So, as mentioned earlier, I've moved to Boston. I've been trying to get the lay of the land and get a better understanding for the area, so I haven't really had the time or energy to post. I've been here a week as of today. It's been harder than I thought it would, but it's also been really awesome. I've already got an apartment, and I've got some leads on jobs, in addition to being signed up with a temp agency, so we'll see how that goes.
So, until I get posting a little more regularly, here's a little bit of Boston to share. Consider it Monday Music Videos on Sunday. Or something like that.
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Thursday, May 01, 2008
Wednesday, April 30, 2008
Eastward bound...
Just wanted to give a little heads-up that posting will be... erm... will continue to be a little sparadic for the time being. I'm packing up, saying goodbye to my home state, and heading east to settle my roots in bean town for the time being. Moving is a pretty big deal, and it'll be the first time in almost three decades that I've lived outside of Michigan. I love Michigan, but it's time to move on. Anyway, it also means that, while I get moved and try to settle in and figure out everything, I'm probably going to be a little bit preoccupied and maybe not super great about updating. I'll certainly be doing my best to keep content coming, but I hope you'll forgive me if I'm a bit distracted.
Wish me luck!
Wish me luck!
Tuesday, April 29, 2008
Oh, right... Grand Theft Auto is coming out...
Samhita has a post up about a GTA4 trailer. I haven't watched the trailer, because... well... I'm at work, and I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that it's a bit on the ol' NSFW side. Just a hunch.
Anyway, I read the post, and started reading the comments, and I can't help but be surprised by some of them. The Grand Theft Auto series of games are an easy target for analysis. They're full of racism and misogynistic violence, and they don't really do anything to hide that fact. In fact, the series has pretty much embraced that fact, and the creators go out of their way to try to outdo themselves with each game.
So, some of the defenses are really surprising to me. The suggestion that killing prostitutes "is never a story goal" or was "obscure" and that it's a game of "choices" bothers me. It's been a while since I played any of the GTA games, but it was *never* a secret that you could kill prostitutes. From at least GTA3, it's been pretty common knowledge that you could go out, pick up a prostitute to regain your health, and then kill her to get back the money you lost when you picked her up. It was never an obscure part of the game at all, even if it wasn't manditory. The bit about it being a choice is irrelevent. There are plenty of things that the game doesn't let you do- there are no children in any of the GTA games, so you won't find yourself a child-killer, for example. So, the choice to include prostitutes that one can then murder? It's about choice- the choice of Rockstar Games to include that element.
Similarly, a commenter suggests that the "in-game consequences are only negative" when you kill one of the prostitutes. That's not accurate. Killing NPCs in front of the police or other characters has a potentially negative consequence- it increases your wanted level, thus making the police try to arrest or kill you. But, killing anyone- prostitute or not- also has positive consequences in that you can steal any money or weapons that character is carrying. Further, killing someone in a place where you're not being watched or where there aren't any police doesn't increase your wanted level. And, for many players, increasing your wanted level isn't actually a negative consequence- I knew plenty of people who made a game out of getting the highest wanted level possible just to see how long they could last.
I really took umbridge to Scilian's comment, though:
Where to start? First of all, it looked to me like Samhita's post was largely about the fact that "not only are the sex scenes very real looking, most of the women are killed shortly after forcibly performing sex acts." It's not just that the game is violent- it is. Yeah, you can kill pretty much everyone in GTA. But, there was a choice made about which characters you could pay for sex with and then murder, and, hint- it wasn't the characters with penises.
And Scilian's bringing up the Jena Six case is disturbing, as well. That case is ongoing, and I don't think that anyone has attempted to say that the fact that one of the white kids was attacked was good- only that the Jena Six aren't being treated fairly, and they're being punished in a way that exceeds their crime, while the white kids who also engaged in serious acts of violence are going free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It's not that violence in the 'real world' is okay.
