out into it, covered in tar, feathers, and the garbage that hasn't been picked up for a week because of the snow.

Because they did THIS.

Yes. That is a cover of Karma Police.

Actually, calling it a cover is a little bit extreme. I realise that there are people on my flist who have very strong opinions pro-Panic, but I think we've all agreed to just disagree on this issue. And we have to, because there is NO WORLD in which I can countenance a crappy lounge version of Karma Police. I don't even really like Karma Police, certainly not more than a whole bunch of other Radiohead songs I like far more, but this version is just completely neutered. For serious. There is no power to it at all, and Urie CANNOT sell the line about "This is what you get when you fuck with us", even though he tries (I can admit that he tries). In this case, Yoda was right: there is no motherfucking try.

So I'm sorry, Panic at the Spambot, but I'm going to have to just refuse to acknowledge your existence in my town ever again. There's a big county out there; don't plan on crossing my path. Otherwise, I will reach down Ross's throat and castrate him from the inside. It'll just have to be that way.

And I am gosh-darned sorry about that. But it's the only choice you've left me with.

And for everyone else: Happy Christmas!
None of these are new. However, they evidently bear motherfucking repeating.

If you design a website or middleware site, stop making the font be a different iteration of the same fucking colour as the background. I have seen one too fucking many light-grey-on-dark-grey/lavender-on-violet/light-blue-on-dark-grey sites today. Actual contrast is okay.

Additionally! If you are using a middleware site and you are posting to a comm, quit fucking breaking the font overrides I have set. I have set my overrides to generate a page I can fucking read, and you know what? I don't think it's particularly cute when you break my overrides so that your tiny, tiny text can come through in your comm post. Either you've set your screen resolution far too low or you've got the self-esteem of a bug. Knock it the fuck off.

If you wish to use an idiom that contains a homonym in it, you might want to check the idiom. It is "deep-seated", not "deep seeded". It is "spitting image", not "spit and image". This, in particular, pisses me off. I cannot take someone's deep seeded fear seriously, I really can't.

*****

Today, I am going to wash my car. It's been over a year.

This is why I buy gray cars.

I also need to clean it out so that I can a) find my Fall Out Boy tickets and b) put [livejournal.com profile] graeae into it. It's getting to the point where there's not even room for me.

I may even vacuum it.

ETA: Apparently, I will be taking a hammer to the fuse box. I have no power in part of my kitchen, and I know why this is. It still pisses me the fuck off - and I really wonder what was being done in the apartment below me to make the fuses blow, but since I have more fuse switches in the off position than I have verified should, in fact, be in the off position, I have no urge at all to just randomly flip switches.

So apparently I get to chase down Every. Single. Fucking. Circuit. in this place before I call the landlady and tell her what's going on. Yay!
So I have this REALLY stupid plan that I should just give it all up and go to Portland for the Cobra Starship show, since Seattle is All Sold Out, and I don't trust that I can get either rush tickets or scalp a ticket, but that means that I probably have to leave in, oh, five hours or so. The show's at seven, I can be there in 2 hours or so, and I don't want to see the opening acts.

OH IRONY. If I miss them here AND Portland? My next chance to see them is Sunday night, in BOISE. I still don't want to go to Boise. Boise is still 1000 miles, round trip. Well, technically, eight hundred and some, but it will involve LOTS of snow, as happens when you have to cross two mountain ranges to get there, one of which scares the bejesus out of me. 6% grades SUCK. Plus hairpin turns? EVEN MORE SUCK. Bonus helping of snow? REALLY REALLY A LOT OF SUCK. And that's leaving out the, you know, 300 other miles of the trip.

So. I WANT to go to Portland. However, I do not want to get a hotel room in Portland (I'm not convinced Portland has hotels) and I probably will be in absolutely no fucking shape at all to drive back to Seattle tonight if I do what I WANT to do and hang out for hours waiting to talk to CS.

I want something in my life to have a guarantee on it. I want that guarantee to not be things like "you are getting older and will die" or "your car will make a scary noise at ass o'clock in the parking lot of a grocery store in the hood" or "you will meet a tall, dark stranger, who will kill you" or even "one of your neighbours is a professional singer who thinks it is OKAY to sing Led Zeppelin (worst. band. ever.) for fun".

In short, I want that guarantee to be "Do nothing. Stay home. You have asked for Cobra Starship tickets for Saturday, in Seattle, and you will receive them. Go forth and sin a lot, because you deserve a break today."

Which, of course I deserve a break. Which is why I'm leaving in a few minutes to go have sex with your wife. (Bad joke is bad. It is also from Eat, Pray, Love.)

Oh, and here's a fun fact: my mom has been diagnosed with scleraderma, and my dad with Type II diabetes. MY LIFE, IT IS AWESOME, AS ARE MY GENES. Have I mentioned that I only get WEIRD diseases? Even though the familial link on both diseases are relatively minor, I'm GOING TO HAVE THEM, I CAN FEEL IT.

