![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
More saved comments, this time not entirely from LJ: ( what counts as 'everyone knows', what to read, and what not to, love and martyrdom, habits, what 'loyalty' doesn't mean )
More saved comments, this time not entirely from LJ: ( what counts as 'everyone knows', what to read, and what not to, love and martyrdom, habits, what 'loyalty' doesn't mean )
In response to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
haikujaguar's post about conventions and professionalism:
I'd rather talk about maturity and responsibility
At most sf conventions, "professional" doesn't have much to do with "program participant". Sunday night at Wiscon,badger2305 pointed out that 26 percent of the con members had been program participants. That includes a lot of us who've never been paid for writing, editing, or illustrating science fiction.
I don't think that I should be held to a lower standard than you, whether we're getting our memberships for free (or at a discount, which is how Wiscon does it) or not: when we agree to be on programming, we are--I hope--agreeing to do it well, to do it for the sake of the subject and the audience rather than merely to advertise ourselves.
At this point, you have probably guessed that we are violently in agreement on most of this. I showed up slightly late for a panel I was on, a few Minicons ago--I forgot to look at my watch, jumped up from a conversation in the hall with an oath, dashed into the room, and was informed that I was moderating. I've also forgiven a fellow panelist for showing up partway through a panel, since it was a 10 a.m. panel and she apologized and explained that her wakeup call hadn't come. Someone else got put on my list of "people I will ask not to be on a panel with" after he threw a temper tantrum partway through a panel we were both on. And I started moderating in self-defense, after another panel with no moderator assigned: there was one panelist who did her best to hijack the discussion, and I realized that I could best keep it on track by interrupting her and asking what the remaining panelists thought and calling on the audience, rather than interrupting her to state my own opinions.
If there's a relevant difference between enthusiastic amateur and (one hopes) enthusiastic pro at an sf con, it's that the pros may feel pressure to be on display and social even when you're not on programming, and the rest of us are perhaps more likely to feel that we can legitimately go back to our rooms and read, or soak in the hot tub, or duck out of the con altogether for a few hours.
In response tomathwhiz78, whose introductory post in the community ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-community.gif)
bisexual was mostly a statement of why he doesn't like the word "bisexual":
The community has to be named something, and while the term "bisexual" is imperfect, it's well enough understood that you found the community, looked at it, and decided it fit you.
Here and now, the commonest English-language term for someone who is attracted to, and/or has sex or relationships with, people of more than one sex is "bisexual." That seems to usefully include someone like me, with a definite gender preference overlapping a strong tendency to fall in love with close friends regardless of gender.
This doesn't mean you can't use other terms for yourself, or even create a community with a name you like better, if the word really bothers you.
(As a side note, your user icon, displayed here, is at least as much labeling as the term "bisexual".)
In response to some excellent comments on feminism and literary theory, bytruepenny:
But it's important to remember that theory is the tool, not the tool-user.
Which is all to say that theory is not and should not be the point. Feminism is.
Well and succinctly put. The goal is to liberate ourselves, not to have better and better descriptions of oppression.
In response topameladean writing about Independence Day and fireworks:
I was walking through the park Friday morning, on my way to the train to work, and heard a low boom somewhere to the south. It took a conscious act of will to tell myself "fireworks. Don't panic" and keep walking. A conscious act of will and the realization that if it was terrorist activity, I wasn't any less safe a few hundred feet further south.
Last night I was expecting that sort of noise--but not at 7 a.m. on Friday morning.
Newsday printed the Declaration--in the original eighteenth-century lettering, and with the signatures--in Friday's paper. I trimmed the edges of that page, and hung it on my office wall: it'll fit in nicely with the general patriotic/flag display tone of the place, and it's something I'm glad to have there.
In response toroadnotes, who was criticizing a book by Nicholas Sparks:
love at first sight is not inherently more valuable than earned love.
If anything, I'd say, the opposite: love at first sight privileges appearance and quick non-verbal communication over friendship and knowledge.
