[sudo-discuss] cuddling it

[Anthony Di Franco]

I like what G wrote too and I look forward to your experiment.


On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 3:01 PM, Alcides Gutierrez <alcides888 at gmail.com>wrote:

> I like what G wrote.
>
> I think its nice to not use any established slang as a platform for a new
> slang that is purposefully being created for positivity. I feel it only
> drags with it whatever previous energy was with it.
>
> By suggesting that we not focus on the past lingos, I also mean not to use
> as examples of how past lingos went wrong or where tactics at using
> whatever lingos went maybe right. Instead we can just focus on the words we
> intend to use and what we intend to convey.
>
> The raffle idea allows for whatever combo of words to inspire in the minds
> something. Like an oracle. And the definition or idea or object or whatever
> can spawn from there... Rather than focusing on an idea/etc and trying to
> find the right words.
>
> Of course this doesnt mean we should be negligent about possible negative
> interpretations of this new vocabulary. But that can be explored together.
> Hopefully without digressing into other lingos for too long. If we do get
> sidetracked, scrap the terms and pull again!
>
> Alcides Gutierrez
> http://e64.us
> On May 8, 2013 2:42 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <g2g-public01 at att.net> wrote:
>
>>
>> Yo's-
>>
>> The distinctions that seem to be emerging here are:
>>
>> 1)  Oppression & violation of others, including by the use of language
>> (certain words) and the use of symbolism (such as burning or otherwise
>> desecrating scriptures and other powerful cultural symbols: examples as
>> given so far, and others such as the right-wing preacher in the US who
>> deliberately stirred up shit by burning copies of the Qur'an, despite being
>> asked by senior US military officials to not do it).
>>
>> 2)  Groups that are subject to oppression & violence, responding by
>> re-appropriating language that's used against them, by way of empowerment
>> to stare down their oppressors or assert cultural self-determination.
>>
>> 3)  Persons who aren't members of (2), using the same words or their new
>> variants but accidentally or otherwise blundering into territory in which
>> they don't have the experience to understand the full implications.
>>
>> 4)  Emotions:  Humans seek emotions, whether pleasant or unpleasant
>> (otherwise, why do people deliberately watch films that are tragic or
>> violent?).  From a cog sci perspective, emotions are locally-deterministic
>> and very often determine behaviors (e.g. "fighting words" known to "push
>> peoples' buttons").
>>
>> a)  Asserting superiority/dominance over others.
>> b)  Asserting dignity via reframing or reappropriation of oppressors'
>> language.
>> c)  Being "edgy" or "provocative" (which can backfire).
>> d)  Asserting free speech rights, regardless of consequences.
>> e)  Misguided attempts at reappropriation (e.g. where it isn't welcome).
>> f)  Inflaming of one's own and others' passions.
>> g)  Empathy with others: being aware of others' feelings.
>> h)  Understanding of others: being aware of their overall circumstances.
>> i)  Peace-making on whatever level: spreading emotions associated with
>> peace.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> It seems to me that the best course is to treat powerfully emotional
>> language carefully, like nuclear material that can make energy or make a
>> bomb depending on how it's used.
>>
>> When there's any doubt or question, try to avoid using words that might
>> be "radioactive" in some way.  Using words that a group has reappropriated,
>> when one isn't a member of that group, is one example, there are many more.
>>
>> Attempts to be "edgy" or provocative, or assert free speech rights when
>> others find it objectionable, often backfire and come across as
>> insensitive, self-centered, etc., or at minimum clueless.  One can minimize
>> the risk of trouble by being really careful, mindful, and proactively
>> aware, and thinking through the potential consequences, before deciding
>> whether or how to do this.
>>
>> Use language that's "organic" to one's own group(s), rather than trying
>> to "borrow" language from other groups.  When a mood of calm prevails, it's
>> OK to ask about language in a spirit of seeking to understand.
>>
>> Most importantly:  Use language appropriate to the emotion one intends to
>> convey.  Attempting to make peace by casually using language that could
>> inflame, is a blunder.  The way to make peace by using words, gestures, and
>> tone of voice that convey peaceful emotions.
>>
>> In general, seek to understand emotions and how they work in one's own
>> mind and in social ecosystems, including the words and symbols that convey
>> and cause emotions in oneself and others.
>>
>> ---
>>
>> Each of us has examples from our own lives that we can discuss in a
>> spirit of seeking understanding.  Some of that has already started here.
>>
>> -G.