Ironic edit contains more irony: Have I mentioned that it is COMPLETELY WEIRD for CS's tour to go like this: Salt Lake City, Vancouver BC, Portland, Seattle, Boise? For reference, Seattle is BETWEEN Portland and Vancouver. So, normally, where I could count on getting to either the Vancouver or Portland show if I really fucked up and missed the Seattle show, I CAN'T DO THAT HERE.

*frustration*

If you're getting a sense of why I'm so certain I can't possibly get tickets to the Seattle show, you are probably correct: the universe is laughing at me. If I miss PDX and SEA, I have to go to Boise, or call it a day and wait for the next tour. *stabbity*
channonyarrow: (chair leg of truth // filthyassistant)
( Sep. 29th, 2008 09:48 pm)
Today, I feel like ass. I have a headache, caused by falling asleep without a pillow, I slept ten hours which generally means something's wrong, I have a cold coming (on the slow train from Siberia, where they keep the toilets) and the brief burst of energy this weekend that allowed me to find four interesting jobs I'm qualified for has completely drained away, leaving me fucking annoyed at myself that I am not returning emails, making trip plans, turning in applications, or even mailing my fucking Visa bill. This is on top of shouting about the election, about the latest rumour about John McCain, about whether or not Palin is qualified to FIND the office of Vice President, and generally feeling fucked off about the whole economic situation, up to and including the bailout.

There. That's my day.

Note, please, that I am not blaming this on my period. Note further that I DO NOT CARE if you are having yours, I REALLY REALLY REALLY FUCKING DON'T.

A) I have no idea what relevance that has to anything. I can only imagine that it has relevance to me if you are about to get blood on me. As we're not in a position to do that - see above about lack of care.

B) If you are trying to indicate that it is a reason for why you feel like shit...are you not paying attention? The economy is lodged in the U-bend, the jobs (which I haven't got one of, so there, I'm worse off) are going goodbye, credit is going goodbye, food and gas costs continue to rise, and the government has just bulk-ordered fiddles and zippos.

If you are not upset by any of this, then you are not paying attention.

And finally, C) that's a fucking copout.

It's a very female copout, too (obviously) because what it says is "Sorry I'm being a bitch! I'll be sweetness and light next week again!"

Now. As the lit-crit people say, "Let's unpack that."

What it means is "I'm not willing to articulate my very-reasonable worries and concerns for some reason, because I don't think they're okay." And if you agree with me or not, YOU are the one making the EXCUSE. Actually, maybe it means "I'm not willing to claim responsibility for my very-reasonable worries and concerns because doing that would mean I was a bitch, and I don't want to be seen that way."

Why the fuck not?

And my god, what state have we come to when the condition of your underwear is better than telling people that you're unhappy? That you're fed up, frustrated, worried, and possibly even scared? JESUS SHIT, people! There really, really is nothing wrong with that, and blaming your period for why you're being all "weird" (as if I would fucking KNOW, I only know the part of you that you choose to present on the internet) is just. fucking. annoying.

Self-actualise or whatever the hot fucking buzzword is! Admit that you are legitimately unhappy! Do not blame your period for everything!

That turns out to be a subject that you can get surprisingly less out of than you would think, so I'll stop, but SERIOUSLY. Shut the fuck up with the excuse of your period. No one is paying you to be on the internet, so I don't think your "job performance" is going to be off if you feel like crap and go die in bed for a day. And you know, I notice NO difference between 'you with your period' and 'you without your period' so there's that for you. You're not actually radiating period-vibes so broadly that they've entered Alaskan airspace.

Only tell me these things if you are about to get blood all over me. Otherwise, I totally fail to care.
- You know, it's not spelled "jist".

- If someone says "I'm not seeing how that goes together," it's polite for "I think you're out of your mind," not "I don't understand how you can wear five hats at once, please explain."

- Plastic: not my special friend. And melting My Little Ponies smell like God took a shit on your head.

- No one wants to know my thoughts on yaoi, because I have none.

- Slapping a gear on it does not make it steampunk. Really.

- There's an awful lot of red dye the second time you dye something. For example, unlike the first time I dyed that thing (a My Little Pony, in case you're playing the home game) there is suddenly dye all over my counter, my floor, my oven, and my sink. Thank god for Mr Clean pads.

- I bought thirteen books this weekend, including a cookbook. I may learn to cook yet.

- Someday I need to learn to use the tag function such that it's not a holding pattern, waiting for me to have the time and go back and resort everything titled "untagged". I also need to apply tags throughout the journal.

- I feel the impetus to finish the proposal for The Omega Imperative, and possibly even to work some more on The Dead Letters.