And, really, this attitude that, because she's complained about the treatment of women she must necessarily also complain about the treatment of men or it's a double standard? It's bullshit. It's a game made by men targeting a male audience about a male character who spends a lot of time doing terrible things to other men. There are complaints to be raised there, for sure- but Samhita, a woman, is under no obligation to discuss them given that the game *also* features nasty treatment of women, too.
Hell, we can discuss the treatment of men all day- and I'd personally suggest that, if Scilian is really concerned with the treatment of men, a better tactic than accusing Samhita of hypocrisy would be to become an activist and write about or do something about it. Pissing on somebody else's movement isn't a good way to get your issue addressed. And, I find the criticism difficult to swallow given the width and breadth of male characters available absolutely dwarfs the portrayals of women in games.
More generally:
I'm certainly not in the habit of trying to tell people what is or is not a feminist attitude. If someone tells me that they're going to play GTA4, I'm not going to try to revoke their feminist street cred. Nor do I think that the GTA series of games are completely without merit. The sandbox style and the ability to create tremendous car crashes, do Hollywood action movie style car chases and jumps, etc? That stuff is all a lot of fun. I love that part. But, the sad fact is that they've consistently packaged a really fun free-roaming car driving game inside of a really nasty narrative. The game is full of racist, sexist, and heteronormative/homophobic bile. And for that? Yes, I do think it belongs in the hall of shame. Which is too bad, because, yeah, I've actually had a lot of fun outside of the story of the game, flying helicopters and racing bikes through the city.
Ultimately, I have no interest in playing GTA4, despite the consistently high marks that it's getting. I'm not interested in more racist drivel being passed off as story. I'm not interested in seeing what kind of stupid, ignorant stereotypes they'll embrace in the portrayal of an Eastern European character. I mean, we've been treated to an Italian who joins the mafia, and a black gang member, so we've got reason to believe that they'll treat him with respect and not fall back on stereotypes. Right? Right?
edited 3:38 PM -
Shamus has a great quote about the difficulty of rating a game like GTA4. He makes a comparison between rating the game and rating a restaurant: "How do you rate a restaurant that serves mouth-watering steaks for $5 and a punch in the face before the meal?"
Too right.
Anyway, his piece is about how some publication was granted an "exclusive review" of the game prior to release. Penny Arcade mentioned the same thing, and I'll go ahead and throw my gamer hat on to agree: Exclusive reviews raise some significant questions about, you know, objectivity. Color me "not a fan".
Anyway, I read the post, and started reading the comments, and I can't help but be surprised by some of them. The Grand Theft Auto series of games are an easy target for analysis. They're full of racism and misogynistic violence, and they don't really do anything to hide that fact. In fact, the series has pretty much embraced that fact, and the creators go out of their way to try to outdo themselves with each game.
So, some of the defenses are really surprising to me. The suggestion that killing prostitutes "is never a story goal" or was "obscure" and that it's a game of "choices" bothers me. It's been a while since I played any of the GTA games, but it was *never* a secret that you could kill prostitutes. From at least GTA3, it's been pretty common knowledge that you could go out, pick up a prostitute to regain your health, and then kill her to get back the money you lost when you picked her up. It was never an obscure part of the game at all, even if it wasn't manditory. The bit about it being a choice is irrelevent. There are plenty of things that the game doesn't let you do- there are no children in any of the GTA games, so you won't find yourself a child-killer, for example. So, the choice to include prostitutes that one can then murder? It's about choice- the choice of Rockstar Games to include that element.
Similarly, a commenter suggests that the "in-game consequences are only negative" when you kill one of the prostitutes. That's not accurate. Killing NPCs in front of the police or other characters has a potentially negative consequence- it increases your wanted level, thus making the police try to arrest or kill you. But, killing anyone- prostitute or not- also has positive consequences in that you can steal any money or weapons that character is carrying. Further, killing someone in a place where you're not being watched or where there aren't any police doesn't increase your wanted level. And, for many players, increasing your wanted level isn't actually a negative consequence- I knew plenty of people who made a game out of getting the highest wanted level possible just to see how long they could last.