>>
>>
>> ======
>>
>>
>> On 13-05-08-Wed 12:29 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote:
>>
>>  Thanks for the pointers. It's not the first time I've come across the
>> term or the concept of reappropriation, and the nuances of the idea were
>> part of why I brought up Heeb Magazine specifically.
>>
>>  That magazine caused a great deal of controversy by portraying Jesus
>> and Mary in extremely sexually provocative ways, and referencing a long
>> history of oppression of Jews by Catholics, that raises a lot of
>> interesting questions:
>>  - Mary was portrayed with bare breasts, and pierced nipples, and the
>> model portraying Mary Magdalene was described as
>> "Evangelist-cum-nymphomaniac." Was this using slut-shaming to fire back at
>> Catholics, a different kind of commentary on Catholic attitudes towards
>> sex, something else, or neither?
>>  - Jesus was portrayed with his genitals wrapped in a Jewish prayer
>> shawl. Was this meant to desecrate a holy Jewish symbol, to reflect on the
>> attitudes of some Christians towards what Jews hold sacred, or something
>> else?
>>  - The feature contains the quote, "Christians believe the Jews killed
>> Jesus; that is why there is so much anti-Semitism in the world. The church
>> was created on that one simple anti-Semitic principle. Christians who say
>> otherwise are making it up or misrepresenting their own religion." Was this
>> intended just as written, or as a commentary on how some Christians view
>> Judaism in preposterously oversimplified terms, or something else?
>>  - Christians and Jews have a long history of complex relationships
>> including antagonism that reached the highest extremes of violence,
>> including the following: Street fighting among gangs in ancient Alexandria,
>> before there was a clear distinction between the two groups; Catholic
>> crusades to invade and colonize the near East and displace the Jewish and
>> Muslim cultures from it; Jews and Christians living together as oppressed
>> groups called Dhimmi under the Caliphate in medieval Andalusia, and many
>> other Islamic states; the complicity of much of the Catholic hierarchy in
>> the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews even as many Christians risked their lives
>> to save Jews from it, some explicitly motivated by their religion, some for
>> other reasons; the Jewish and Italian (strong Catholic ties) mafias working
>> together in America to set up Galveston and Las Vegas, despite many kinds
>> of serious tensions; in the last few years in Israel, anti-Christian hate
>> crimes including a bonfire of New Testaments, regular spitting on an
>> Archbishop, and a member of the Knesset taking video of himself tearing up
>> the New Testament, calling it a despicable book that belongs in the dustbin
>> of history (his words). How should all this influence how I interpret what
>> Heeb Magazine published? Can I draw a simple narrative featuring a
>> privileged group and an oppressed group from all of this to frame my other
>> questions about how to interpret things?
>>
>>   Ultimately, very much as a person from a Catholic family with strong
>> personal ties to both Catholic and Jewish cultures, I accept what Heeb
>> Magazine has done as a valuable contribution to a conversation between
>> cultures regardless of, or perhaps because of, its having apparently been
>> calculated to provoke and offend in every available way (which few remarks
>> that cause offense actually are: my own an example). I value offense as a
>> way to break taboos and make new kinds of conversations possible, (but not
>> for the emotional trauma it can cause, which I do my best to avoid,)
>> including especially those that tell truth to power, which is why offense
>> has a special place in satire. But also in lateral conversations where
>> groups that have suffered from mutual antagonism that serves the interests
>> of power overcome the symbols around which their mutual antagonism has been
>> organized and learn to work together on the basis of their ample common
>> ground.
>>
>>  I have even taken many of the same symbols Heeb Magazine used, and
>> other related ones from both Judaism and Christianity, and played with them
>> in my own fiction in irreverent, transgressive ways that while very
>> different are also full of ambiguity and make copious references to a
>> complex history and are hard to interpret in any one consistent way (as
>> most language is). I've done this in order to participate in a cultural
>> dialog that seeks common values and cooperation towards bettering
>> everyone's lot.
>>
>>  That is the sense in which I ask whether Heeb Magazine has a place on
>> sudo room's shelves.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>  On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> > There's something to be said for being able to challenge the
>>> mainstream connotations words have and the implicit assumptions they throw
>>> over everyday discourse. Does Heeb Magazine have a place on sudo room's
>>> shelves?
>>>
>>> Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think
>>> that makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that
>>> they can be used by you in casual conversation.
>>>
>>> You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a
>>> process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been
>>> used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for
>>> themselves.  I did some quick google searching around this issue and would
>>> like to share two links that seemed most helpful here.
>>>
>>> http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation
>>>
>>>
>>> http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to-say.html?m=1
>>>
>>> Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the
>>> african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is
>>> already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't
>>> like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and
>>> cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at
>>> large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you.