- Then again, I usually feel the impetus, around this time of day, to do everything evar.
channonyarrow: (stab you in the eye // kill_hilary)
( Jun. 25th, 2008 08:43 am)
Dear Yahoo. Hell, dear Livejournal, dear MySpace, dear everyone:

I don't like upgrading the interface I have with a website. It bothers me a lot. If I wanted to be able to flag my messages (what the fuck, Yahoo? The first person to send me a flagged message is going to be the first person I NEVER reply to) I would have upgraded to the new Yahoo, or I would have gotten a different mail service.

I don't like spending, you know, 10 years with one interface, only to find out that you're driven so crazy by stick-in-the-mud Luddites like me that you HAVE to change things. The old system worked. If I wanted the new system, I had the option to upgrade to it!

I find your changes unnecessary, annoying, and really fucking frustrating. Changing for the sake of change is never a good thing.

If I could consistently find the compose screen in Gmail, if it didn't automatically come with Gchat, I would consider changing to Gmail, I hate the new Yahoo so much.

No love at all,
Me
channonyarrow: (never come back // vormav)
( Apr. 22nd, 2008 04:08 pm)
You know what?

You can say anything you want. You can espouse any belief you want, you can argue anything you want, you can be a total nutbar, you can be a Nazi, you can be a furry. You can even be a nutbar Nazi furry. If I disagree with you, I don't really think that I have the right to censor you - because you still get the right to your opinion, and me censoring you isn't going to change your mind. It is, in fact, quite likely to cement it even further into your head.

And yes, I do feel more strongly about censorship than I do about pretty much anything else. I feel a lot more strongly about it, in fact, than I do about politics, knowledge, awareness, or the Open Source Boob Project. I will defend your right to fuck up your life in many interesting and varied ways; I will never, ever support you if you choose to censor others.

That's my line in the sand. Censorship is wrong; there is no justification for it whatsoever.*

There is absolutely no justification for it on LJ unless both parties have agreed that a comment thread was mutually non-beneficial and both chosen to delete it. Choosing to leave the parts of the conversation that make one party look rude and deleting the parts where they were tripping over themselves to apologise is amazingly, breathtakingly rude.


*With, since I'm grammar-nazi-ing elsewhere, the exception of harmful speech, such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre when there is no fire. That's not censorship - that's harming others, which is something to be prevented at number one, on my priority list.



ETA: You know what else? When I was in college, I had a teacher who recounted the times he'd won arguments about his "hippie ways" by pointing out that not only did he fight in Korea, he'd volunteered, and he'd become partially disabled as a result - that that somehow gave him a free pass to criticise America.

This is not a true statement. Anyone has a free pass to criticise America. You and I and everyone else have a responsibility to decide what criteria we want to place on who we care to listen to critique it, but that doesn't mean that someone can't critique. And saying that someone can critique because they have volunteered to be part of the US military during a war but they couldn't if they hadn't is wrong.

That doesn't mean that my teacher didn't volunteer: that meant that my teacher did not walk into arguments saying "Well, this is wrong and this is wrong and that's wrong, and by the way, I fought in Korea, motherfucker," and expected to win. What I really don't like about the OSBP, aside from how it's taken over my flist, how it's only "okay" to feel one way about it (and I dislike [livejournal.com profile] theferrett's retraction of the post and project from that standpoint), and how it's directly led to me being censored which pisses me off, is the fact that I could win some of these arguments if I said "Yeah, yeah, you think I don't know that women can get groped on the street by primitive screwhead assholes, but I've been groped by random strangers (and nearly broke my leg falling over in surprise), I've been whistled at by ill-mannered pigs, and I have been raped," but I can't win them by saying "Look, all I want you to acknowledge is that by phrasing what you have in that language, you're saying that I don't have the right to choose what happens to my body."

What's more fucked up here? The OSBP or the fact that's revealing really, really deeply-entrenched reflexive overcorrection of politically-correct behaviour from intelligent people who should know better than to say that no woman should be touched like that because the person saying that doesn't want to be?

What if I said I did, assuming my total control of the situation, and my right to refuse even if I said I wasn't averse to being asked the question? Does that make me not worth your support and protection and care because I don't see my body the same way you do? Would you refuse my support and protection and care because I don't march in step with you?

Why are you trying to protect me when I don't know that I want to be protected like that? I want people to see the difference between two things:
- Politeness and the Law argue that no one is touched without their consent. No one. I firmly, and wholeheartedly, and even violently, believe and affirm this.
- Choice argues that I get to decide what happens to me, and everyone running around making blanket statements about how no woman should be touched like this has made my choice for me: I now cannot make the decision that I would be intrigued to be asked that question without, evidently, abrogating my right to consider myself a woman.

I cannot possibly be the only person who sees the distinction here.

If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP) without her consent", that follows politeness, the law, and choice, and is absolutely what will have me cheering you on for. If you say that "No woman should be touched like that (implying the OSBP)," that only follows politeness and the law, and does not acknowledge my right to choose.

Oh the irony of it, that we as good liberals have finally overcorrected the Right To Choose so far that there is no right to choose. When did we become Republicans?