I really took umbridge to Scilian's comment, though:
Well Grand Theft Auto is simply a game based around violence and crime.
Violence, sex, and more violence.
Anyone can be killed at any time - so would the game be ok if women were removed completely from the game?
Or maybe if women couldnt be killed in the game?
But then the rife hypocrisy here at feministing rears its ugly head as usual - since the violence is about 99% towards males, wouldnt that reek of misandry?
Kind of funny, you know, this bullshit post coming from samhita when she constantly talks about racism against black males who tried to kill someone by kicking in their heads with steel toed boots, but then shooting people in a video game is suddenly misogynistic?
So real world violence is ok, but a game that has nothing to do with killing females is suddenly misogynistic?
Logic must have the day off today.
Where to start? First of all, it looked to me like Samhita's post was largely about the fact that "not only are the sex scenes very real looking, most of the women are killed shortly after forcibly performing sex acts." It's not just that the game is violent- it is. Yeah, you can kill pretty much everyone in GTA. But, there was a choice made about which characters you could pay for sex with and then murder, and, hint- it wasn't the characters with penises.
And Scilian's bringing up the Jena Six case is disturbing, as well. That case is ongoing, and I don't think that anyone has attempted to say that the fact that one of the white kids was attacked was good- only that the Jena Six aren't being treated fairly, and they're being punished in a way that exceeds their crime, while the white kids who also engaged in serious acts of violence are going free with nothing more than a slap on the wrist. It's not that violence in the 'real world' is okay.
And, really, this attitude that, because she's complained about the treatment of women she must necessarily also complain about the treatment of men or it's a double standard? It's bullshit. It's a game made by men targeting a male audience about a male character who spends a lot of time doing terrible things to other men. There are complaints to be raised there, for sure- but Samhita, a woman, is under no obligation to discuss them given that the game *also* features nasty treatment of women, too.
Hell, we can discuss the treatment of men all day- and I'd personally suggest that, if Scilian is really concerned with the treatment of men, a better tactic than accusing Samhita of hypocrisy would be to become an activist and write about or do something about it. Pissing on somebody else's movement isn't a good way to get your issue addressed. And, I find the criticism difficult to swallow given the width and breadth of male characters available absolutely dwarfs the portrayals of women in games.
More generally:
I'm certainly not in the habit of trying to tell people what is or is not a feminist attitude. If someone tells me that they're going to play GTA4, I'm not going to try to revoke their feminist street cred. Nor do I think that the GTA series of games are completely without merit. The sandbox style and the ability to create tremendous car crashes, do Hollywood action movie style car chases and jumps, etc? That stuff is all a lot of fun. I love that part. But, the sad fact is that they've consistently packaged a really fun free-roaming car driving game inside of a really nasty narrative. The game is full of racist, sexist, and heteronormative/homophobic bile. And for that? Yes, I do think it belongs in the hall of shame. Which is too bad, because, yeah, I've actually had a lot of fun outside of the story of the game, flying helicopters and racing bikes through the city.
Ultimately, I have no interest in playing GTA4, despite the consistently high marks that it's getting. I'm not interested in more racist drivel being passed off as story. I'm not interested in seeing what kind of stupid, ignorant stereotypes they'll embrace in the portrayal of an Eastern European character. I mean, we've been treated to an Italian who joins the mafia, and a black gang member, so we've got reason to believe that they'll treat him with respect and not fall back on stereotypes. Right? Right?
edited 3:38 PM -
Shamus has a great quote about the difficulty of rating a game like GTA4. He makes a comparison between rating the game and rating a restaurant: "How do you rate a restaurant that serves mouth-watering steaks for $5 and a punch in the face before the meal?"
Too right.
