In a way his Trumpism is understandable, because I know he is continually annoyed by having to attend seminars about pronouns, sensitivity, etc., as part of his medical training. I think his perspective is that the majority of people don't know what sacrifice is and wouldn't be so concerned with political correctness had they ever been exposed to the real underbelly of the world (in a way that a Ranger with war experience has been).

This is, and has always been, the most bullshit excuse I've ever experienced.

Seminar presenter: "Maybe just don't treat people like shit?"

your bud: "Fuck that, these trans people who get disproportionately murdered and have often been completely disowned by the people who are supposed to care about them through thick and thin, are overrepresented in the military, and are disproportionately likely to experience homelessness, abuse, sex work, etc have never seen the real underbelly of the world like I have! They've never made any sacrifices ever! They can't possibly know what real life is like! They just need to toughen up!"

The inability for people like your friend to see past their own nose is astounding. My brother is a veteran with some pretty ugly PtSD, and he had been one of my biggest supporters, because he gets it. He doesn't want other people to feel the shitty things he's felt. He'd rather no one had to.

It costs your friend literally nothing to treat a trans person as a person, and treat them with respect. Instead he and his ego choose to create further suffering in a shitty world because he doesn't believe they've suffered enough to demand his pity.

Hey. It's been a while.

I'm on month number ... 6 (and a half) of unemployed/CERB. In that time I have

- learned python3, including pandas, some numpy (mostly pyplot and seaborn), and some machine learning stuff to predict future patterns in data (mostly economic).

- learned basic SQL

- started to work my way through JavaScript

- written most of a novel (still working on it)

- released my first short fiction with a price tag attached to it (2 bucks - if you're interested in a smutty WLW romance let me know)

- had a poem accepted to a local zine called "Kill Your Lawn"

- written some other shorts that will need some editing but that can be sent out to submission calls.

- replaced the clutch in my car (my dad was a huge help)

- had, and recovered from, an orchidectomy ( a kind of bottom surgery for trans women)

- learned how to sew

- Had one roommate break lease and leave early (My other roommate and I said Yay!)

- Had another roommate move in, then promptly die of a heart attack. (this was very unfortunate)

- helped coordinate said roommate's family's access to the townhouse so that they could take their time moving out his stuff (he had a lot of stuff)

I'm sure there are other things, too. Despite the length of that list it feels like I've not done all that much. It's been very hard to play music lately, especially the bass. I've been playing cello at socially distanced baroque jams on a friend's patio once a week - potent potables required, seriousness discouraged.

As other writer friends have said, if I wrote a year like this into a book it would be dismissed by editors as unbelievable and unrealistic. A lot of things are really wrong. To grasp at any silver lining at all, at least this pandemic has highlighted the stark distance between those who can make a living in my country, and those who can't, and how much our disability system and employment insurance (our version of unemployment) have suffered a death by 1,000 cuts over the years. The need to reinvest in ourselves, as a country, has become obvious.

Hope you guys are surviving. Things are hard everywhere.

Idunno, man, these grammar conversations are crazy to me.

I steal a descriptor from my friend, who is in linguistics, and describe myself as a Grammar punk. To quote them:

"Language is inherently based in communication- it is understanding in structure, not structure for structure's sake

If you understand what someone is saying and choose to be difficult about it for the sake of correctness, you're being a loathsome pedant."

The point of language is to be understood, and to me it doesn't matter what length of dash you use. Yes, the semicolons are incorrect, and they do prevent understanding. But dashes?

And like, I'm in a Historical Performance program. It is the subset of classical music for musical pedants. They have arguments about the correct amount of commas needed in their tuning, and where your 3rd and 6th intervals should be depending on time and location in Europe. Despite that level of daily pedantry, the concept of em vs en vs hyphen in a real world situation is still a bit mind blowing to me.

I think this game is an interesting response to the original manifesto as well

I call Scotland "dude" because I'm from California, and she and I have that kind of comfort in our relationship.

For the record, I consider "dude" to be gender neutral ;)

The real question is, am I rude or inconsiderate or diminishing if I don't remember your gender preference and preferred pronoun to put in front of "coffeesp00ns"?

I'm honestly asking. I have no idea of ooli or War or rd95 or snoodog's gender, and only know Elizabeth's and Lil's because of their names, and know kleinbl00's because I know the guy in person.

IMO, no, you're not being inconsiderate. The nature of online discourse means that gender is generally a lot less relevant unless it is inherently a part of the topic being discussed - which is how it should be IRL as well. If we were in public, however, and I had spoken with you and told you the pronouns I wanted you to use, and presented as female, and you still used "he/him" for me, I'd probably be seriously uncomfortable.

The most important thing to do? If you don't know - ASK. I have never met a trans person who would be more upset by you asking their gender than they would be by you getting their gender wrong. And if you mess it up the second time around, just correct and don't make a big deal - We're way more scared than you are.

I do think it's a good case of due diligence to look up some of the linguistics behind trans stuff, just because It's not really going away any time soon so far as i can see. So, like email and internet and cell phone, it's something we all have to learn. the same thing might become the case if the community and/or english scholars can decide on what gender neutral pronoun to use (probably singular they because our language already sort of supports it - like taking advantage of a weird compatibility in a program).