What I believe - and I will defend you for it - is that you, me, all of us, we all have the right to choose, and there is nothing whatsoever about the right to choose, in any circumstance, that says your choice has to follow the law. The law says that, in America, abortion is legal (broadly speaking). I may or may not agree with that law, but I can make a choice that allows my morality to not infringe on your morality. The law says that, in America, homicide is illegal (broadly speaking). I may or may not choose to murder, but I can make a choice without needing it to fit the law (though if I don't, I run the risk of punishment). The law says that the speedlimit is 70 mph near where I live; nothing in the law compels me not to drive over that speed, though I admit, again, that I run risks.

The law says that no one has to put up with being touched in ways they find unwelcome. I can still make a choice that allows the law to stand and does not abrogate your right or my right or anyone else's right to choose differently under specific circumstances.

The point is not that it is women whose breasts are primarily being focused on here, not for me. The point is not that, clearly, men are all asshole pigdogs who just want to touch boobies and not one of them has the sense or socialisation god gave a goat, so the OSBP is just an invitation to rape, and will concomitantly increase the number of rapists in the population. The point is not even that I feel that our culture is overly non-touch-oriented, with bad results, and that destigmatising some things, with consent offered, may improve life for us all.

The point is that there are plenty of people out there willing to take away my right to choose because they don't agree with one side of the choice. I don't agree with "wet" reservations because of harm to residents; do I have the right to use my Caucasian access to power to decree that all reservations will now be "dry"?

No. I think we all can agree that I do not, not even if it is to prevent harm to a group of people I don't represent. You have to make that choice for yourself. I will support your choice to the extent of my ability: I will never, ever let you avoid making it.
channonyarrow: (angry avatar // channonyarrow)
( Apr. 15th, 2008 11:44 am)
This is not hilarious, really.

I need an archiving application of SOME SORT (I don't even care, seriously) and I HAD ONE. Then I got a new computer. I no longer have one.

But wait, it gets better.

I can't DOWNLOAD one, because I can't open them.

Because I need an archiving application to open them.

THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF STUPID FUCKING RECURSION.
I'm fond of the Socratic method.

Q: What does the term "best-seller" mean?

A: It depends on the context, but generally speaking is used to mean something so wildly popular (and therefore financially lucrative) that it is out-selling its competitors. It generally refers to brands or, at best, titles - bear in mind that authors and/or series and/or artists are also seen as brands - that do better than all others in terms of sales. Not actual sales, but more are in stock.

You may or may not know this, but the New York Times best-seller list of books is based not on actual sales, nor even on actual sales - returns, but on sales to book buyers. If you can convince a book buyer to buy umpty jillion copies of a book, even if that book is The Fine Art Of Gardening In The Dark, it will be a best seller.

Hence, how OJ Simpson had a bestseller that was rejected flatly when the book was revealed to be what it was. The buyers were convinced, based on the marketing they received, that this was the must-have book of the decade, and they bought in huge numbers. Then the title, subject, and ploy were revealed, and the book went down like a two dollar whore.

Returning to the main plot, this is relevant only because best-sellers imply a category that is sold specifically for leisure, to me. One does not, conventionally, speak of a best-selling politician (not their book, their politics). Nor does one speak of a best-selling natural disaster, even though it might have kicked the ass of all other natural disasters that year. Best-selling gasoline? Possibly, but then, it's the brand that is selling, because realistically, given the fact that my car will continue to function on any kind of gas, from Chevron to Arco, that I care to put in it, the brand is "where I choose to spend my money", not "the product I have evaluated as being the best for my needs" or even "what I really, really want when I feel like buying gas". Best-selling jewelry? Same as gas.

Q: What does "a brand" mean?

A: If you're me, it means "where I am getting screwed". I am not Naomi Klein, and I have, in fact, never finished No Logo. I do not make sure that all my clothing is brandless, nor do I prefer to buy a no-name toaster versus an Oster toaster. I try to remain current on what is and what is not an effective brand (ie, you couldn't make me buy a Jaguar, but I'll take the Volkswagen, thanks, or the Honda) but I do not seek to be brandless. I would also clarify that by saying that I seek to not be branded, but I am the person who just spent $50 on a DKNY trench coat sans belt and slightly too small because it was made of awesome. And if you would like to argue with me about that, you can go right ahead. I'll be over here petting my trench coat, which is made of something like sueded silk, I swear to god. Also, it was quarter price.

But brands are, by and large, not as good as they could be. James Patterson, author of many bestsellers (provided you use the term "author" loosely) is a bestselling brand. Danielle Steel, ditto. Stephen King, John Grisham, R.A. Salvatore, Laurell K. Hamilton, all brands.