Anyway, his piece is about how some publication was granted an "exclusive review" of the game prior to release. Penny Arcade mentioned the same thing, and I'll go ahead and throw my gamer hat on to agree: Exclusive reviews raise some significant questions about, you know, objectivity. Color me "not a fan".
Friday, April 25, 2008
Double-you tee eff, huff-po?
Why, precisely, do I give a rat's ass about whether or not Miley Cyrus is flashing her bra?
Also, why does the headline state this as fact, when the first line of the damn article makes it clear that, well, it's not clear that they're of Miley at all?
Outside of giving readers an opportunity to post such enlightened comments as "I hope she starts doing porn as soon as she turns 18." and "Disney produces a lot of whores", what, exactly, is the point of running with this non-story? I guess it gives some people the opportunity to defend Miley's apparently maligned integrity by pointing out "I don't know who this little slut-wanna-be IS but it's definately NOT Miley! She only vaguely resembles her.
Shame on you for insinuating it is to fool people and slander that sweet wholesome girl (the REAL Miley)."
Which brings me to another point... who fucking cares if it is Miley?!
They're pictures of a young girl with her *gasp* stomach showing! Or of her *swoon*, exposing part of her bra! Are we supposed to labor under the idiotic and repeated disproven notion that teenagers don't explore their sexuality? Are we supposed to continue plugging our ears and covering our eyes and singing that tired tune "Good girls don't do that!"?
Thank the gods that there are articles about important things like Julianne Moore's sheer top, FHM's "sexiest woman in the world" award, and the always progressive "guess who's wearing this bikini" game to distract me. There's just not enough coverage of women's bodies and sex and slut-shaming in the popular culture. So, to that end, thank you Huff-Po.
Very progressive, indeed.
Also, why does the headline state this as fact, when the first line of the damn article makes it clear that, well, it's not clear that they're of Miley at all?
Outside of giving readers an opportunity to post such enlightened comments as "I hope she starts doing porn as soon as she turns 18." and "Disney produces a lot of whores", what, exactly, is the point of running with this non-story? I guess it gives some people the opportunity to defend Miley's apparently maligned integrity by pointing out "I don't know who this little slut-wanna-be IS but it's definately NOT Miley! She only vaguely resembles her.
Shame on you for insinuating it is to fool people and slander that sweet wholesome girl (the REAL Miley)."
Which brings me to another point... who fucking cares if it is Miley?!
They're pictures of a young girl with her *gasp* stomach showing! Or of her *swoon*, exposing part of her bra! Are we supposed to labor under the idiotic and repeated disproven notion that teenagers don't explore their sexuality? Are we supposed to continue plugging our ears and covering our eyes and singing that tired tune "Good girls don't do that!"?
Thank the gods that there are articles about important things like Julianne Moore's sheer top, FHM's "sexiest woman in the world" award, and the always progressive "guess who's wearing this bikini" game to distract me. There's just not enough coverage of women's bodies and sex and slut-shaming in the popular culture. So, to that end, thank you Huff-Po.
Very progressive, indeed.
Friday Phallus Fun...
This reads like a joke- I mean, they're "looking to have a firm grip on Government spend"? "They're going to get more column inches"?
And, while they're a real org, that's not the logo on the homepage.
So, my general feeling is that it's a joke (insert pun about "yanking our chain" or "pulling our leg" if you must), but, I have to admit, I giggled. Yes, it's fifth grade penis humor, but it's also fifth grade penis humor done with fonts.
And fonts are fun.
And, while they're a real org, that's not the logo on the homepage.
So, my general feeling is that it's a joke (insert pun about "yanking our chain" or "pulling our leg" if you must), but, I have to admit, I giggled. Yes, it's fifth grade penis humor, but it's also fifth grade penis humor done with fonts.
And fonts are fun.
And I thought McCain's "I'm like Teddy" comments were bad...
h/t Latoya at Racialicious
So, let's play a game...
One of these things is not like the others.