So here's a basic rundown on some stuff that, if you know, makes wading through conversations

Transgender person - Someone whose gender differs from the one their doctor put on their birth certificate.

Trans(gender) woman - Someone who previously used he/him pronouns who now uses she/her pronouns. That person could have been assigned male by their doctor at birth, or possibly had unclear genitalia at birth and was raised as a male. Regardless, they now will likely be going by female pronouns.

Trans(gender) man - Someone who previously used she/her pronouns who now uses he/him pronouns. That person could have been assigned female by their doctor at birth, or possibly had unclear genitalia at birth and was raised as a female. Regardless, they now will likely be going by male pronouns.

genderqueer - One of many words used to describe people who don't feel strongly as either male or female. An example might be someone who dresses very androgynously and uses they/them pronouns.

Cisgender - Cis is the opposite of the latin Trans - Cisalpine Gaul, for example, meaning the area of Gaul on the Roman side of the Alps, and Trans Atlantic meaning across the Atlantic Ocean. A Cisgender person is someone whose gender is the same as the one the doctor put on their birth certificate. That means that a cisgender man will likely, but not exclusively have XY chromosomes and a cisgender woman will likely, but not exclusively have XX chromosomes. Chromosomes, and genetics, are complicated.

I gotta wonder if the gendering of anybody is really of material value

I mean, in a perfect world gender wouldn't be a factor in how we talk about each other. Men and women would exist perfectly equally. Trans people would still exist, but their taking of hormones to change their body wouldn't be a social issue, just a private one.

However, we don't live in that world. We live in a world where we put people into boxes because humans like little tidy boxes. Turns out that the world of human gender doesn't fit into our two box system of male and female, or even into some other cultures' Three gender box (though more boxes is likely better). So we are currently at a cultural turning point where we have to deal with trans people again. It's happened before (see the Weimar Republic for a recent example), and our choice has been to sweep trans people under the rug - Hopefully we can prevent that from happening again and start to change the way we look at gender.

Hope some of this helps.

here you go thenewgreen - I think you could do the vocals better, they're very you.

I'm sorry artie, this turned into a monster.

'sp00ns

_____

you know what the fun thing about the history of Jazz is? The way I see it, it's basically the same story as classical music, condensed into 150 years or so. The story of a continued "harmonic breakdown" - basically things get more chromatic over time.

This is, of course, incredibly simplified and leaves out a lot - but the parallels are there.

We start off with a rigidly structured music, the Blues. Even though there are improvisatory elements in Blues music, the chord progression is almost always identical: I--IV-V-I. If you're not musically literate, those roman numerals won't make sense to you, but they're essentially the building blocks of all western art music.

This mirrors, in a lot of ways, the earliest periods of music in Europe that are in the scope of Classical tradition - Gregorian Chant. You know, this stuff:

very harmonically simple, and the words are the most important part. Blues is the same - a repeating chord rhythm, where the words are what differentiate each song.

After this, Classical Music had this intensely complicated period called Baroque. I'm no scholar of Jazz specifically, but as far as I know, Jazz never had a whole lot like that, but this period does have one element in common with baroque - the solidification of group sizes, and the creation of musical "forms"(like blueprints) . In the 1800s, The US gains Louisiana and Florida in a series of diplomatic sales and land grabs. On this land are slaves previously under Spanish and French rule - Creole (some of whom have been absorbing traditions from their owners, or even playing European Classical music to entertain them) -, and a group of people who had been expelled from Upper Canada in the 1700s - Acadians, or as we know them, Cajun. Over time, with lower class intermingling, Blues music begins to absorb all of these traditions. This is where we get this:

At the same time, after the Civil War, dance halls are becoming popular. African Americans, having more free time since, you know, not being slaves, begin to blend their music with dance culture. Musicians, employed to process in funerals, start to form bands.

You'll notice harmony is still pretty simple, but has a little bit more going on. There's even a few short solos. Armstrong was a relic of an older kind of Jazz. Even though he lived a long time, and performed until quite late in life, his style is always very reminiscent of 20's Jazz. Indeed, his style of trumpet playing defined how trumpeters played in Jazz for a long time, until he wasn't cool anymore. Because he was so popular with white audiences, he unintentionally became a kind of "Uncle Tom" figure in jazz late in his life, at which point people really began to pull away from his playing style. Just like Haydn, he started ahead of his time, and ended as a relic.

Cue: The Great War, the subsequent depression, and WW2. Music, and dancing fuelled by Live bands in particular was cheap and popular. Prohibition also helped things along, giving lots of venues for bands to play in. Majority white audiences are starting to catch on to this Jazz thing. Jazz composers such as Ellington start to appear (I'm jumping over a lot here to try to keep this short), and they begin creating larger bands, to give themselves more music tools for composition. To pander to Audiences, "Big Band" jazz is much more... genteel?

Like Beethoven before him, Ellington is not content to simply walk in the back entrance like a servant. He wants for be treated like the musical genius he knows he is. He and his band might be going town to town in beat up old cars, but damn if they don't look fine doing it.