I say this because I love. Read many of their books without knowing who the author is (and how fucking much money they make oh my god) and then tell me whether you find that book as good as the best book you've ever read. If you have any kind of reading vocabulary, you probably won't. And if you do, who am I to judge? I read Janet Evanovich, despite her books defining formulaic and her, personally, not deserving a single cent of my money, since I don't like to provide for outright divas to be divas.

But a brand (remember, I said "this is where I get screwed") a brand is a guarantee of consistency. Is Starbucks the best coffee out there? Hell no. But if I order a grande white mocha no whip in Starbucks it pretty much doesn't matter if I'm standing in the US, in England, or in China. What I receive should, based on what I've ordered, be exactly the same drink in all places, and that's comforting when you're away from home.

That still doesn't make it good coffee, at least to me. That makes it consistent coffee, and I find that a lot of brands do exactly that - they aim for below excellence because it is easier to keep it consistent and because it fits better into the profit margin. I get what I expect, and what I expect is that consistency is better than excellence.

So riddle me this, Riddler. Er, young Plato.

From here:Prozac does not work, say scientists.

In the first paragraph Prozac is described as a bestselling antidepressant.

Never mind all the rest of my issues with the article. Never mind that I really think that antidepressants in this country are used as a cure-all rather than as a tool and that neurochemistry (and the brain in general) are too poorly understood to be wandering around throwing fluoxetine at it. Never mind that I have had a negative experience on prescribed medication and now wander the earth refusing to take any medication except ibuprofen. Never mind the fact that this article is the first charge to prove me right. All of that is either already said or for another day.

My horror, and my point, is around the fact that prozac is a bestseller.

Stop and think about that. Stop and think about the fact that this drug has become a brand, and that, apparently, all antidepressants have become brands, if prozac is able to outsell them all.

And brands don't have to work, they only have to sell.

Stop and think about that. About what we have done and are doing, about what we allow and what we will buy and where the end of this is, because it ain't here, ladies and gentlemen. We are medicating ourselves - voluntarily! - with something that doesn't work, but sells well.

Go us.
channonyarrow: (never come back // vormav)
( Jan. 9th, 2008 05:53 pm)
I am having a shittacular time of it lately, given that my iPod is missing, and I swear to god something has been motherfucking amputated from my soul. I hate Portland, which is the last place I saw the iPod, and I hate driving home at two in the morning, which is when I drove home, and I hate the cold, which made me wear gloves, so maybe I dropped it outside and the skinny methhead across the alley stole it, and I hate the fact that I had no-fucking-pockets because of this insane skirt kick I have been on for, like, five months now, and maybe I dropped it in my apartment, but if so it's not exactly turning-the-fuck-up, and I am pissed off, and it's like someone kicked my puppy and broke my windshield and graffitied my front door and killed my sixth grade teacher. Even though I have food and shelter and clothing and a job, I have no iPod, and it is worse than death.

Also, my car, which I just spent $575 I DO NOT HAVE on it needs to learn to not be an ungrateful bitch and NOT MAKE SCARY BINDING NOISES WITH THE STEERING COLUMN RIGHT NOW, OR, IN FACT, EVER. Shut up, I can totally order my car to put out in exchange for a meal, even if I wouldn't do that to a person. My car needs to shut the smack up and fucking work already. It just got more money spent on it than it EVER has, so why is it making this noise, and if the noise persists, can I make the garage that repaired it repair it again, for free?

And you know what's actually WORSE than winning ten cents in the lottery? Going to Portland to go to Powell's to exchange books (because for serious I have NO MONEY, I realise this is not an uncommon state in this world, but it is for me and the IRS and the car can both bite me, and then give The Holiday Season a spaghetti breakfast) and getting there, seriously, three minutes after they stopped buying books for the evening so that I could not buy anything. Or rather, I bought two books, via a payday loan from one of the people I went with*, and now I think they were both Really Bad Choices. One's on fashion of the last 40,000 years, but not, like, serious examinations of fashion, more like "sidebar on using poisonous lead makeup you crazy Old Kingdom bimbos" and things like that, and so far I have found that just about everything they have to say about A) Queen Elizabeth; B) farthingales; and C) bustles are pretty much, um, categorically-fucking-wrong. And the other book, god help me, I don't even know why I fucking bought it (and there's a scary story there!) but it's a book of "Street" fashion (from 2006) and even though I thought "Ooh, these two outfits are awesome and I will recreate them because for serious what is NOT TO LOVE HERE," A) the book is dated and B) I want to punch every single person in it in the face for being a total fucking prick, basically. All you art students and fashion models in Paris, you people who just, like, wrap a vintage dress around your neck and call it a scarf, or cover yourself in what you describe as "a tablecloth" (sidebar: SO NOT KIDDING) and who have extremely bleeding edge haircuts - yeah, I want to shoot all of you. WHAT IS UP WITH TWENTY YEAR OLDS WHO BUY DESIGNER JEANS THAT COST TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY DOLLARS? Do they not have educations to get? Mutual funds to invest in? Houses to buy? Drugs to purchase? WHAT THE FUCK?