Joe Francis is making my blood boil again, this time from the pages of a GQ men.style.com feature. How is it that, even from fucking prison, this jackass just can't shut up? The good news is that this article makes it even clearer, if that's possible, just how completely relentless his assholery is.
There's a particularly amusing bit where he's talking about his time in jail, and how it's not what he expected. He talks about how he's "a god" on the inside- that he's revered like a rock star because of his association with Girls Gone Wild. But, he continues: "The one thing I fear is one of these fucking people showing up at my house. I’m a different class. They’re dumb. They’re the people you see on Cops. Those are the people you see in jail."
Hey, Francis, speaking of "dumb"?
You're in jail, too.
Twit.
Still, that passage is really significant, in my mind. Not just because it's quickly followed by his making an incredibly inappropriate remark towards a female guard (who, according to the author, "gives him that disapproving-but-flattered half frown."), but because I think it's a strong message about how we treat and view people like Francis. Here's a man who has made a name for himself by being a violent, abusive maniac. Oh, yes, Girls Gone Wild is what started it all, but it's not GGW that made him a public figure- there are thousands of pornographers who never gain a fraction of the notoriety that Francis has.
Why?
Because Francis goes out of his way to abuse, humiliate, and intimidate everyone he comes in contact with. The Times article was the first time I really started to learn about who this guy was, and every interview he gives, every appearence he makes just further cements the perosna he's cultivated. Even the GQ article mentions it a few times- he's portrayed and plays up this image of being "a 15-year-old boy who just can't help himself". He's the very image of "boys will be boys", grown up.
If ever there was somebody who more purely embodied that ideal, and just how dangerous it is, it's Francis. Even the GQ article, which seems at times weirdly sympathetic towards Francis, makes note of how manic the guy is, and how it'd probably be good for society if jail broke him a little bit. We ought not tolerate a 15-year-old acting like Francis does. The lack of self control would be enough to get most of us in trouble at that age. And Francis isn't 15. He's over twice that.
But Francis's personal douchebaggery is only part of the problem... and not even the biggest part. That Francis is an asshole is a personal failing, and it should be enough to get him ostracized, and has clearly been enough to get him in trouble with the law. But the sad fact is that it's also made him a celeb. As he points out, he's "a god" in prison. These are people he despises- he calls them idiots, and does everything he can to avoid them, but they still treat him like a rock star?
Latoya quotes the most impressive display of clueless assholery from Francis over at Racialicious, and I think it's worth repeating. It comes on page four, when Francis begins talking about the people he considers enemies:
1. When you attempt to point out a similarity between yourself or your situation, and someone like Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ and their situations, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to them. When you suggest that your legal troubles and the fight you've picked are somehow similar to Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to him.
And you, sir, are no Martin Luther King Jr.
2. You're an unpopular person because you're an asshole, a liar, a rapist, and a violent maniac. There's a very significant difference between being an unpopular person because you're challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equal rights, and being an unpopular person because you're a violent rapist asshole who cheated on his taxes. Oddly enough, I find myself seriously lacking in sympathy for the second.
The article is disturbing, and I think that the author misses the mark when he tries to claim that Francis's "real passion is dominating other men." It may be true that he has a passion for that, as well, but his disregard and hatred of women is so thick, you'd need a machete to get through it.
And, seriously? He spent a year in a detention center that let him order pizza?!
*sigh*
Yeah, that's justice.
So, let's play a game...
One of these things is not like the others.
Joe Francis is making my blood boil again, this time from the pages of a GQ men.style.com feature. How is it that, even from fucking prison, this jackass just can't shut up? The good news is that this article makes it even clearer, if that's possible, just how completely relentless his assholery is.
There's a particularly amusing bit where he's talking about his time in jail, and how it's not what he expected. He talks about how he's "a god" on the inside- that he's revered like a rock star because of his association with Girls Gone Wild. But, he continues: "The one thing I fear is one of these fucking people showing up at my house. I’m a different class. They’re dumb. They’re the people you see on Cops. Those are the people you see in jail."