We've moved into Jazz's " romantic period" here (depending on how one defines "romantic period" in classical music) the first threads in the sweater of Jazz's tonality are being pulled, and solos are getting longer, becoming more integral to the music.

After the war, Big bands start to lose steam. Trying to keep a 20-piece band employed is a lot more difficult than keeping a 4-piece employed. When you've just got 4 or 5 dudes, it's also a lot easier to experiment.

Then, just as Jazz is getting intensely chromatic and complicated, it simplifies - Like Classical, it's "neoclassical" period hearkens back to an earlier time. In concept, this piece:

and this piece:

have a lot in common, hearkening back to old music, old traditions. It's reactionary to the increasing chromaticism and complication. the chord progressions are simpler (though still tinged with more modern harmonies) and so are the forms. This strain still exists in a lot of ways, just like neoclassical music never really went away, even through the seriously avant-garde shit.

avant gard shit like this:

and this:

or alteratively this:

(the singing is out of tune on purpose)

It's really in this avant garde stuff that has the elements you're talking about - extreme technicality, "free" chromaticism, and stuff that is kind of hard to understand if you're not steeping yourself in it constantly. A lot of jazz being played right now is not like that - just like a lot of classical Music is not like that.

Regarding Buddy Rich: Buddy Rich was a great drummer. He was also a supreme asshole, who grew up in a time when conductors and band leaders were god when it came to the ensemble. Arturo Toscanini is the most egregious example of this in the 20th century - Messiah Complex if there ever was one. So he acted like God, and bossed a lot of people around. So did Stevie Wonder, so did Billy Joel - They made a lot more money, and were at least as good musicians.

As I mentioned to you in my PM, I'll talk with you out here, not because I've got something against private conversation, but because I am a.) unashamed of who I am, because there is nothing "wrong" with me, and b.) willing to be an educator, and If i'm going to be an educator, it might as well be in a classroom, and not in a private session.

The biggest and most important thing I'd like to impress upon you - and really if you get ABSOLUTELY NOTHING out of this conversation other than this fundamental point - is point B. Not the whole thing, just this part:

willing to be an educator

The key word is willing. Not every person in a minority is willing, interested, or able to be an educator. On top of that, it is not your right to have an educator. That phrase can sound a little B.S., but the basic concept comes down to this - there is a difference between "I'd like to know about this, can you tell me more?" and "I need you to explain this to me. If I don't get it, then it's not a thing."

You've not really said either of these things, but you did say,

Conversely, if I didn't take the time to post my doubts, you wouldn't have been able to further attempt to educate me on the issue, and by proxy, anyone else feeling confused about the matter. When people stay quiet on a matter that concerns them, they're stifling their own personal growth, because they're isolating themselves from healthy feedback from people who think differently.

and yes, this is true. However, it is not minimum_wage's job to educate you or anyone else, especially when the information is relatively widely available, and no harder to get a hold of than when you were writing a paper in high school.

So seriously, that's like the "sunscreen good, no sunscreen bad" of communicating with people who are part of a minority, or anyone really - young, old, male, female, anyone whose experience in life is different from yours.

But I'm not here to shit on you, nor for you to feel shit on, which is just as bad as actually being shit on. So let's move on, though it might not feel a whole lot like moving on.

I've got another stumbling block that we're going to have to get over - and this one's a doosey for a lot of people, especially because of the questions it raises the further we get into this discussion (a lot of which get answered with "genetics is complicated").

That stumbling block is this: Gender Binary doesn't exist outside of the societal construct we are familiar with.

What we are all taught in school (and which is reinforced by lots of things in our society, such as gendered marketing), that XY is male and XX is female, and never the twain shall change, is a huge simplification of what we know and have observed about humans and how our chromosomes work. Just zip down to the bottom of this wiki article on Kleinfelter's Syndrome and you'll begin to see what I mean. XXY,XXYY, XYY, XO... It's like a bad game of tic tac toe down there. All of these things are genetic disorders which are completely ignored by a gender binary that says "XY male, XX female". Like, what does that make these other people, some of whom present and are raised male, some of whom present and are raised female.

(side note: when I say "present" here, i mean "how they are generally perceived in the world". It's fewer letters that way, and it's sort of part of the "lingo".)

Now, hidden in that list of chromosomal disorders are two that are really interesting for the topic at hand:

XX male syndrome - in which someone looks like a guy, and develops as a guy, but is sterile and may have small testicles.

Kleinfelter Syndrome - as mentioned above. XXY chromosomes, and the most common Chromosomal disorder. Between 1:500 and 1:1000 men have this condition. that means there are approximately 318 000 men in the USA with this condition, as a conservative estimate. from the wiki -

Often symptoms may be subtle and many people do not realize they are affected. Sometimes symptoms are more prominent and may include weaker muscles, greater height, poor coordination, less body hair, smaller genitals, breast growth, and less interest in sex.

This is leaving Hermaphroditism completely off the table, even though it relates here for similar reasons.