On the other hand, I may just be displaying my own prejudices here, since love at first sight doesn't seem to be something I do, and it's natural for me to believe that my way of loving is preferable.
haikujaguar's post about conventions and professionalism:I'd rather talk about maturity and responsibility
At most sf conventions, "professional" doesn't have much to do with "program participant". Sunday night at Wiscon,
badger2305 pointed out that 26 percent of the con members had been program participants. That includes a lot of us who've never been paid for writing, editing, or illustrating science fiction.I don't think that I should be held to a lower standard than you, whether we're getting our memberships for free (or at a discount, which is how Wiscon does it) or not: when we agree to be on programming, we are--I hope--agreeing to do it well, to do it for the sake of the subject and the audience rather than merely to advertise ourselves.
At this point, you have probably guessed that we are violently in agreement on most of this. I showed up slightly late for a panel I was on, a few Minicons ago--I forgot to look at my watch, jumped up from a conversation in the hall with an oath, dashed into the room, and was informed that I was moderating. I've also forgiven a fellow panelist for showing up partway through a panel, since it was a 10 a.m. panel and she apologized and explained that her wakeup call hadn't come. Someone else got put on my list of "people I will ask not to be on a panel with" after he threw a temper tantrum partway through a panel we were both on. And I started moderating in self-defense, after another panel with no moderator assigned: there was one panelist who did her best to hijack the discussion, and I realized that I could best keep it on track by interrupting her and asking what the remaining panelists thought and calling on the audience, rather than interrupting her to state my own opinions.
If there's a relevant difference between enthusiastic amateur and (one hopes) enthusiastic pro at an sf con, it's that the pros may feel pressure to be on display and social even when you're not on programming, and the rest of us are perhaps more likely to feel that we can legitimately go back to our rooms and read, or soak in the hot tub, or duck out of the con altogether for a few hours.
In response to
mathwhiz78, whose introductory post in the community bisexual was mostly a statement of why he doesn't like the word "bisexual":The community has to be named something, and while the term "bisexual" is imperfect, it's well enough understood that you found the community, looked at it, and decided it fit you.
Here and now, the commonest English-language term for someone who is attracted to, and/or has sex or relationships with, people of more than one sex is "bisexual." That seems to usefully include someone like me, with a definite gender preference overlapping a strong tendency to fall in love with close friends regardless of gender.
This doesn't mean you can't use other terms for yourself, or even create a community with a name you like better, if the word really bothers you.
(As a side note, your user icon, displayed here, is at least as much labeling as the term "bisexual".)
In response to some excellent comments on feminism and literary theory, by
truepenny:But it's important to remember that theory is the tool, not the tool-user.
Which is all to say that theory is not and should not be the point. Feminism is.
Well and succinctly put. The goal is to liberate ourselves, not to have better and better descriptions of oppression.
In response to
pameladean writing about Independence Day and fireworks:I was walking through the park Friday morning, on my way to the train to work, and heard a low boom somewhere to the south. It took a conscious act of will to tell myself "fireworks. Don't panic" and keep walking. A conscious act of will and the realization that if it was terrorist activity, I wasn't any less safe a few hundred feet further south.
Last night I was expecting that sort of noise--but not at 7 a.m. on Friday morning.
Newsday printed the Declaration--in the original eighteenth-century lettering, and with the signatures--in Friday's paper. I trimmed the edges of that page, and hung it on my office wall: it'll fit in nicely with the general patriotic/flag display tone of the place, and it's something I'm glad to have there.
In response to
roadnotes, who was criticizing a book by Nicholas Sparks:love at first sight is not inherently more valuable than earned love.
If anything, I'd say, the opposite: love at first sight privileges appearance and quick non-verbal communication over friendship and knowledge.
On the other hand, I may just be displaying my own prejudices here, since love at first sight doesn't seem to be something I do, and it's natural for me to believe that my way of loving is preferable.
In response to haikujaguar's post about conventions and professionalism:
I'd rather talk about maturity and responsibility
At most sf conventions, "professional" doesn't have much to do with "program participant". Sunday night at Wiscon,badger2305 pointed out that 26 percent of the con members had been program participants. That includes a lot of us who've never been paid for writing, editing, or illustrating science fiction.
I don't think that I should be held to a lower standard than you, whether we're getting our memberships for free (or at a discount, which is how Wiscon does it) or not: when we agree to be on programming, we are--I hope--agreeing to do it well, to do it for the sake of the subject and the audience rather than merely to advertise ourselves.