Hey, Francis, speaking of "dumb"?
You're in jail, too.
Twit.
Still, that passage is really significant, in my mind. Not just because it's quickly followed by his making an incredibly inappropriate remark towards a female guard (who, according to the author, "gives him that disapproving-but-flattered half frown."), but because I think it's a strong message about how we treat and view people like Francis. Here's a man who has made a name for himself by being a violent, abusive maniac. Oh, yes, Girls Gone Wild is what started it all, but it's not GGW that made him a public figure- there are thousands of pornographers who never gain a fraction of the notoriety that Francis has.
Why?
Because Francis goes out of his way to abuse, humiliate, and intimidate everyone he comes in contact with. The Times article was the first time I really started to learn about who this guy was, and every interview he gives, every appearence he makes just further cements the perosna he's cultivated. Even the GQ article mentions it a few times- he's portrayed and plays up this image of being "a 15-year-old boy who just can't help himself". He's the very image of "boys will be boys", grown up.
If ever there was somebody who more purely embodied that ideal, and just how dangerous it is, it's Francis. Even the GQ article, which seems at times weirdly sympathetic towards Francis, makes note of how manic the guy is, and how it'd probably be good for society if jail broke him a little bit. We ought not tolerate a 15-year-old acting like Francis does. The lack of self control would be enough to get most of us in trouble at that age. And Francis isn't 15. He's over twice that.
But Francis's personal douchebaggery is only part of the problem... and not even the biggest part. That Francis is an asshole is a personal failing, and it should be enough to get him ostracized, and has clearly been enough to get him in trouble with the law. But the sad fact is that it's also made him a celeb. As he points out, he's "a god" in prison. These are people he despises- he calls them idiots, and does everything he can to avoid them, but they still treat him like a rock star?
Latoya quotes the most impressive display of clueless assholery from Francis over at Racialicious, and I think it's worth repeating. It comes on page four, when Francis begins talking about the people he considers enemies:
His enemies list has grown as he sits in jail, and it was recently expanded to include Access Hollywood reporter Maria Menounos, who did an interview Francis didn’t like. “She called me the ‘ever defiant Joe Francis,’ ” he howls. “Fuck yeah, I’m defiant! It’s like that defiant Rosa Parks won’t give up her seat. Fuck you, Maria. The ever defiant Nelson Mandela just can’t stand apartheid. The ever defiant Martin Luther King. The ever defiant Jesus Christ. You fucking stupid whore. If I saw Maria Menounos, I’d punch her in the face.”
As the tirade ends, he quietly starts repairing the phone he busted by banging it against the glass. “I’m not comparing myself to Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ. I’m comparing myself to someone standing up for their rights,” he says. “I’m just saying you can have an unpopular person who is criminalized and demonized. Jesus Christ was crucified by Pontius Pilate at my age. He was not a popular guy.”
1. When you attempt to point out a similarity between yourself or your situation, and someone like Rosa Parks or Jesus Christ and their situations, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to them. When you suggest that your legal troubles and the fight you've picked are somehow similar to Martin Luther King Jr.'s fight, you are, in fact, comparing yourself to him.
And you, sir, are no Martin Luther King Jr.
2. You're an unpopular person because you're an asshole, a liar, a rapist, and a violent maniac. There's a very significant difference between being an unpopular person because you're challenging the status quo in the pursuit of equal rights, and being an unpopular person because you're a violent rapist asshole who cheated on his taxes. Oddly enough, I find myself seriously lacking in sympathy for the second.
The article is disturbing, and I think that the author misses the mark when he tries to claim that Francis's "real passion is dominating other men." It may be true that he has a passion for that, as well, but his disregard and hatred of women is so thick, you'd need a machete to get through it.
And, seriously? He spent a year in a detention center that let him order pizza?!
*sigh*
Yeah, that's justice.
Thursday, April 24, 2008
A note on apologies...
Apologizing is hard to do.
It's not fun to realize that you've fucked up. It's not a great feeling to be told that you were wrong. Hell, it's not really that great to be wrong. But, the reality is that we're all human, and we're going to make mistakes. And when the time comes, I think that the ability to stand up and take responsibility for our mistakes and to say "I was wrong" is really important.
But, the thing about apologies is that they don't mean jack all if they're not sincere. Now, a lot of times, particularly if you've really screwed up, the sincerity of an apology is going to be under question. After all, if you've made a major mess of things, there are likely some hurt and/or angry people questioning you and your motives. Which is to be expected. Part of making a sincere apology is realizing that people may or may not accept your apology. If you've hurt people, they're under no obligation to read your apology and say "Oh, well then, that's fine."
And it should go without saying, but clearly doesn't, insincere apologies are no apology at all. Case in point: Racialicious has a post up about an article appearing at cornellWATCH. A blogger there put up an April Fool's post that was allegedly intended as satire. It was some pretty vile and insensitive stuff. The blogger apologized, and removed the offending article, and later met with members of the Asian and Asian American Center, and issued a more comprehensive apology.
Meanwhile, over at Feministing, Jessica posted about a particularly vitriolic (and idiotic) letter she received from the Public Relations Officer of the Southern Illinois University College Republicans. In the comment thread, the author of the letter, Alex Kochno, eventually showed up to offer an apology, and inform the thread that he had resigned from his position with the College Republicans.
Now, the apologies themselves aren't what I'm particularly interested in. As far as apologies go, they're... well... they're apologies. It's what happened after the apologies that I think is interesting. When people didn't immediately throw out their anger and welcome Mulvihill's apology with open arms, the blogger responded:
Likewise, in the Feministing thread, Kochno responded:
Now, here's the thing... if you've fucked up, and if you've hurt people with your words? Yeah, you don't get to be pissy and short with the people who are angry at you. You don't get to cry "let it go" or "could you please accept that" like they're unreasonable for being upset. And, really, how pathetic does it make an apology look when you follow it up with that, anyway?
I'm still up in the air about whether a shitty apology is worse than no apology at all, but neither is good.
edited- 4:27
Or, as Kristen points out (taking 561 words down to 5):
"You're not entitled to acceptance."
Precisely.
It's not fun to realize that you've fucked up. It's not a great feeling to be told that you were wrong. Hell, it's not really that great to be wrong. But, the reality is that we're all human, and we're going to make mistakes. And when the time comes, I think that the ability to stand up and take responsibility for our mistakes and to say "I was wrong" is really important.
But, the thing about apologies is that they don't mean jack all if they're not sincere. Now, a lot of times, particularly if you've really screwed up, the sincerity of an apology is going to be under question. After all, if you've made a major mess of things, there are likely some hurt and/or angry people questioning you and your motives. Which is to be expected. Part of making a sincere apology is realizing that people may or may not accept your apology. If you've hurt people, they're under no obligation to read your apology and say "Oh, well then, that's fine."
And it should go without saying, but clearly doesn't, insincere apologies are no apology at all. Case in point: Racialicious has a post up about an article appearing at cornellWATCH. A blogger there put up an April Fool's post that was allegedly intended as satire. It was some pretty vile and insensitive stuff. The blogger apologized, and removed the offending article, and later met with members of the Asian and Asian American Center, and issued a more comprehensive apology.
Meanwhile, over at Feministing, Jessica posted about a particularly vitriolic (and idiotic) letter she received from the Public Relations Officer of the Southern Illinois University College Republicans. In the comment thread, the author of the letter, Alex Kochno, eventually showed up to offer an apology, and inform the thread that he had resigned from his position with the College Republicans.
Now, the apologies themselves aren't what I'm particularly interested in. As far as apologies go, they're... well... they're apologies. It's what happened after the apologies that I think is interesting. When people didn't immediately throw out their anger and welcome Mulvihill's apology with open arms, the blogger responded:
Clearly, this is a very emotional subject for a lot of Asian-Americans, and I didn’t realize that. I’m sorry that I played around with stereotypes, and made fun of an ethnic group. Apparently this isn’t enough for you guys–what more do you want? You are reading a lot more into this than is necessary. Please let it go.
I signed the note. Happy?
Likewise, in the Feministing thread, Kochno responded:
You are absolutely right I thought of that after the post basically everybody that is offended by my remarks I am deeply sorry about that now could you please accept that.
Now, here's the thing... if you've fucked up, and if you've hurt people with your words? Yeah, you don't get to be pissy and short with the people who are angry at you. You don't get to cry "let it go" or "could you please accept that" like they're unreasonable for being upset. And, really, how pathetic does it make an apology look when you follow it up with that, anyway?
I'm still up in the air about whether a shitty apology is worse than no apology at all, but neither is good.
edited- 4:27
Or, as Kristen points out (taking 561 words down to 5):
"You're not entitled to acceptance."
Precisely.
Friday, April 18, 2008
That's my idea of "brainless" reading too!
Over at Racialicious, there's a post up about the rereleases of Sweet Valley High. Now, while I was never particularly inclined to read Sweet Valley High (I'm going to guess I wasn't the target market, there), I'm pretty sure my sister did. I may ask her about it.
But, the thing that actually really caught my attention was comment number one: My idea of "brainless" reading was Christopher Pike... which in retrospect probably can be torn down as much as SVH.
I looooved Christopher Pike!
And, yeah... I'm going to guess that there are probably some problems in the old Pike books. As I recall, they were very white and very heterocentric. The Final Friends series are the only books I can remember of his that strongly featured any characters who weren't... well... white. And of course they (Nick and Maria, I think?) end up dating. Who else would they date?
Still, I'm tempted to go find my copies and reread them. It's possible that they're better than I suspect. But I doubt it. Looking back, I seem to recall that a most of the characters were sort of annoying stereotypes. There were, as I recall, a whole lot of upper-middle class white girls obsessed with being popular and pretty, and guys who were into sports, or were outcast nerds. Probably a lot like Saved By the Bell meets Nightmare on Elm Street. Or something.
I make no promises, but if I find a Pike book while I'm packing... I may give it a quick read.
But, the thing that actually really caught my attention was comment number one: My idea of "brainless" reading was Christopher Pike... which in retrospect probably can be torn down as much as SVH.
I looooved Christopher Pike!
And, yeah... I'm going to guess that there are probably some problems in the old Pike books. As I recall, they were very white and very heterocentric. The Final Friends series are the only books I can remember of his that strongly featured any characters who weren't... well... white. And of course they (Nick and Maria, I think?) end up dating. Who else would they date?
Still, I'm tempted to go find my copies and reread them. It's possible that they're better than I suspect. But I doubt it. Looking back, I seem to recall that a most of the characters were sort of annoying stereotypes. There were, as I recall, a whole lot of upper-middle class white girls obsessed with being popular and pretty, and guys who were into sports, or were outcast nerds. Probably a lot like Saved By the Bell meets Nightmare on Elm Street. Or something.
I make no promises, but if I find a Pike book while I'm packing... I may give it a quick read.
Wednesday, April 16, 2008
Castration as punishment...
Fox News (I hate to link them) is reporting that the LA senate passed a bill yesterday, 32-3, that gives judges the ability to add subject convicted sex-crime offenders to chemical castration after a first offense, and requires it for repeat offenders. Convicted criminals will have the option to opt for surgical castration instead of chemical, if they desire.
I'm still thinking about this, but I have to admit that it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. More after I've had time to figure out what, exactly, I think.
In the meantime... your thoughts?
I'm still thinking about this, but I have to admit that it makes me profoundly uncomfortable. More after I've had time to figure out what, exactly, I think.
In the meantime... your thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
