ETA: She just gave permission to copy the entire post, so Imma do that:
- Find that I've just quoted someone you know of to be a known repeat offender abuser/bully without noting that the person is problematic
- Find that I'm engaging with such a person, perhaps without knowledge of their history
- Note that I have invited someone of this sort into a larger conversation in some way
Note: Feel free to duplicate this post or use it as a jumping off point for your own statement on this matter. No attribution required, even if you copy completely. This isn't about me, this is about us as a community.
“Elaine Brown once said that radical love was the hardest road to walk but the most revolutionary. Radical love makes it impossible for you not to hold the mirror up to yourself and work to decolonize your own mind and your practices in order to be worthy of those you love. It makes you take risks to talk about the hard things with people who may not yet want to hear them or who you know will lash out at you even as they stare into the mirror you raise up, because you do it not to shame but to help others grow and to grow with them. Most of all, radical love requires you to let go of your ego and to occasionally lose control over ‘truth’ for the good of the larger goal of social justice for everyone not just yourself.”- The Meaning of Truth and Honesty: A Reflection on Radical Love on the Margins in the Age of Pomo « Like a Whisper
Still reflecting on this post, but I wanted to call attention to this part. Especially that last sentence; wow, that really hits home.
“Control over ‘truth’” — that’s what a lot of this BS of the Internet activist culture's (and mine, since I've been a part of it) has been about, isn’t it?
As usual, love is a better way. Why is it so difficult to see that, though?
Should I, Alyssa T. Cat (not my real name... but it could be!), attempt to make a trans-themed space opera webcomic despite the fact that I can't draw?
Yes, even if it looks like a two-year-old's scribbles
Yes, but get a decent artist to work with you
Yes, but make it a sprite and/or machinima comic
No; you've got enough on your plate as it is
No; you should learn to draw first
No; you should instead direct your energies towards convincing Tess to draw a lesbian catgirl comic
Maybe it's because my expectations were tempered by what I saw on the Cryptic forums during closed beta (I forget how, but I somehow got a code for it; alas, it wouldn't run on the computer I had at the time). It was like:
Angry Forum People: This sucks! Instead of a vast universe of endless possibilities, it's just a bunch of action-focused missions on small, instanced maps!
Me: So... it's a Star Trek version of PSO? That still sounds cool, though. o.o
My friend Saki tried it and hated it for similar reasons, and while I understood and even agreed to an extent, I was still eager to give it a try. And so I got it, and I liked it, and, well, I still like it. I mean, Cryptic's design approach definitely isn't the one I would have taken (not even close, actually), and I'll be the first to agree that the game needed at least another six months of development before its initial release. But, I mean, it's oodles of fun (especially the space PvP -- just fantastic stuff there), and a bunch of my friends play it, and it's also helped me work through my social anxiety because the STO player community mostly doesn't suck.
(Mind you, that's not to say that I don't sometimes wish for what might have been...)
* That sentence is hyperbole. (I just realized that could be unclear to non-NT readers.)
Woman = Human adult who identifies as female, regardless of bodily configuration.
Girl = Human child who identifies as female, regardless of bodily configuration.
FAAB = Female-assigned-at-birth. This adjective describes a person who was assigned to both the female sex and female gender by medical professionals, either because the appearance of the person's genitalia matched what they expected for the female sex, or because said medical professionals decided to mutilate the person's genitalia to make them look like they "should" for the female sex. Regardless of the reason, the person may or may not neatly fit into the traditional binary categories of either biological sex or social gender, and may or may not identify as female later in life.
These three concepts are often confused. For instance, many people refer to women as "girls" even though they're adults. Another common error is referring to the right to control one's uterus as a "women's issue", when it clearly also involves all other people with uteri -- including most FAAB girls, most trans men, most nonbinary FAAB people, and even some intersex MAAB (male-assigned-at-birth) people.
A Federal court has ruled that circumventing DRM for non-copyright-infringing purposes is legal! (The title of the article is a little misleading, as the ruling appears to be broader than just fair use.)
Before this, under the anti-circumvention provisions of the DMCA, copyright holders basically had the power to write their own laws. It didn't matter if you wanted to do something (like, say, use a screen reader to read an e-book) that was otherwise legal; if you had to circumvent copy protection to do it, you could get sued and/or prosecuted for trying. (There were a handful of exceptions, but they were never nearly enough.) This resulted in a lot of useful technologies being either banned, or so restricted that they were practically useless.
Well, this new ruling looks like it may change all that:
"No person shall circumvent a technological measure that effectively controls access to a work protected under this title," the law says (we added the italics). The "under this title" refers to Title 17—the entirety of US copyright law.Common sense at last! Yay!