At this point, you have probably guessed that we are violently in agreement on most of this. I showed up slightly late for a panel I was on, a few Minicons ago--I forgot to look at my watch, jumped up from a conversation in the hall with an oath, dashed into the room, and was informed that I was moderating. I've also forgiven a fellow panelist for showing up partway through a panel, since it was a 10 a.m. panel and she apologized and explained that her wakeup call hadn't come. Someone else got put on my list of "people I will ask not to be on a panel with" after he threw a temper tantrum partway through a panel we were both on. And I started moderating in self-defense, after another panel with no moderator assigned: there was one panelist who did her best to hijack the discussion, and I realized that I could best keep it on track by interrupting her and asking what the remaining panelists thought and calling on the audience, rather than interrupting her to state my own opinions.
If there's a relevant difference between enthusiastic amateur and (one hopes) enthusiastic pro at an sf con, it's that the pros may feel pressure to be on display and social even when you're not on programming, and the rest of us are perhaps more likely to feel that we can legitimately go back to our rooms and read, or soak in the hot tub, or duck out of the con altogether for a few hours.
In response tomathwhiz78, whose introductory post in the community bisexual was mostly a statement of why he doesn't like the word "bisexual":
The community has to be named something, and while the term "bisexual" is imperfect, it's well enough understood that you found the community, looked at it, and decided it fit you.
Here and now, the commonest English-language term for someone who is attracted to, and/or has sex or relationships with, people of more than one sex is "bisexual." That seems to usefully include someone like me, with a definite gender preference overlapping a strong tendency to fall in love with close friends regardless of gender.
This doesn't mean you can't use other terms for yourself, or even create a community with a name you like better, if the word really bothers you.
(As a side note, your user icon, displayed here, is at least as much labeling as the term "bisexual".)
In response to some excellent comments on feminism and literary theory, bytruepenny:
But it's important to remember that theory is the tool, not the tool-user.
Which is all to say that theory is not and should not be the point. Feminism is.
Well and succinctly put. The goal is to liberate ourselves, not to have better and better descriptions of oppression.
In response topameladean writing about Independence Day and fireworks:
I was walking through the park Friday morning, on my way to the train to work, and heard a low boom somewhere to the south. It took a conscious act of will to tell myself "fireworks. Don't panic" and keep walking. A conscious act of will and the realization that if it was terrorist activity, I wasn't any less safe a few hundred feet further south.
Last night I was expecting that sort of noise--but not at 7 a.m. on Friday morning.
Newsday printed the Declaration--in the original eighteenth-century lettering, and with the signatures--in Friday's paper. I trimmed the edges of that page, and hung it on my office wall: it'll fit in nicely with the general patriotic/flag display tone of the place, and it's something I'm glad to have there.
In response toroadnotes, who was criticizing a book by Nicholas Sparks:
love at first sight is not inherently more valuable than earned love.
If anything, I'd say, the opposite: love at first sight privileges appearance and quick non-verbal communication over friendship and knowledge.
On the other hand, I may just be displaying my own prejudices here, since love at first sight doesn't seem to be something I do, and it's natural for me to believe that my way of loving is preferable.
haikujaguar's post about conventions and professionalism:I'd rather talk about maturity and responsibility
At most sf conventions, "professional" doesn't have much to do with "program participant". Sunday night at Wiscon,
badger2305 pointed out that 26 percent of the con members had been program participants. That includes a lot of us who've never been paid for writing, editing, or illustrating science fiction.I don't think that I should be held to a lower standard than you, whether we're getting our memberships for free (or at a discount, which is how Wiscon does it) or not: when we agree to be on programming, we are--I hope--agreeing to do it well, to do it for the sake of the subject and the audience rather than merely to advertise ourselves.
At this point, you have probably guessed that we are violently in agreement on most of this. I showed up slightly late for a panel I was on, a few Minicons ago--I forgot to look at my watch, jumped up from a conversation in the hall with an oath, dashed into the room, and was informed that I was moderating. I've also forgiven a fellow panelist for showing up partway through a panel, since it was a 10 a.m. panel and she apologized and explained that her wakeup call hadn't come. Someone else got put on my list of "people I will ask not to be on a panel with" after he threw a temper tantrum partway through a panel we were both on. And I started moderating in self-defense, after another panel with no moderator assigned: there was one panelist who did her best to hijack the discussion, and I realized that I could best keep it on track by interrupting her and asking what the remaining panelists thought and calling on the audience, rather than interrupting her to state my own opinions.