>>> There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their
>>> negative meanings.  Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a
>>> Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the
>>> street amongst a group doing the same thing.
>>>
>>> R.
>>>
>>> >
>>> > On May 7, 2013 10:30 AM, "Anca Mosoiu" <anca at techliminal.com> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> +1, and Amen!
>>> >>
>>> >> Anca.
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alcides Gutierrez <
>>> alcides888 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If I may chime in, I think it would be awesome just to coin our own
>>> phrases and not try to replace anything. Instead of characterizing any
>>> current or past lingo, we could just go ahead and move on... NEW LINGO!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> I think this would lessen the chances of political/cultural/social
>>> frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of
>>> describing whatever random related concepts.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, if we actually are interested in creating a new positive lingo,
>>> we can just submit positive words and tech words into a bucket and
>>> creatively combine them to attach to whatever cool concept. (BEAUTIFUL
>>> CODE! = GREAT DISCUSSION!)
>>> >>>
>>> >>> So, is there going to be a lingo raffle party!?!?!?! That sounds
>>> kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading
>>> party???? I'm sure there would be great code there!
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Alcides Gutierrez
>>> >>> http://e64.us
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" <maxb.personal at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> +1
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> Thank you for that.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> On 05/06/2013 01:40 PM, hep wrote:
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> it is really sad that this list is literally turning into a game
>>> of oppression bingo. i will make this brief.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 1. using terms like "civilization" to refer to a class of dominant
>>> majority with a huge history of colonialistic oppression, at the expense of
>>> any class who has experiences colonialistic oppression is pretty offensive.
>>> if you want to qualify this as "what they wrongly refer to themselves as"
>>> then use quotes and indicate as such. ie "Doesn't the so-self-called
>>> 'civilized' psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and
>>> gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though?" it would be
>>> better however to reword this overall to say something like "Doesn't the
>>> privileged majority psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart
>>> from and gives up and projects on its image of the oppressed culture
>>> though?"
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 2. using tropes like "noble savage" is ok as long as everyone
>>> involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using
>>> that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope
>>> at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 3. some people are still going to be offended by this term,
>>> because it is still hugely offensive to native peoples even as it is used
>>> as a handy moniker to call out offensive behavior by the privileged
>>> majority.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 4. using the term noble savage in reference to african americans
>>> is doubly offensive, even if it fits the point you are trying to make fyi.
>>> if you MUST use tropes to refer to POC, make sure you are using the correct
>>> one that examines the colonial aspects of the behavior being discussed.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 5. when someone is offended by your choice in language, the
>>> correct thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't
>>> being offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am
>>> sorry my language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do
>>> not attempt to use dictionary.com, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to
>>> try and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye
>>> of the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so
>>> just accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and
>>> move on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't
>>> offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive,
>>> and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with
>>> who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this
>>> point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email
>>> battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 6. free speech is not a get out of jail free card. you have the
>>> right to say anything you want. and we all have the right to think of you
>>> as an asshole for saying it. if someone says "don't say that" they aren't
>>> depriving you of your right to free speech, they are trying to save you
>>> from losing friends and allies in your community. "congress shall make no
>>> law abridging free speech." there is nothing in there that says someone HAS
>>> to remain your friend after you were unintentionally a racist asshole.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 7. most people who fight oppression in their communities do not
>>> want to argue about it in their hobbies. respect that. just because you
>>> have the time and inclination to have a long-winded email argument does not
>>> mean that you are not also being totally offensive by assuming the other
>>> person wants/needs/is going to engage in it. often times i see people "win"
>>> arguments on email lists only because they were the more persistant
>>> asshole, not because they are right. and be aware that that is totally
>>> obvious to people not involved but still reading.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> 8. a point to everyone: native american peoples are not dead.
>>> there are still many thriving native cultures, and people need to
>>> understand that when they refer to native things or topics they are talking
>>> not just about past people that were wiped out, but also active real
>>> working native peoples still here. the bay area is full of native people
>>> who are active in their tribal affiliations, who work to promote native
>>> rights, and who are invested in the topics of native americans. when you
>>> frame out things like that there is a "civlized" society, and native
>>> societies (implying not civilized) many of those people are GOING to be
>>> super offended. Like when native people try to call out white people on
>>> wearing headdresses as culturally appropriative, and white people rebut
>>> with "YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET. THAT WAS INVENTED BY US MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T
>>> USE THAT". fucked up. (for the ignorant: native people are americans as
>>> well and have equal rights to share in american culture as any other
>>> american. besides which: last i checked many native peoples have also
>>> contributed to the internet, even as there are colonial privileged
>>> oppressionistic usages of native culture as well, such as apache.) try to
>>> keep that in mind as you use terms that may evoke native americans, at the
>>> risk of being seen as a total racist asshole.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> also everything that rachel said.