Also of interest is Androgen Insensitivity syndrome - in which an XY karyotype human has difficulties absorbing the proper amount of testosterone. It's also pretty common at 2-5:100,000. It has 3 forms, Mild, Partial and Complete insensitivity, varying in intensity. Someone with a Mild form might have malformed sperm, but also be less hairy than usual and have a higher voice. Partial insensitivity is a wide specturm (there's a scale from 1-7, and it usually includes levels 2-5). with PAIS you could look like anything from a man with a small penis and some breast development (not unlike Kleinfelter's) to a masculine looking woman with a large clitoris.

You already know what complete insensitivity looks like, because I showed you. I lied to you in this paragraph:

What we are all taught in school (and which is reinforced by lots of things in our society, such as gendered marketing), that XY is male and XX is female,

under XX is a picture of a woman named Eden Atwood. She is a woman with CAIS. She is an XY karyotype human who developed from the womb as a female. While she is not one of them, there are cases of XY women giving birth, and even one case where and XY woman gave birth to another XY woman - That shit's a scholarly journal, not Ripley's Believe it or Not.

I might as well let the cat out of the bag with the other picture, too. I couldn't find any pictures of XX men (it's not a super common syndrome), so I put in a Picture of Buck Angel, famous Trans Man porn star. Buck is born XX, and transitioned in his... 20s i think?

All of this is to say - The human body is INCREDIBLY COMPLICATED. People often ask the question of "How do Trans People exist?" when really, the question should be "With all the other crazy shit our genetics do, why are we surprised that trans people exist?"

So, that was a lot of writing. I hope you got through it with most of your brain intact - It's a lot to take in.

Trans people, for a minority that represents an estimated 1% of the population, are surprisingly well researched (or surprisingly poor researched, depending on your perspective). The TranScience Paperdex is an incomplete list of the studies that a have been done regarding trans people. Some of them are obviously extremely out of date, but it's an interesting body of work.

Trans people are also nothing new. People cite Christine Jorgensen as a famous early modern case, but really she is just the first trans person that modern western media ever got a hold of. There are many examples of "Third Gender" peoples, all the way from the earliest writings we have in Mesopotamia. Third Gender people are mentioned in the writings of Plato, show up in Old Israeli words, and are even in some current cultures, such as Hijra people in India, and kathoeys in Thailand.

So, now that (hopefully) I've convinced you and others that trans people aren't just mentally ill, or a new fad, onward to specific questions from you.

I don't know if feeling like you're the opposite gender of what you were born is natural or unnatural.

Is feeling like the opposite gender of what you were born "natural"? Yes. It's just not super common.

I don't know if undergoing hormone therapy and even surgery to correct such a feeling is right or wrong.

First I'll point out how much total bullshit there is to get onto hormones in the first place. like, I've been head on the road towards hormones for more than a year and a half, and only recently got onto step 1, which is not full hormones. It required hours of counselling sessions, and repeating my "story" over and over to various people until I got sick of minutiae and created a "Party line" that I used for everything to keep a consistent story. To get Gender reassignment surgery I will likely be on a wait list for over 2 years.

Nothing about this is fast or easy, nor is it a snap decision.

But packed into this is also some other questions - what happens if you don't like it? Can we fix the feeling another way?

Well, we know that giving trans people more of the hormones of their expected Karyotype gender makes them feel worse (nor is there any evidence that hormone imbalance exists in trans people), and we also know that Hormone Therapy is associated with a greater quality of life in trans people.

We, unfortunately, have some pretty decent case examples of what happens when you give someone cross-gender hormones and they don't want them. David Reimer springs to mind, though his whole story is sad and it's not just about cross-gender hormones). Feminizing hormones were also used in the UK as part of the Labouchere Amendment (also known as Section 11). They were used to punish gay men who got caught, by reducing their libido and making them sterile. It played a factor in Alan Turing's suicide.

Basically, if you don't feel better on hormones, then don't take them. You can stop at any time, and many of the effects will reverse (though not all). Hormones are the best treatment we've got for Gender Identity Disorder. There are risks (including things like kidney damage), but hey, it's better than the alternative.

This isn't a "just because we can, doesn't mean we should" situation. this is a "we finally have a way for these people to stop hating themselves" situation, and a "wow, these people have been hiding in corners for centuries and just want to be treated like human beings" situation.

Anyways, this post is long enough, and I'm sure question will come up, so rather than pre-empt them, I'll just let them happen.

What does it mean to be human? It's complicated.

It was a bit oddly worded - Apologies. I was specifically responding to when you said -

I have little interest in the "X axis" of following individuals

I'm not interested in following random people on the internet.

I mean, most of the people except for your family were just "random people in real life" before they became your friends. Is there really a difference, especially now, when digital life has become increasingly more equivalent to "real" life?

I personally don't do much following of people here - I fear the echo chamber of my own experience - But I definitely know people here, and I have a rapport with many. the interactions I have with those people are the reason why I return here.

Every social aggregator has a "thing". It could be "absolute" anonymity, it could be paid membership to ensure quality content, it could be anything. Community, the "X axis", is the "thing" that Hubski has. If the the X axis isn't what you're into, then I don't think you're going to get a whole lot out of the site. Similar content can be found on pretty much any other aggregators, (or in a Newspaper, the analog aggregator), and their functionality might be more like what you're looking for.

Don't get me wrong, i'm not trying to actively dissuade you from hanging out, I'm just trying to impress upon you the general concept of what hubski "is", and how it sees community building with random people on the internet as its strength.

The problem is that absent any cues for affinity, anonymous communities will rally around their aversion to "the other."

Absolutely 100% correct. This has been discussed at length by Hegel, Sartre, and many others less famous. If it wasn't fat people, or trans people, or black people, or arab people, it would be someone else. It seems that humanity is in constant need of an "Other", a bogeyman.

Much of this has to do with how we define ourselves. It is actually a difficult mental task to define ones self by what they are, and significantly more simple to define ourselves by what we are not. "I don't know what I am, but that is NOT it," as it were. As a Canadian, it is interesting to see how much of Canadian culture is built on the premise of "Not America", or "Not the UK". Our "Others" represent what we see the need to define ourselves as not being. It is even easier to do so when that "Other" is a faceless thing, a caricature.

I don't know if this is because of, or if the two concepts are related in how they are treated by the brain, but language has a similar problem.

without visual context, how do you explain what the word "Large" means? when it comes down to it, "large" generally means "Not small". "Small", on the other hand, means "not large". Large could also mean "heavy", but what is heavy but "Not light"? A lot of our descriptive adjectives are defined by what they are not, rather than what they are. Just like us.

Edit: mk, I'm still getting a lot of 502s these days. Is it my connection?

Or it means that gamers do not consider gaming's "sexism" as anything that is particularly troublesome or bad

Because neither This image:

or this image:

Aren't raising problematic expectations? Cartoonishness aside, these extreme caricatures are a serious problem when it comes to the defining of attractiveness in society. Both are completely unrealistic, and If you can't percieve that as "bad" then I have no idea what you percieve "bad" to be.

Gamers have been talking about how stupid games portrayal of women has been for years. Gamers have been talking about how shitty all the COD releases have been for years.

You are right - in some ways. There has been increasing uproar about female costume, especially regarding fantasy Armour for women. However, the companies will keep on making them until gamers stop buying them - It's an economically viable strategy. It has been shown over and over and over again that people will still buy these games. You can say "well real gamers would never buy these games", but the fact is that all those millions of people who buy those games are gamers, even if they don't fit your personal definition. Gaming is not the small, nintendo helpline-calling group of upstarts it once was. Gaming, and gamers, are a Huge cultural and societal portion. With that growth comes the responsibility of dealing with the sexists, misogynists (and even misandrists) who co-opt your title.

Hundreds of games are released every year. I would love to see a list of 20 even remotely popular games from the past ten years that pass the Bechdel Test. It's a simple test: There must be two female characters (some people insist they have to have names), and they must talk about something OTHER than a man. You would be shocked and/or appalled to know how few pieces of media fail this test You would be even more surprised how few would pass if you added "Not talking about children or marriage" to the criteria. Most "nerds" would be unsurprised (though the masses would be) to see how many comic books actually pass.

"But it's about Ethics in Journalism!" (edit: yes I know you did not say this)

Yet you feel inclined to bring it up?

Yes, I do, because this is the smokescreen that is continually thrown up around this issue. People hated Zoe Quinn long before anyone found out she was sleeping around. I don't agree with everything women like Sarkeesian and Wu have to say, far from it, in fact, but I do feel that they shouldn't have to move house to avoid the prank-called SWAT teams, and they shouldn't have to cancel speaking engagements because of mass-murder threats. It's never been about how these women did their business. It has ALWAYS been about what they had to say.

Brian Williams has never publicized or pushed any death threats to the public, never given a platform to them. I am pretty sure there have been death threats involved.

Pretty sure? As you asked me about the things that I said re: harassers, where did you get that critical information? I'm sure that NBC would like to know, and the FBI if they haven't been informed.

People on the internet do this thing, where they be extreme for the sake of getting attention. Give them attention, and you will attract those people, give them a platform, and you will find no end to the ridicule and threats.

And what would you have these women do? Go to the police? they've done that. Ignore them? tried it. Call their mothers? probably tried it.

The inference, by the way, that calling the mothers of twenty-somethings men Is a feminist issue, because it implies a.) that their mother was the primary caretaker, and b.) that these people, not being "real men", need to be chastised by their mother like children.

and regarding my sources for my "image" of these harassers Here's a great article about the "dominance by insult game". that one's about nerd being harassed, but people are doing that same thing online.

Here's another good one, written in response to Scott Aaronsen. It's probably the most on-pointe article i could post to respond to your assertions, though there have been droves of articles written about harassers in psychological journals (unfortunately a lot of them predate our internet culture and make them a little hard to use).

This has nothing to do with anything, the person you are responding to portrayed feminism in a fairly positive light, and only refered to it in a way that spoke of people being against it for false reasons.

I disagree, not that the poster was portraying feminism "in a positive light", but that what I said doesn't have anything to do with what we're talking about. The pivotal problem, as outlined in Arthur Chu's article above, is that shy, nerdy guys attack feminists and feminism because they think it's the problem (even though it isn't).

This is the problem with the idea of Privilege - It's hard to understand you have it when you don't have as much as other people. It's hard, also, to be the person saying "Yes, I understand you're under the poverty line, and have to fight for every single thing you have. Imagine having every single problem you have just outlined to me, and also being black, or also being a trans woman of Colour."

No one wants to hear how it could be "so much worse" than it is, because suffering is not a penis measuring contest. However, you still have to acknowledge those things.

My friend Eden is a clarinet major at my university. She comes from a relatively wealthy family, who bought her a (used) Lexus as the car for her to use to get back and forth to university. Eden also lives in a pretty nice suburb of Cleveland. Eden has also been pulled over and asked if she owns her car. She has shown the officer he license, registration and the title to the vehicle, and not been believed. She has had to wait outside her car while the police phoned her parents and the insurance company to make sure she is whom she says she is. Eden is Black.

I've never asked my friend Theron ( a Steinway Artist) about his experiences, mostly because I don't want to hear about the best jazz pianist I've ever met gets routinely pulled over while going to his high-society Gigs.

The point I'm making with this is that People with "not as much privilege" feel somehow attacked by both sides, because they have no concept of how much worse it could get if they had less privilege.

The point of the photo is making is not that nerds are "lesser" men that can't get a date. It's that nerds are people who [...] become businessmen who make facebook or microsoft.

... you're going to have to clarify this whole section for me, because I feel like we're talking about the same thing. The "basement dweller etc" stereotype is a problem because it infers that people who are enthusiastic about MLP or whatever are somehow lesser in some way.

Meanwhile, the gamers harassing others are the blame of gaming culture. Gamergate is the cause of those sending death threats.

You mistake my point. of course not all gamers are "GamerGate". Most of them are great people. But just like I call out bullshit feminists, you have to call out the bullshit aspects of gamer culture. You've got hold up the mirror to yourselves and point out your problems.

Gamergate, or most people in it, are people who have legitamate concerns and legitimately want to see change in games journalism.

Gurney Halleck is not wrong in saying that the "well of GamerGate has not been poisoned". He is wrong, however, in inferring that it wasn't always poisoned in the first place.

-------------------------

... I don't know why I'm even writing this anymore. I'm at a point where everthing I'm writing is semantics and rebuttal, and I just don't even give enough fucks. bioemerl, I see your perspective on Gamergate, and even if I didn't know you from around hubski already I can see that you are the sort of person who wants positive change. What i'm trying to say is that gamergate is not going to get it. Even if its cause was fundamentally good (which is up for debate), it's got too many bad apples and too many co-opted sections to get itself anywhere other than the derision of the masses. I sometimes think similarly of feminism, but feminism's been around for a hell of a lot longer and keeps kicking, so maybe I'm wrong.

have a good one.

Well, I'm willing to wager your ears are even bigger than mine, so I'll throw in a few things that aren't necessarily my cup of tea, but you might find interesting.

Shostakovich: Complete String Quartets - Emerson String Quartet

Starts out as tonal as Shostakovich ever gets (with Number 1), and end up going to some pretty crazy and dark places. Nothing like Stalinist Russia to bring out the sarcasm in someone.

No. 8 is the most Famous - here's the second movement.

Honorable mention goes to Sonata for Contrabass Solo by Mieczyslaw Weinberg, Op. 108 . A student and colleague of Shostakovich. I'm playing this piece for my master's recital, and there's a great recording on Spotify by Joel Quarrington (also probably available on itunes).

Charles Ives - Piano Sonata no.2 "Concord, Mass. 1840-60"

I have no idea why I like Ives' music. It is WAY out of my wheelhouse in a lot of respects. However, his chamber music is amazing, and the Concord Sonata is no exception.

Honorable mention goes to His Violin Sonatas, which Hilary Hahn recorded a while back. Fantastic recording, available on itunes etc.

Gyorgi Ligeti - Artikulation

One of many electronic pieces by this composer. Tried to find an album, but this stuff in't often sold in stores:

Honorable mention:

Schoenberg: Five Pieces for Orchestra - London Symphony Orchestra with Fred Sherry

Most of the music you're listening to on this list probably wouldn't have been made until much later if not for this guy. He solidified Serial atonal music from a theoretical standpoint, and was one of the first people to use it as a technique to write music.

Honorable mention: Webern - Six orchestral pieces

Student of Schoenberg, well respected in his own right. His opera, Wozzek, is probably one of the most commonly performed modern operas.

Pierre Boulez: Le Marteau Sans Maître

I hate this man. He is, however, well known for his advancement of multiple serialism, in which not just he notes, but rhythms, dynamics, etc. are all set up in serial patterns, derivatives of which are used to compose.

Honorable Mention:

Stravinsky: Rite of Spring (with the ballet if you can for the first listen)

I'm gonna be straight with you, while i love this piece, I legit can't listen to it after dark - it scares the shit out of me. This ballet's production (which is using the original choreography, i think)... doesn't help me with that.

Karlheinz Stockhausen: Elektronische Musik 1952-1960

My friend, you are going to dig the shit out of this.

Honorable mention:

Well, hopefully that will give you some stuff you like, and some composers to look more into.

frankly, it's because it's not a great analogy, because it requires you to know a fair bit about not-from-concentrate orange juice.

To transport NFC juice, they have to take out all of the essential oils, etc. that will spoil in transport. Meaning, if you drank orange juice from the tanker truck, it wouldn't taste like much. Once it gets to wherever it's being bottled, they add all those essences, oils, etc back.

With me so far?

The cool/interesting thing about this, and sort of the thing that makes the analogy, is that these companies will modify what oils and essences they put back in to suit the tastes of that geographic area. Maybe Northern US cities prefer a sweeter orange juice, where in western Canada they prefer a more tangy orange juice. They can modify their mix to suit.

Interestingly, this came up in the news again just a few days ago and I didn't even know until i went looking for sources.

So the analogy makes sense, but only if you know about this one specific thing about NFC orange juice. That makes it probably a bad analogy.

Woah woah woah, deep cleansing breaths, friend. you've misinterpreted the quote you've used.

When he says

I'd be out of a job and miserable - who would I blame, myself, or them?

He's saying, in his theoretical situation "I just got fired for saying x in a context where i hoped to please people. This confused me, and as a result instead of having the desired reaction of regret and positive change, I would be radicalized into becoming angry and whatever subconscious bigotry i did have would become conscious and more fervent as I blamed x minority for my problems."

The worrying part about this interaction is that you've just done exactly what he was positing.

Not everyone who makes a racist joke is exclusively a racist bigot. There are all sorts of things that people say and do because of the innate human desire to be accepted by the group. This doesn't make these actions okay, but it does make explaining to that person why that action is not okay a reasonable first step. If there is evidence of systematic bigotry by that person, then that's a different story, but you've got to see that pattern of behaviour before you can make that judgement.

Like, when someone calls me "a transgendered", or "born a x", it's like, well, that's not strictly accurate, and you take an opportunity to educate in a neutral or positive setting. Or if someone says "I have a tranny friend", it's like, "i don't have a problem with that term, but you gotta know that there are a lot of people who have some serious issues with that term and you gotta be careful with a loaded gun like that in the future".

It's always best, when faced with a morally ambiguous comment, to first assume the best intentions of people, not just on the internet, but in real life as well. For one, not everything comes across properly in text without context and for two sometimes have legitimately no idea that something is offensive (this is far more common than you'd believe).

Getting angry on the internet is even more useless than it is in real life. real social change is the kind of work that requires the channelling of frustration and anger, and the tempering of expectations with time. You can spend your life angry and vitriolic, or you can put that energy into affecting useful positive change in your environment.

It's easy to become cynical in a world where we are inundated with information about how shitty the planet is. As bad as it is, this is STILL the best time to ever be alive as a human. We've never been healthier, happier, better fed, or more egalitarian than we are now. That doesn't matter though, suffering isn't a Penis-measuring contest. the secret to prevent being cynical or encouraging cynical behaviour, I've found, is to give a fuck about the right things. You know the old Alcoholics Anonymous prayer?

   God, grant me the serenity to accept the things I cannot change,
   The courage to change the things I can,
   And the wisdom to know the difference.

Of course, this raises the question of what to give a fuck about, and what makes something the right or wrong thing to give a fuck about. In my opinion, these are one or two of the things you should NOT give a fuck about:

- Things that are "wrong" but that don't directly hurt people (like that really shitty merge about 1/3 of the way through your commute that's always backed up, and you KNOW that if everyone just kept to the lefthand lanes and let people coming onto the highway have room to get up to speed it would be fine but NO ONE ever does that and it makes you crazy because if we were just a LITTLE bit more efficient then we wouldn't have this stupid slow down on my commute and so on and so forth).

- The bad habits that other people have / how other people live their life (if it doesn't directly affect you) . Don't let judgement control your life. Right now there's a girl at my school (she's a sophomore this year). Last year she showed up, super clean cut, a bit bible-thumpy. She started to hang out with a lot of the band kids who were of african descent (to whom I bear no judgement) and this year she showed up with a weave and her best attempts to adopt African american fashion (whatever she percieved that to be in NE Ohio). She's gotten a HUGE amount of weird looks and judgment for it, and I think it's bullshit. I treat her exactly the same as I ever did - I'm not overly friendly, nor am I standoffish. I wave hello in the halls, ask about a day if we happen to be in the elevator together. I see in her my own attempts to find myself and my identity.

Some things you decide to not give a fuck about may even be completely worthwhile, things like charities, or social causes. That's fine, One person can't care deeply about everything, and many people you meet will be upset that you don't care deeply about the same causes they do EVEN IF you try and keep up.

Here are some of the things you SHOULD give a fuck about:

- Things you can change in your daily life that will make your life,and the life of your community better. Social issues that matter to you. Whether it be composting, or talking with your neighbours to create a sense of community, or calling your city counsellor about that sidewalk near 4th and Elm (you know, the one that's weirdly tall? the one Mrs. Patil has a hard time getting over nowadays since she had that fall. You talked to her, so you know that, right?)

- Your hobbies. ALWAYS make time for the things you love to do. thenewgreen is not a professional musician (by which i mean that is not the method by which he makes his living). He is the original definition of Amateur, before it became a bad thing: One who works at and practices something because they love it, not for financial gain. All of the people I know who are displeased with their lives feel that they have no time for their hobbies. Most of them "don't have time" because they don't make time. MAKE TIME for the shit you give a fuck about.

I think all this can be TL:DR'd into "Figure out what you give a fuck about - then give a fuck about it. Then stop giving a fuck about the things that you don't give a fuck about."

My problem with cynicism was that I cared too much, about too much, and the disappointment made me hard of heart. By focusing on causes I truly find worthwhile, and my loves and hobbies, I have been able to find meaning in what I do and become less cynical about my life and place in the universe (that is, an insignificant speck).

then go make some experience, pablo. Go fail some shit. Can you run 3 miles? go try. Can you recite Walt Whitman's "Song of Myself" in its entirety? Speak it now.

I only know you from your presence here, where you leave thought-provoking questions, and thoughtful comments. You're a smart guy with a good head on your shoulders. However, I feel as though, whether you admit it or not, the experiences you are looking for are happening right in front of you and you need to grasp them. If you are dissatisfied with your life experience, then you need to change it. It's obvious that rebellion is going to be difficult in the iPhone GPS era of life, but it IS possible if you decide to do it. Not that "rebellion" per se is even necessary. go join a school club of something you SUCK at. apply to things you KNOW you won't get into. What is the worst that can Happen

   "I celebrate myself, and sing myself, 
   And what I assume you shall assume, 
   For every atom belonging to me as good belongs to you. 
  
   I loafe and invite my soul, 
   I lean and loafe at my ease observing a spear of summer grass. 

   My tongue, every atom of my blood, form'd from this soil, this air, 
   Born here of parents born here from parents the same, and their 
   parents the same, 
   I, now thirty-seven years old in perfect health begin,    
   Hoping to cease not till death. 

   Creeds and schools in abeyance, 
   Retiring back a while sufficed at what they are, but never forgotten, 
   I harbor for good or bad, I permit to speak at every hazard, 
   Nature without check with original energy. "

Is this trying to make the argument that expecting women to not wear yoga pants in a professional environment is wrong?

No, this is trying to make an argument that you can't let what other people are wearing be an excuse for how you treat them. There's a HUGE difference between thinking something and being seemingly unable to control your reaction to your hormones. Yes, as you suggest, this does apply to all sides, and there are people of all genders who get handsy when they see something they like and it's ALWAYS inappropriate, no matter who is doing it.

The problem is that there is a deeply-ingrained culture of acceptance in cis-male and socially conservative groups where, because feminine figures are seen as "inferior" somehow (often not even conciously, but sometimes it's encouraged), masculine figures are allowed to treat them as they please, and do so with impunity. This is not to say that all of the members of the aforementioned groups are like this, but there are enough of them that the problem needs to be pointed out and addressed.

This culture of impunity and superiority is the problem, and I think a lot of it comes from how we culturally view people. People who are attractive must not be intelligent, and must be relying on their good looks to get ahead in life (the opposite also being true of looking down on "overly intelligent" people). As a result we must be superior than them and look down on them, seeing them as deserving of whatever misfortune they come upon. This applies to the "Never misses Leg Day, Do-You-Even-Lift" muscular men as much as it applies to the "My bag matches my Dress which matches my Shoes" pink-loving Barbie Girl, or to the "I seem like an asshole but it's only because I can't figure out how to simplify I know enough for you to understand" Intelligent person (both obviously caricatures for the sake of example). Basically we are Crabs in a Bucket, pulling down anyone who attempts to rise above "Normal" in any way.

We're a really fucked up species.

Hubski bills itself as the "Thoughtful Web", but I think often we are quick to become combative against people (especially new people), when instead if we were more thoughtful and questioning (even interrogative in obvious extreme cases), I feel we would be more successful and deserving of our self-proclaimed moniker. We're all guilty of this on occasion, some of us more or less than others.

Pulling a conversation out of an extreme reaction or especially a short, clipped response is a great way to become more "thoughtful", and improve as a community. The 5 w's (and the "h") are any thoughtful contributor's best tools to create a better user experience for everyone. I think they are useful not just for getting into the "why does this person have this opinion and think this way, etc", but also for showing people that flippant, joke comments without substance aren't good enough. There needs to be context and substance to any top-level comment.

That's not to say that I feel like the conversation can't have humour, but humour must serve the conversation, and not be separated from it with only causal reference to the original topic.

   And indeed there will be time 
   To wonder, "Do I dare?" and, "Do I dare?" 
   Time to turn back and descend the stair, 
   With a bald spot in the middle of my hair— 
   [They will say: "How his hair is growing thin!"] 
   My morning coat, my collar mounting firmly to the chin, 
   My necktie rich and modest, but asserted by a simple pin—
   [They will say: "But how his arms and legs are thin!"] 
   Do I dare 
   Disturb the universe? 
   In a minute there is time 
   For decisions and revisions which a minute will reverse. 

   For I have known them all already, known them all— 
   Have known the evenings, mornings, afternoons, 
   I have measured out my life with coffee spoons; 
   I know the voices dying with a dying fall 
   Beneath the music from a farther room.      
   ----- So how should I presume? 

I identify strongly with the character.