If there's a relevant difference between enthusiastic amateur and (one hopes) enthusiastic pro at an sf con, it's that the pros may feel pressure to be on display and social even when you're not on programming, and the rest of us are perhaps more likely to feel that we can legitimately go back to our rooms and read, or soak in the hot tub, or duck out of the con altogether for a few hours.
In response to
mathwhiz78, whose introductory post in the community bisexual was mostly a statement of why he doesn't like the word "bisexual":The community has to be named something, and while the term "bisexual" is imperfect, it's well enough understood that you found the community, looked at it, and decided it fit you.
Here and now, the commonest English-language term for someone who is attracted to, and/or has sex or relationships with, people of more than one sex is "bisexual." That seems to usefully include someone like me, with a definite gender preference overlapping a strong tendency to fall in love with close friends regardless of gender.
This doesn't mean you can't use other terms for yourself, or even create a community with a name you like better, if the word really bothers you.
(As a side note, your user icon, displayed here, is at least as much labeling as the term "bisexual".)
In response to some excellent comments on feminism and literary theory, by
truepenny:But it's important to remember that theory is the tool, not the tool-user.
Which is all to say that theory is not and should not be the point. Feminism is.
Well and succinctly put. The goal is to liberate ourselves, not to have better and better descriptions of oppression.
In response to
pameladean writing about Independence Day and fireworks:I was walking through the park Friday morning, on my way to the train to work, and heard a low boom somewhere to the south. It took a conscious act of will to tell myself "fireworks. Don't panic" and keep walking. A conscious act of will and the realization that if it was terrorist activity, I wasn't any less safe a few hundred feet further south.
Last night I was expecting that sort of noise--but not at 7 a.m. on Friday morning.
Newsday printed the Declaration--in the original eighteenth-century lettering, and with the signatures--in Friday's paper. I trimmed the edges of that page, and hung it on my office wall: it'll fit in nicely with the general patriotic/flag display tone of the place, and it's something I'm glad to have there.
In response to
roadnotes, who was criticizing a book by Nicholas Sparks:love at first sight is not inherently more valuable than earned love.
If anything, I'd say, the opposite: love at first sight privileges appearance and quick non-verbal communication over friendship and knowledge.
On the other hand, I may just be displaying my own prejudices here, since love at first sight doesn't seem to be something I do, and it's natural for me to believe that my way of loving is preferable.
My friends list is full of entries consisting of a rainbow-colored bar and the text "marriage is love". It's a link, and if you click on it, it's to someone's journal where we're urged to add it to our own journals to indicate our "support for gay marriage" (by which I assume zie means same-sex marriage).
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to marry whom they want, assuming the other person or people also want to marry them. (The entry linked to specifically says "two people who love each other".)
But marriage isn't love. Marriage is, depending on your viewpoint, one or more of the following: a legal contract; a legal status recognized by the government, which affects taxation and inheritance; an arrangement between the people who choose to marry; or a sacrament between people and their gods.
It's not love. It's not even romantic and/or sexual love. [I'll assume that the slogan is intended to mean "eros", and we'll skip the bits about parental love, love of friends, and love of music, chocolate, and sushi.] If marriage were love, there'd be no need to be agitating for the right to have same-sex marriages recognized, because either they'd be automatic—you love each other and "poof!" you're married, no need for license, clergy, or ceremony—or they wouldn't be needed, because people wouldn't love until they married, and nobody would feel deprived because they couldn't marry someone of the same gender.
It doesn't work that way. Not everyone marries for love, of course, even in the modern West. But those who do, fall in love before they stand up and say "I do." Some, but not all, of the people who marry for reasons other than love come to love the people they're married to.
Marriage is not a condition for love, nor is it a guarantee that love will last.
I do appreciate the support and the good wishes, especially from my heterosexual friends. But there are better slogans out there. I've tossed one into the box below, if you want to see what's behind the link.
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to marry whom they want, assuming the other person or people also want to marry them. (The entry linked to specifically says "two people who love each other".)
But marriage isn't love. Marriage is, depending on your viewpoint, one or more of the following: a legal contract; a legal status recognized by the government, which affects taxation and inheritance; an arrangement between the people who choose to marry; or a sacrament between people and their gods.
It's not love. It's not even romantic and/or sexual love. [I'll assume that the slogan is intended to mean "eros", and we'll skip the bits about parental love, love of friends, and love of music, chocolate, and sushi.] If marriage were love, there'd be no need to be agitating for the right to have same-sex marriages recognized, because either they'd be automatic—you love each other and "poof!" you're married, no need for license, clergy, or ceremony—or they wouldn't be needed, because people wouldn't love until they married, and nobody would feel deprived because they couldn't marry someone of the same gender.
It doesn't work that way. Not everyone marries for love, of course, even in the modern West. But those who do, fall in love before they stand up and say "I do." Some, but not all, of the people who marry for reasons other than love come to love the people they're married to.
Marriage is not a condition for love, nor is it a guarantee that love will last.
I do appreciate the support and the good wishes, especially from my heterosexual friends. But there are better slogans out there. I've tossed one into the box below, if you want to see what's behind the link.
| Marriage is a human right. | |||||
Tags:
My friends list is full of entries consisting of a rainbow-colored bar and the text "marriage is love". It's a link, and if you click on it, it's to someone's journal where we're urged to add it to our own journals to indicate our "support for gay marriage" (by which I assume zie means same-sex marriage).
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to marry whom they want, assuming the other person or people also want to marry them. (The entry linked to specifically says "two people who love each other".)
But marriage isn't love. Marriage is, depending on your viewpoint, one or more of the following: a legal contract; a legal status recognized by the government, which affects taxation and inheritance; an arrangement between the people who choose to marry; or a sacrament between people and their gods.
It's not love. It's not even romantic and/or sexual love. [I'll assume that the slogan is intended to mean "eros", and we'll skip the bits about parental love, love of friends, and love of music, chocolate, and sushi.] If marriage were love, there'd be no need to be agitating for the right to have same-sex marriages recognized, because either they'd be automatic—you love each other and "poof!" you're married, no need for license, clergy, or ceremony—or they wouldn't be needed, because people wouldn't love until they married, and nobody would feel deprived because they couldn't marry someone of the same gender.
It doesn't work that way. Not everyone marries for love, of course, even in the modern West. But those who do, fall in love before they stand up and say "I do." Some, but not all, of the people who marry for reasons other than love come to love the people they're married to.
Marriage is not a condition for love, nor is it a guarantee that love will last.
I do appreciate the support and the good wishes, especially from my heterosexual friends. But there are better slogans out there. I've tossed one into the box below, if you want to see what's behind the link.
I strongly believe that people should be allowed to marry whom they want, assuming the other person or people also want to marry them. (The entry linked to specifically says "two people who love each other".)
But marriage isn't love. Marriage is, depending on your viewpoint, one or more of the following: a legal contract; a legal status recognized by the government, which affects taxation and inheritance; an arrangement between the people who choose to marry; or a sacrament between people and their gods.
It's not love. It's not even romantic and/or sexual love. [I'll assume that the slogan is intended to mean "eros", and we'll skip the bits about parental love, love of friends, and love of music, chocolate, and sushi.] If marriage were love, there'd be no need to be agitating for the right to have same-sex marriages recognized, because either they'd be automatic—you love each other and "poof!" you're married, no need for license, clergy, or ceremony—or they wouldn't be needed, because people wouldn't love until they married, and nobody would feel deprived because they couldn't marry someone of the same gender.
It doesn't work that way. Not everyone marries for love, of course, even in the modern West. But those who do, fall in love before they stand up and say "I do." Some, but not all, of the people who marry for reasons other than love come to love the people they're married to.
Marriage is not a condition for love, nor is it a guarantee that love will last.
I do appreciate the support and the good wishes, especially from my heterosexual friends. But there are better slogans out there. I've tossed one into the box below, if you want to see what's behind the link.
| Marriage is a human right. | |||||
Tags:
.