Oh, and C) the book does not get into what makes up the aesthetics of ANY style, though it seems to be "wear whatever you want as long as you look ironic and deeply uninvolved while doing it," and I already have that part down, though I admit I got rattled in DC. But telling me that I should really just completely bag the retirement fund and fly to London to shop at Camden Market (why? Nothing would ever possibly fit me, because nothing EVER DOES WHY DO YOU THINK I SEW?) is...yeah, I'm not into that. And having the other half of that manifesto be "and if you are not shopping at vintage stores you suck SO. HARD." is completely useless advice. There are just SO MANY kicky 1950s-era cocktail dresses and shoes for someone who's, let's just SAY, 6'4". In the 1950s, women who were that tall were probably euthanised. So, clearly I had an attack of dumb brought on by late-night consumerism.

But the worse book - and this will teach me to hang out in the Orange Room, hoping against hope to find, like, a Janet Arnold I want - was Misshapes, which I was into, at first, because it was introduced by Jarvis Cocker (what is not to love?) but then it fell open to pictures of MIKEY WAY and it was like "Wow, I do not need to be stalked by my own fucking obsession IN THIS CONTEXT THX WORLD BUT NO THX." So I put it back. Because it was TOTALLY not a logical place for that book to fall open. Oh, and the book itself was shit, it was just all pictures of kids who go to this Misshapes club in New York and, um, are weird about things. WHOOPDEFUCKINGDO. And, sidebar: do not credit "My Chemical Romance" on the back if, like, TWO OF FIVE show up in the book. SERIOUSLY. TWO OF FIVE DOES NOT MAKE AN ENTIRE FUCKING BAND. Credit "Gerard and Mikey Way", dicksmacks! That's like if Shirley Manson showed up in the book (probably) and they said "Garbage" was in it (which they probably totally did). No!

So, I'm dissatisfied. A LOT. Fuck you, life, get the fuck better.

On the bright side, I'm thinking about bleaching my hair all out tomorrow. Victorian horror and bleach - an awesome combination.

*When I cannot even let myself buy books, that is when I have no money. OMG. Plz to be Friday. Plz to be Friday.
channonyarrow: (so emo I could kill you // mind_orgasms)
( Oct. 16th, 2007 11:39 am)
October may well be Breast Cancer Awareness Month. We may well all have the opportunity to buy pink mixers, pink sewing machines, pink vacuums, pink rotary cutters, pink pinking shears, what-the-fuck-ever (and by the way, where the fuck are the pink hammers, pink solder guns, and pink floorjacks? Are they blue for prostate cancer?) and thereby demonstrate that we have some sort of social consciousness and absolutely no decorating scheme unless we'd LIKE to look like we live in a wedding cake, but I have my own sort of Awareness Month in mind here.

I am declaring October Breast Awareness Month, and I will kill anyone who uses the term "boob", particularly in a pseudo-inspirational "Breast Cancer Awareness Picture", featuring a little Hummel girl, or maybe it's Holly Hobby after a bad day with the Pepto-Bismol, and the slogan "Tickle me pink and find a cure before I grow boobs."

I just. What? What the fucking fuck is up with that? What? I don't even, look, my brain's in an aphasic spasm here. What? What?

Seriously. What?

NO. That is so very, very, very wrong! That is up there with all the other cutesy things we do to avoid calling things by their proper names (and okay, I am not a fan of some words either, but STILL FOR GOD'S SAKE, THIS IS COMPLETELY WRONG.) and somehow - somehow - it sort of, you know, defeats the purpose of calling it "Breast Cancer Awareness Month", if we're going to cute it up and paint it in pink and slap "boobs" on it! It's exactly the same as that theatre in Florida that censored the sign for "The Vagina Monologues" because some woman didn't want to tell her daughter what a vagina was! It is NOT empowering, it is NOT inspirational (not that I think ANY of the marketing around Breast Cancer Awareness Month is, but that's another post entirely) and it is NOTHING other than offensive and insulting, and it reduces us all to the level of third graders, giggling about boobs and peepees and whether our older siblings "do it".

ARGH!

Cancer, any cancer, is a serious fucking problem, people. It's SRS BZNS, and you know I'm serious when I lolcat. I, like everyone else on the planet, has lost friends and loved ones and has watched and helped where able as friends have struggled with it, to cancer, and I am NOT AMUSED. I am every bit as insulted as I am every time someone I know says something about boobs or tits to avoid using The Dreaded Word Breast. Are breasts REALLY that scary? If they are, someone needs to alert Homeland Security to the fact that fully half the population of the US (actually, slightly more) has either GOT a pair of them already or has the potential to have them, and we need to do something about that right. the. fuck. now.

We'll start by raising the terror alert level to pink.

If we can't call something by the right name, how can we assume that we're going to be able to find solutions to the problems? That's not a concept only relevant to breast cancer, either - that's relevant to everything we face as a problem - let's rename it so it's not scary.