In other words, just circumventing the technology isn't enough to get into trouble with the DMCA. The circumvention must lead to some violation of copyright.
"MGE [the plaintiff in this case] advocates too broad a definition of 'access'," the Fifth Circuit explained. "Their interpretation would permit liability under § 1201(a) for accessing a work simply to view it or to use it within the purview of 'fair use' permitted under the Copyright Act. Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA's anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners."
I mean, it may not be time to celebrate just yet, as I fully expect this to either be appealed to the Supreme Court now, or end up there at a later date as part of some other case. The big corps that have benefited from overbroad interpretations of "access" for the past twelve years aren't going to give up their power so easily. Still, the fact that there is now even a small chance in hell that some measure of consumer rights will return to us is hugely encouraging to me.
armageddon_lady: spiffy ^_^
Me: it has stuff that makes it feel more Trekkish ^^ see, now there's a "Federation Diplomatic Corps" that you can rise through the ranks in by completing diplomacy and first contact missions. These missions are non-combat; in one I tried, I had to prove that the Vulcans were framed for a threat against a Romulan ambassador's life, and thus save the peace process. Felt very TNG ^^ plus, exploration is being enhanced in certain ways. I'm excited about this because, while I loved the game as it was, it did feel like it had too much combat and not enough of everything else. So, yeah :)
armageddon_lady: coolness ^_^
Me: Klingons are getting new stuff too, and I'm eager to try that. 'course, I'm fine with Klingons being mostly combat-focused ^^ 'cause that's kinda their thing
Toronto Police Arrest Over 600 in Crackdown Outside G20 Summit
Violence mars G20 protests
Conditions at G20 Detention Centre are illegal, immoral and dangerous
"I will not forget what they have done to me"
Naomi Klein: The Real Crime Scene Was Inside the G20 Summit
May Toronto's G20 be the last
Outside makeshift prison: "For us native people this is what we know, this is Canada"
Maybe now is the time to tell you that I’ve been having some serious doubts about my place in Internet Feminism. Not my involvement in Internet; that, no doubt, will go on. Because what else am I going to do with my time? But there are problems, I think, with the terms of the conversation I’ve set up here; there are problems with my own place within that conversation, the person I’ve agreed to be when I talk to you. That outraged, righteous, upright, know-it-all person who has compassion for all the right people and scorn for all the wrong ones, who’s on the right side (your side) of all the issues: I think she’s dangerous, and I think she’s at least partially false. The falseness is the root of the danger; [the] problem with Internet Feminism, or any politics of identity, any system that purports to help you get your life and problems understood better, is when it sets up a too-easy, pre-packaged narrative for your own life. When it gives you the language, the rules for engaging and discussing, but doesn’t help you to look with any greater or more dangerous honesty at what you’re thinking, or how you’re acting, or who you are.-- Sady
ETA, from later in the post:
I mean: This is basically how every terrible thing in the history of humanity has started, the decision that there’s an Us and a Them and the former is good and the latter is bad. Doing it in the name of lofty principles doesn’t mean you’re not doing it; it just means that when the problems — the self-falsification, the repression, the insistence on ideological purity rather than self-examination or originality or thought — creep up on you, you’re less likely to notice them and more likely to rationalize them. Because your aims really and truly are good.
As part of the mental logjam that has broken, I am finally realizing just what it is that compels me to neglect things I genuinely want to do in favor of playing videogames instead.
And it's simple, although it reveals something a little disturbing about myself, my upbringing and my mentation:
Videogames simulate true meritocracy.
It's everything our teachers told us the real world was supposed to be: a world in which those who diligently strive and play by the rules will eventually succeed, and the winners are the ones who play the best. (I suppose videogames can confer "privilege" in the sense that certain characters or classes are just clearly more equipped to win than others, but players can easily rectify this by, well, just picking different characters or classes. Real life grants no such option.)
So it's really no wonder that those of us who were suckered into the myth of meritocracy as children would be so eager to escape into these games. It's also no wonder that so many games are trying to recreate the grindy, consumption-focused rat race of life through unlockables, etc. -- to take part in that system and actually have it work like it's supposed to is... well. It can be a powerful bit of escapism, that's for sure. Knowing that you can accomplish things, knowing that said accomplishments will actually achieve results (even if only virtual ones), knowing that your success really does depend mostly (if not entirely) on your own effort... that's awfully cathartic.
It makes the pain of living in this world -- where success has a lot more to do with how you were born and what your environment is than anything you do, and where cheaters are at least as likely to be lauded as shunned -- a little more bearable.
At least, until I have to return to it.
I should probably find a better way of coping.