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> -hep
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco <
>>> di.franco at aya.yale.edu> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote,
>>> and while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond
>>> what I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context
>>> you brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying
>>> to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are
>>> misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion
>>> to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it,
>>> not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle
>>> where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming
>>> and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle
>>> but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on
>>> shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use
>>> them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it
>>> explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual
>>> understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I
>>> welcome further discussion on this.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also
>>> uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and
>>> also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending*
>>> reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police
>>> - I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the
>>> suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs
>>> victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain
>>> their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that,
>>> and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the
>>> situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have
>>> something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our
>>> interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to
>>> see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our
>>> group.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is
>>> the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting.
>>> This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes
>>> myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of
>>> agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let
>>> others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback
>>> and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback
>>> appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more
>>> informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain
>>> information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the
>>> way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs.
>>> When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like
>>> trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then,
>>> amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning
>>> them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a
>>> chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able
>>> than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they
>>> should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a
>>> key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and
>>> because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that
>>> logic being internalized in our group dynamics.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump
>>> cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of
>>> trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's
>>> concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns
>>> themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I
>>> have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that
>>> remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of
>>> Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what
>>> legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and
>>> experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence
>>> is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of
>>> people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially
>>> vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should
>>> be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use
>>> violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem
>>> problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without
>>> accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I
>>> am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in
>>> cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no
>>> comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain
>>> people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability
>>> gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a
>>> logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it
>>> produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for
>>> unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones
>>> anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like
>>> the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of
>>> values we share.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I
>>> want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment
>>> didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't
>>> even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly
>>> overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for
>>> something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social
>>> gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved,
>>> which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you
>>> dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and
>>> to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way
>>> out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was
>>> when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it
>>> was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because
>>> we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police
>>> interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of
>>> submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While
>>> it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the
>>> others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of
>>> sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much
>>> better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like
>>> potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we
>>> can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let
>>> a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an
>>> important discussion about how we treat one another in our community.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to
>>> write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the
>>> room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us
>>> towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values
>>> and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives.
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> Anthony
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar <
>>> rachelyra at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> I am really sad about this whole thread.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent
>>> here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am
>>> responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me
>>> want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this
>>> group. Everything that came after, gah.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an
>>> unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending
>>> or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in
>>> behavior.  Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone
>>> says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to
>>> elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your
>>> amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of
>>> 'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other
>>> people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your
>>> damn self.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the
>>> trump card'.  We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to
>>> keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces
>>> - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it
>>> together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety
>>> rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's,
>>> and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety
>>> level.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> The interesting thing about telling most people they are making
>>> you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason
>>> their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what
>>> happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses
>>> the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also
>>> talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room.  People always have
>>> reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read
>>> about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and
>>> to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were
>>> offensive.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and
>>> explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate
>>> around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in
>>> the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological
>>> history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about,
>>> the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time
>>> out of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to
>>> modulate your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the
>>> first time I engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps
>>> you'll remember the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply
>>> accepted the input, thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of
>>> meditative place of return.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community
>>> and am sure I will stay connected in many ways.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> R.
>>> >>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>> On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" <di.franco at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets
>>> itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble
>>> savage though?
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through
>>> it.
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva <netdiva at sonic.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of
>>> appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream.
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote:
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence
>>> and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence
>>> - have established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent
>>> requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they
>>> have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it."
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> thought sudoers would appreciate this.
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> cuddling it,
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> --
>>> >>>>>>>>>> len
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> founder, ligertail
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://ligertail.com
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> --
>>> >>>>> hep
>>> >>>>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net
>>> >>>>>     dis at gruntle.org || 415 867 9472
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> --
>>> >> -=-=-=-
>>> >> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal
>>> >> anca at techliminal.com
>>> >> M: (510) 220-6660
>>> >> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F:
>>> facebook.com/techliminal
>>> >>
>>> >> _______________________________________________
>>> >> sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> >> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > _______________________________________________
>>> > sudo-discuss mailing list
>>> > sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>> >
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> sudo-discuss mailing list
>> sudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.org
>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130508/4b545d8f/attachment.html>