Wrong.

Names have power, and calling something by the right name is a strong step in the right direction, because then we can quit giggling behind our hands and actually work on the problems rather than being amused-like-five-year-olds over fart jokes. Refusing to name something gives it power, not us, and I am not at all into that. Not if it's something we intend to have serious discourse about.

But, of course, we don't. Cancer beats us. Cancer is not something we can treat effectively, cancer is not something we can prevent effectively, it confuses us and it probably should, given that viruses have been around a lot longer than our monkey asses. (For reference, I'm using the last school of thought I heard, about ten years ago, that there might be a viral component to cancer - no idea if this has been proved or disproved, and I am in full bate anyway, so I fail to care.) And if we can't win, why would we talk about it?

This is why we talk about Iran instead of Iraq, Iraq instead of Nola, and EVERYTHING instead of climate change. So, perhaps, refusing to continue to call a part of everyone's body a boob, we could call breasts by their right name?

It might mean something if we did.
channonyarrow: (angry avatar // channonyarrow)
( Sep. 7th, 2007 11:53 pm)
In seven minutes it will be Saturday.

I'm still at work!
Fairly sure that's the second or third time I've used that subject line. But it IS an evil laugh. I was told this when asking someone whose laugh I was imitating for my evil laugh where they had gotten their evil laugh from and was told that it was, in fact, originally mine.

Right, so, the content of this post is: imagine me laughing, evilly. There you go, done. I'd love to share all the details, but there are multitudinous situations that deserve an evil laugh, occuring simultaneously around me.

1) Theft. Muahahahaha!
2) Veganism. Muahahahahaha!
3) KNOWING vegans. Muahahahahaha!
4) Planning ahead. WAY ahead. Muahahahahaha!
5) +2 Wand of Promotion With Retroactive Date of Occurrence. Muahahahahaha!
6) Czarity. Muahahahahaha!
7) Coffee. With extra Muahahahahahaha!
8) Fanon. Muahahahahahahaha!
9) Waaaaaaannk (complete with wahmbulance). Muahahahahaha!

One. ONE evil laugh. Muahahahahaha!

You may address me as the Czar of Catalogues, by the way. I insist that my first edict will be "Yeah, we're totally spelling that British, bitches." I wish now that I had a tiara, because that is TOTALLY a tiara-related emergency.

*muttering darkly* Everyone used to laugh at me for that. Where are they NOW, FOOLS, WHERE ARE YOU NOW? WITHOUT A TIARA OR A TITLE, THAT'S WHERE.

==========

UNRELATED RANT THAT DOES NOT DESERVE A SECOND POST:
This applies to me, because I am an editor. I would imagine that it applies to anyone who works with or for people who do not physically show up in the office (or perhaps those who do, but I don't think we're THAT big a bunch of assholes).

If you are going to get a blog, particularly on LJ (in my case, because I am ONLY competent at LJ-based systems), as a professional, then use that space ONLY for professional posts. Srs bzns, ppl. The lolcat/1337 makes it more srs. I am not dumb, and I DO know how to google your name (particularly if you have given me a business card that clearly lists your LJ, or use it as part of your sig). I know that manymany people have websites under their names - all well and good. But...dude. Do you REALLY want your editor to know that your kid is barfing? Or, more sensitively, do you REALLY want your editor to know that you are not happy that Shit Has Come Up and they have not gotten back to you about your latest proposal? No shit you're not happy - chances are THEY are not happy EITHER. And they will be less happy if you are not going to play the game of understanding that sometimes, that is totally how life is. At LEAST, ffs, lock those entries. Otherwise...well, you come off a little bit less professionally than you might want.

And let me tell you it is even MORE weird to find all these people listing you by name on their blogs. If I didn't know that someone had a blog before, I DO NOW.

Im in ur internetz lukin at ur life, d00d. Think about what you're showing me, srsly. And one of the things you are showing me is that, if anyone was paying attention to a mutual friend's blog, the cover on this one is TOTALLY blown.
channonyarrow: (personal problem of hate // exit_eternit)
( Mar. 16th, 2007 02:19 pm)
I always THINK that I'm totally not squickable. I mean, I know myself pretty well, I know that I'll try just about anything once, and usually two or three times to make sure I didn't like it the first time. I read voraciously, in many genres, and I pretty much only don't read sports and biographies. I read horror, I read splatterpunk, I read stuff that makes your spine want to crawl out of your body and find a new home, and not because it's badly written. I only don't watch horror movies because I have a morbid imagination and I get nightmares.

Anyone who can get nightmares for a solid week from the ep of Transformers where they brought back Optimus Prime has problems.

