But you're assuming calling out -ism etc is for the benefit of... what? The casual observer who Doesn't Get It (and is therefore likely quite privileged)? The author, who might just stumble on your discussion and who will learn only if you are sophisticated and intellectual? It's quite possible to write profanity-laden reviews that are able to present evidence of -isms through quotes and whatnot. I do it a lot. If someone goes "but Pyrofennec, you're being so mean and vulgar, how do you expect anyone to take your 'accusations' of -ism seriously?" I will tell them to fuck off, name-and-shame them, and then ban their asses. That's the only appropriate response. If I contribute to people like Jay Lake feeling "unsafe and unwelcome" at conventions or whatever? Even better!

Much of what you say seems to have come straight out of Derailing for Dummies point by point. Like, pretty much all the variants on the tone argument. It's not okay and it doesn't make you look superior by dint of your ability to stay calm and collected in the face of racism or misogyny (the latter of which doesn't even affect you). Stop it.

I hate to go all RAH RAH SOCIAL JUSTICE here but could you take a look at the Privilege of Politeness. tl;dr the oppressed does not have an obligation to be polite to the oppressor while calling out oppression. Women don't have to be sweet and gentle and polite to misogynists when calling out misogyny; people of color should not be made to be polite and nice to racists when calling out racism. P. simple.

I see where you're coming from. I'm not demanding for minorities to be polite to their oppressors, I was merely observing that when arguing against someone's discriminatory viewpoint, maintatining a civil tone and manner whilst calling them out on all the aspects of sexism and racism that they may hold tends to make your arguments seem a bit more sophisticated and objective, rather than just hurling profanity and accusations.

It's less to do with being polite as far as I can see, and more to do with sounding appropriately credible to a potential audience, especially when the aspects of racism and sexism and general discrimination you are pointing out may not be as obvious to a casual observer.

Vermisvere: Well, it's one thing to be objectively abrasive, and quite another to cross into the territory where it's more of a case of the reviewer mounting a full-scale verbal assault against the author. Even when you feel you are completely justified in your views, this can often come about as being a bit arrogant.

I hate to go all RAH RAH SOCIAL JUSTICE here but could you take a look at the Privilege of Politeness. tl;dr the oppressed does not have an obligation to be polite to the oppressor while calling out oppression. Women don't have to be sweet and gentle and polite to misogynists when calling out misogyny; people of color should not be made to be polite and nice to racists when calling out racism. P. simple.

Arthyr B: I think a lot of people invest heavily in the belief that they, personally, as not racist, and if you've defined yourself in a particular way and someone questions that there's a very strong impulse to defend your own idea of who you are rather than questioning and revising it. The idea that you may, in fact, be actually quite a bad judge of your own character is pretty damn scary.

Huh. I get the impression is that in western society everyone wants to believe that they are decent and egalitarian and totally free of prejudices and bigotry, and that labels like "you misogynistic piece of shit/you racist wad" only happen to other people or something. Hence "I'm not racist, but..." or "I'm totally color-blind but [insert racist statement here]." Being called sexist, racist, or homophobic results in a major loss of decent-human cred so people desperately scramble to save face and shut the other party down.

It's not too weird. They must have some sort of system perpetually in place there. The lights are usually white, but nearly any even slightly special occasion and they bust out theme colors. Holidays, sports teams...first day of summer...

http://yfrog.com/ked8jqrj

By the way, am I the only one who finds it odd how quickly they've managed to set that up?

Ooh, pretty lights. Me like.

On topic, I've just read through what seems to be about 600 Yahoo! comments (a lot of them are repeats of previous ones), and it's pretty much an ongoing cycle - people yelling "yay!" for "gay rights" and "equality" as they condemn those who oppose the whole thing, who in turn push back with their own cries of "abomination" and "it's not right", with the occasional rational argument put forward by someone for either removing gay marriage or accepting it or trying to reach some sort of agreement for both parties.

In short - 20 pages of the usual bullshit and bickering along with some infrequent enlightening comments.

http://yfrog.com/ked8jqrj

Stopping now. I swear.

Pretty amusing listing through the comments on Yahoo!...funny how divorce is mentioned by every second poster...

Oh and apparently there are people passing out pride cupcakes in Harlem tomorrow morning.

There were throngs outside the senate building, rejoicing across my Facebook page, and at this very moment the top of the Empire State Building is lit up in rainbow colors. (It's the tax breaks; visitation, inheritance and child custody rights; health insurance; and fairness and dignity and so on. :-D)

Never read comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

Well, I suppose congratulations are due to the homosexual community, though I never understood the deal about gay marriage since most of the homosexuals that I've been acquinted with during my lifetime seemed to have a more or less "meh" attitude towards the concept.

I don't know, I kind of feel when you, err, pull that sort of shit - however accidentally - people are entitled to be as abrasive as they damn well please.

Well, it's one thing to be objectively abrasive, and quite another to cross into the territory where it's more of a case of the reviewer mounting a full-scale verbal assault against the author. Even when you feel you are completely justified in your views, this can often come about as being a bit arrogant.

Never read comments:
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_ny

(Tangentially, my state senate just legalized same-sex marriage.)

I don't know, I kind of feel when you, err, pull that sort of shit - however accidentally - people are entitled to be as abrasive as they damn well please.

I stopped poking him about it if that's what you meant. I think Jay's position is very, very clear from what he says in the comments on that blog post and we can all take our own conclusions from it.

I should probably say my "I still don't know what Lake's on about" comment came from him not, really, addressing why my analysis of the text was an "odd critique". i.e. he says:

Speaking from the perspective of my auctorial intent, your comment that “those beastly people from the Dark Continent *really are* savages and warlocks.” is pretty much exactly backwards to what I was trying to do with the text.

and I go "then what was your 'auctorial' intent?" Now, the ape-men are your quintessential noble savages, but I don't see how that makes it any better.

I think, though, that Lake gets that my post was not so much a "Jay Lake sucks" post as an "Imaro is awesome" one, which is probably why he even linked to it in the first place. I also appreciate him not pulling a J.K. Rowling here and saying "the author is always right!" He seems baffled, not angry, probably helped by the fact that I wasn't actually being abrasive. Unlike some people who've drawn the same conclusions.

Fake popstars, anyone?

Maybe I wouldn't be seeing this without the context of the article, but she's still on the edge of the uncanny valley there for me.

Fake popstars, anyone?

On a side note: that's pretty fucking impressive.

I think that's a consensus that Jay himself doesn't share.

Kind of an impasse, then...

I think it's more of a general consensus that Lake may have subtle racist tendencies.

Or maybe that's just me.

(Jeeze, I can't spell at all this morning.)

I think Jay's position is very, very clear from what he says in the comments on that blog post and we can all take our own conclusions from it.

Oooh. (I've read.) Kind of an impassse, then...

@Cammalot:

But I gather some sort of understanding has been reached?

I stopped poking him about it if that's what you meant. I think Jay's position is very, very clear from what he says in the comments on that blog post and we can all take our own conclusions from it.

Semi-rhetorical, I guess. A lot of people act like being called racist, or having their actions called racist, is much, much, much worse than say people suffering from actual racism. (Goes for most -ist things, but there's something about racism that makes people just that much more special-snowflake.)

I think a lot of people invest heavily in the belief that they, personally, as not racist, and if you've defined yourself in a particular way and someone questions that there's a very strong impulse to defend your own idea of who you are rather than questioning and revising it. The idea that you may, in fact, be actually quite a bad judge of your own character is pretty damn scary.

Not defending it in any way, just suggesting a reason why people might get very emotive about their defensiveness. Goodness knows I've done it from time to time.