I have things I don't like, sure. I don't like mpreg, I don't like badly-written or overdone incest, I don't like women-as-eternal-victims-in-need-of-saving, I don't like plots that involve everyone wilfully not telling anyone in authority what's going on so they can FIX it, I don't like lots of things - but I don't think of those as squicks, any more than I'd think of walking into an ice cream shop(pe) and deciding that I had to leave because I really don't like rum-raisin ice cream (or raisins in general, in fact). It's a like or a dislike, not a squick.

Obviously, if I had once been viciously raped with a carton of rum-raisin ice cream by a hillbilly axe murderer, I might then legitimately have a squick about ice cream.

But I do still think of myself as someone not squicked by sex or violence or language or imagery, and generally when I run up against a wall and find myself going "Oh, yeah, squick, hey," it's a brickwall...topped with razor wire. And patrolled by an Unfriendly Patrol. Armed with guns. And guard dogs.

In other words, when I do find a squick, it usually makes me want to vomit.

So congratulations, person on [livejournal.com profile] bad_rpers_suck who has the icon of someone slitting a woman's throat with a straight razor. You've just found a squick of mine.

Thanks. Have some vomit.

And it's not that I'm not into freedom of speech (my inclination to that alternates with my inclination to buy a gun and shoot everyone I disagree with), it's that I'm not into an icon that I have to watch - carefully and repeatedly - to determine that it is, in fact, as disturbing and disgusting as I thought it was. So now I've overconsumed something I never wanted, and maybe it's the fact that I feel a little full of disgusting that is making me want to vomit, but I tell you - that icon's a winner.

In some strange alternate universe where using a graphic murder icon in a community is okay.


ETA: Okay, so it's her eye. How is this different? I don't care how marvellously arty it is, I find it disturbing (though admittedly a lot less so than when I thought they were cutting her throat). I don't like being an icon nazi, but that's REALLY the sort of thing best left in a personal journal.
channonyarrow: (personal problem of hate // exit_eternit)
( Jan. 19th, 2007 08:15 am)
If I am passing you in the right lane, you are not driving fast enough. If I am passing you in the far right lane, you are really not driving fast enough.

I do not "tee-hee" with you at your bold, daring audacity and general fuck-the-man attitude as you go 65 in the left lane of a four-lane, 60 mph freeway.

I do not consider the following concepts entirely unreasonable, insane, or prohibited by international treaty:

If someone is coming up behind you, moving faster than you, and it is safe to do so - you move right.

If the person behind you has lights and sirens, you move as soon as you realise they're there. Fuckers.

If the light is yellow, though we all laughed at Starman, when he said yellow means drive like hell, you do not need to go through the light, particularly if you are half a block from the light when it changes. One of these days, I will hit you when my light is green and I go and I t-bone you, and I hope to fuck that you die in the accident. If I die - at least I'll have died happy. No, really - I seriously, with no regard whatsoever for karmic imbalance, hope you die.

If I have my turn signal on, just because the dumb fuck holding up my merge into your lane has finally decided that they can merge right (it's really important to do that before I go left! I don't know why, but I bet they win if they can stop me from merging left just so they can merge right before I merge!) you do not get to speed up. I have no idea how that would turn out in a court of law, but I don't really think that they'd buy that I "cut you off", given that my turn signal - you know, the blinky light that indicates a lane change? I know you have one, even if you don't use it - is ON, FUCKER. It is reasonable to expect that I am coming into your lane.

If you are a semi truck and you merge into my lane, approximately two feet from cutting me off, one. more. time....well, that really sharp movement into a free lane and then acceleration past you and a sharp merge that almost cuts you off is not my way of saying Happy Birthday. Fucker.

It is, of course, very very very important that we all get there first, despite the fact that that would have meant leaving in, approximately, 1800, if you want to be there before other white people or 12,000 years ago if you want to be there before anyone. I will not, actually, let you in if you are not at least pretending that you didn't know that the lane of traffic merging onto 99 Northbound extends all the way back to the fucking onramp for the bridge. In that case, I don't care if your turn signal is on - you are an asshat. I am being one too, but it makes me feel better, particularly since it was probably you who decided last time that you really really really needed to get into the exit lane on 509 Southbound before I got out of that lane and into the mainline lane of 509 Southbound, which meant that you accelerated, once you saw me there, then cut me off to make the exit. And yet, if you had but waited for two seconds, acknowledging a) my turn signal and b) my relative position geographically further south, I would have exited the lane, leaving it all to you.

However, there is something of an extenuating circumstance for that, and it is this: I am the only person in Seattle who can merge at more than 3/5s of the speed limit, or 20 mph, whichever is least suited for the conditions of merging and the speed limit of the freeway being merged onto. Seriously.

I do not have road rage. I merely have extremely violent impulses that are, in this context, directed at other drivers. I do not pretend that being off the road makes me a sunny person, or that being on the road turns me into evil incarnate.

One of these days I will buy a gun and make Apt Pupil look like a Sunday-school session.
.

Profile

channonyarrow: (Default)
channonyarrow

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Powered by Dreamwidth Studios

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags