Funny how you sometimes find people where you least expect them...
Congrats on going full-time! I've done some work this summer on getting myself closer to passing (although I'm honest enough to say it's been much more mental work than presentational) but am still quite a ways away.
It's interesting about voice, 'though. My "polite phone voice" is a couple octaves higher than my normal speaking voice and I get "ma'm"ed all the time on the phone. I noticed it first while working in an office at school answering phones and that my greeting, "Thank you for calling [office name]. How can I help you?" was so much higher than I normally spoke, but still comfortable. I've been working on it conciously and can, at least on the phone, pretty consistently get people to assume I'm female. Actually came in handy when I called the phone company and pretended to be my mom to get some service stuff changed (with her permission). I've never tried passing in real life, as I'm just not comfortable enough with myself to try...I think (intelectually) that I might even succeed, I'm just too scared of faliure...
Back to WoW, I think I'm happy enough not playing, both in terms of time and money. WoW never "took over my life," but I was definitely at a high enough level that really advancing required a committment to group with people for a good chunk of time. The fact I broke a finger and couldn't play for about two months helped make it a clean break, as most people I knew had moved to other guilds or servers by the time I got back, but I'm happy I'm not playing anymore. That said, WoW was tons of fun. I just think I'm developing something of a voiced sentiment on Slashdot, that I'd rather play single player games I can schedule for myself or play less intense/time consuming multiplayer games like some of the stuff on the Nintendo DS.
I realize that, once again, I'm posting far too late, so forgive me if this was sort of rambling (and for any spelling errors....) -Trillian
Just wanted to chime in on the surprisingly large (to me, anyway) trans slashdot population. I'll second the GP in that while I'm off WoW now, when I was playing I didn't use in-game voice chatting software even though I *know* it makes life eaiser. I enjoyed playing not only a female avatar but a female persona - while I'm taking slow baby steps to make my physical body match my mental picture of myself, it was seductively easy to click 'female' in WoW and be in an environment where people treated you as whatever you claimed to be (not saying that always meant being treated better...)
As a side note, I'm gonna say that my understanding of 'transgendered' is different from 'transexual' in that the former is a much broader term while the latter has (to me, anyway) connotations of desiring body modification. So some of the parent posters seem to fall under my understanding of transgendered, even if they don't fall under transsexual. Although I'm also all about the importance of self-labeling, so if any of the parents disagree for their personal label they are, of course, welcome to claim or reject any title they like. -Trillian
For what are you needing the combination of precision, accuracy, fast measurements, and a location that hasn't been set up with a differential transmitter?
For whatever the hell I want. Backpacking, driving, geocaching, exploring my neighborhood, seeing where I am with pin-point accuracy, fucking around with a Galileo receiver, whatever the hell I wan. See, you're asking the wrong question. The question is always "why shouldn't I be able to do X," not "why should we allow you to do X." I'll ask it again, why shouldn't people have access to that combination of features? Likewise, who are you to tell the EU not to launch satellites?
I really don't buy "But North Korea might use the system for EEEEEEEEVIL!!!" There are lots of technologies that people could use for nefarious purposes, and if N.K. gets the tech to hit the US (or wherever) with missiles, the lack or use of pin-point positioning is only gonna mean they can hit the general area of LA or specifically hit the 'Hollywood' sign. Either way, LA is toast, and I'm still not convinced by your arguments against the necessity of Galileo. We've seen the US's willingness to shut off GPS to "the enemy." But what if 'the enemy' becomes members of the EU? Japan? US citizens?
The EU system will have accomplished something: North Korea can aim better, even switching to cruise missles.
....and terrorists can use email to communicate, child molesters can use public roads to pick up children for rape, and...um.....oh, right! communists can use public libraries to research different forms of government. (Phew - was almost afraid I'd run out of buzzword-fears).
Forgive me for being a little over-the-top, I just don't like "someone could use this for EVIL so *no one* should use it" as an argument. As a side note, didn't we recently see how well N. Korea's long-rage weapons work?
Look, there may be valid reasons to oppose the Galileo system, I just don't think I've heard any yet from this thread.
Nope. It [US GPS] will be the same [precision as Galileo], because the free GPS signal will be upgraded in response. Don't imagine for a moment that the US will sit by while people become dependent on a system that is in foreign control. We will do whatever is required to ensure that you don't beat us, even if that means opening up the highest precision.
Then doesn't that mean the EU system will have accomplished something? During a discussion a while ago about Google's "less-than-successfull" ventures (for some value of "success") someone noted that even if Yahoo and Hotmail still have more users than Google, Google's large inbox caused other free email providers to raise the size of their inbox. My mom uses Hotmail, but it's pretty clear that her inbox is 250MB (or whatever it is) rather than a measly 10 or 25 or whatever it used to be in a direct response to Google. Likewise, even if the US still uses the US GPS system, if that system is improved in response to Galileo's precision, how is that not a win for everyone?
It also seems unfair for you to say "Galileo isn't built yet, and they wouldn't mandate a foreign GPS system. Soon enough, Galileo will be mandated. You'll see" but then say (in response to claims that Galileo will be functionally superior) "Nope. It will be the same, because the free GPS signal will be upgraded in response." So let me get this straight - we should judge Galileo to be inferior because it's not released yet but it might become mandated, but we shouldn't judge US GPS to be inferior because it "will be" improved to meet Galileo's (proposed) precision when Galileo is released. So in both cases, you're making a judgement based on something which hasn't happened yet...it seems like you've already made up you're mind that "If it's good enough for the US it should be good enough for the rest of the world."
-Trillian
DVD Decrypter, anyone?
on
Freedb.org Ending
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
I don't buy the all or nothing thing. If he releases the code in the next several weeks, and as he says, he's adding documentation, cleaning it up. etc., where is the problem? If he just dumped the code, there are likely to be just as many complaints.
I think the point being made was that in a world where someone can be sued and forced to remove software from distribution - either from legal rulings or the threat of litigation forcing a chioce of financial priorities - saying that the source will be released "real soon now" may mean it's never released at all. Obviously, releasing well-formated source code with documentation is better than releasing poorly formated code with no documentation, but both are better than releasing nothing at all.
I mention DVD Decrypter in the subject of the post because it's a well-known (if you're into that kind of thing) DVD ripping software that was taken down from a number of (US-hosted) sites after threat of litigation and, since it was closed-source, no further developement was made. Now, I'm not trying to compare FreeDB to DVD Decrypter, either in terms of legality or morality. Just using DVD Decrypter as an example of software which, had it been open source, could still be under developement but because the source code wasn't being released is now "lost forver." (Of course, in actually, it's not that hard to find a download of the final released version of DVD Decrypter, but it would have been nice if the code was out there for other people to continue improving.)
Again, I'm not trying to compare FreeDB to DVD Decrypter. Just providing an example for the parent's point that you never know how some court ruling or sue-happy lawfirm is going to affect what's out there. I'm not even trying to say FreeDB *should* post every line of code currently written - I can understand why the author wouldn't want that. At the same time, I can understand why the GP has an attitude of "all-or-nothing" in terms of calling something 'open source.' -Trillian
Sorry if I wasn't clear (and re-reading my post, I probably wasn't) but I completely agree with everything you're saying. I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3. My issue was the GP said something along the lines of "the three next gen consoles." Market success is as much an issue of mindshare as it is an issue of actual system power. I'd say the constant posts on Slashdot about the iPod not having $FEATURE_X while $PLAYER_Y does are an example of this sort of thing. For example, many publications put the GameCube behind the XBox and PS2 in terms of marketshare when, internationally, this really isn't true - XBox and GC are in the same ballpark, while both are quite a bit below the PS2. I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I'd like to prevent that sort of thing for the 'next generation' of consoles. By leaving the Wii off (and by implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that no fourth system exists) it sends a message about the Wii's relationship to the 360, PS3, and computer.
Again, I don't think this was intentional on the part of the GP and I think he meant "the three most graphically powerful systems (PS3, 360, and PC)" rather than simply "the three next gen systems (PS3, 360, and PC)."
As a 3rd party developer, I can say that our high-end titles are being developed for all three platforms: PC, Xbox 360 and PS3. We're doing that out of necessity; "Next Gen" games are costing 8 figures+ ($10+ million) these days, much due to content.
I hafta object to you calling the PC, XBox 360, and PS3 "all three platforms." The Nintendo Wii has just as much of a marketshare right now as the PS3: None, becuase neither has been released. Now, it might be fair to say the PC, PS3, and 360 are the three "next gen platforms in terms or processing power or graphics," and I think that's what you meant as you go on to talk about the high cost of "next gen" games. But don't forget that Nintendo is coming out with a console soon, too...
FWIW I don't think your post should be marked 'Troll,' but I did want to respond to couple of things.
First, even though another reply to your post says
Few women in engineering = systematic discrimination against women.
Few men in nursing = systematic discrimination against women.
I agree with you that discrimination against women could (not saying it is) be the reason for both those things. It's not inherently impossible for one thing (discrimination against women) to have multiple effects...
I also agree that it's possible that more men are garbagemen/coalminers/whatever because, in general, those jobs require physical strength and, in general, men are stronger than women. However, I do think it's worth noting that those are also jobs which, for whatever reason, are more socially acceptable for a man to hold that a women. Not gonna guess why, but there it is.
One thing I did have issue with, however:
As far as men making up a greater number of criminals, that is mostly because men commit most crimes.
Um, what? "There are more male criminals, because more men commit crimes." Well, yes. Saying "My walls are white because the paint I used is white" is true but not very informative. I'm not gonna try and guess why there are more male criminals than female (or even say if that is true - I'm guessing it is, but don't have statistics in front of me) but saying it's because "mostly men commit crimes" isn't giving an explanation, it's just restating what we already know.
Furthermore, there is a sexist tendency to not give women the death penalty (in barbarous places that still have it, like my homeland) which is commensurate to the racist tendency to give it more often to black defendants and explains a little bit the skewed demographics of death row.
That I wholeheartedly agree with you on, although it's somewhat OT. But again, the fact there are vastly more black men than white (or black or latino or rainbow) women on death row is, in part, due to the fact that (to my understanding) more black men commit crimes eligible for death row than white males. Again, I think there is racism and sexism in the criminal justice system in addition to the skewed demographics of those who actually commit the crimes, but there's a skew there as well.
"Seriously, if you want to keep the debate on a rigorous level..."
See, that's the problem. To the people like the GP (and myself, FWIW) there is no debate. To take a mundane analogy, it would be like sitting around the dinner table following a good meal, full and satisfied with lots of dirty plates still sitting around, when someone says "So I'd like to debate whether or not we just ate."
The idea you could debate such an "obvious" conclusion is ridiculous. Likewise, to myself and many others, the idea you could even begin to debate whether or not evelution is responsible for the complexity of life is absurd.
The word dike appeared in 1710 in British newspaper stories about cross-dressing pirates Anne Bonny and Mary Read. One editorial ephemistically referred to their cross dressing with a French word, dike, which refers to men's clothing.
In the 1920s the terms "bulldyker" and "bulldyking" were popular in the sub-culture of Harlem Renaissance. In his 1928 novel, "Home to Harlem", Claude McKay wrote:
"[Lesbians are] what we calls bulldyker in Harlem.... I don't understan'... a bulldyking woman."
From the context of the novel, the word was considered crude and pejorative at the time. "Dyke" is a later abbreviation of bulldyke.
There are several theories of the origin of "bulldyker" One is that it arose as an abbreviation of "morphadike", a dialect variant of "hermaphrodite", a common term for homosexuals in the early twentieth century. This in turn may be related the late nineteenth century use of "dyke" (meaning "ditch") as slang for the vulva. [1] "Bull" is also a common expression for "masculine" or "aggressive" (as in "bullish"), so bulldyke may have implied "masculine woman". According to another theory, bulldyker was a term used for bulls whose purpose it was to impregnate cows. Just as the word "stud" was first used for such a purpose and was later used for men who used it to brag about themselves or for others in reference to a man who was successful with women, the terms "bulldyker" and "bulldagger" were also taken from their original context and used for the same purpose. A man who was a great lover or successful with women was called a "bulldyker." "Bulldyking woman" and "bulldyker" became terms for women who looked like a "bulldyker", a male stud, and were assumed to perform the role, as well.
Not surprisingly, this is without citation, so take with a grain of salt...anyone who can speak french and confirm/deny 'dike' would be appreciated.
Likewise, thanks for taking the time to respond. *Gasp* A discussion on Slashdot about something of substance?
When I referred to my social circle, I probably didn't use a good term. I didn't mean my close friends, I actually meant people I talk to in general, including, for instance, people on Slashdot and even people who just talk to me like via televsion or radio. If they consistently adapt a style of language, chances are I will pick it up, unless I'm violently opposed to it. That's just how language and language change work. (In fact, close social circles are not very open to change, weak social ties are much more innovative; that is a small village will often preserve "archaic" parts of language, with innovation coming in through relatively loose ties such as TV - at least that's one theory.)
You are of course correct in your assessment that I am more likely to use problematic terms such as gay in its pejorative meaning within my close social circle, simply as a part of less formal speech. Actually, that's not even limited to the negative meaning, since I'm not very likely to discuss matters of sexuality with any of my professors...
I agree with all that (language changing, the evolution of language, etc). But because I (and at least some others) view the transformation of 'gay' to mean something negative as a bad thing, I'm trying to fight it. It may be a downhill battle, but I don't think that's true. We know language changes, and I'm arguing that (because I feel this specific lanaguage shift is a bad thing) it's reasonable to call people on their use of 'gay' to mean something negative and that it is possible to use the public perception of a word to alter its meaning.
Concerning the use of nigger...
I think I understand your point on the difference between explicitly intending offence (i.e. using 'nigger') and not intending offense (i.e. 'gay' in a negative sense). But whether or not you intend to offend, you do offend at least some people. And I guess I just don't see 'gay' (again, in its negative use) as a culturally important enough word to be worth perserving. There are words like 'lame' and 'stupid' which (I think) serve just fine, so I don't see why 'gay' should be considered okay.
Concerning 'gay' and its acceptance in terms of the cultural attitude toward homosexuality, I have to disagree with you. This is, of course, an argument without academic backing and merely one of those "it feels true" kind of things, so I may be completely off-base (I'd love to see data either way!). You said "I don't think that the usage of gay is considered more legitimate because homosexuality is still considered taboo or wrong, simply because I haven't met anyone who thinks so in a very long time, certainly nobody I know in my age." I'm not sure if you're in the USA (you said your primary language is German) so I can't speak for attitudes in Europe, but at least in the United States it's still taboo or wrong to a huge number of people, and I think that has influenced the use of 'gay' to mean something negative. I just can't imagine (for example) a teacher ever allowing the same transformation to happen to "black" or "mexican" (two random examples) because those are groups which we are not 'officially allowed' to dislike.
Look at the media frenzy over Mass. allowing gay marriage, Bush promoting an amendment outlawing gay marriage, the fact it took a Supreme Court ruling to legalize consentual sodomy in Texas, or Jerry Falwell blaming September 11, 2001 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way" (in fact, just look at the whole Wikipedia article on societal attitudes towar homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_to wards_homosexuality )
I'm not entirely sure I understand some of your reply, so correct me if I'm getting something wrong. I want to make sure I know what you mean.
On one hand you have a person using a word (again which has more than one meaning) in a non-discriminative way.
I assume by this you mean "gay" in this context to mean "lame" which (you hold) is meant in a non-discrimanatory way.
On the other hand you have a person taking a word obviously used in a non-discriminative context and making it discriminative, simply because they feel like it.
I'm just not sure what you mean here. Do you mean my 'translation' of "This idea/object/activity/etc is stupid and lame, like those gay people are."? I think you do (I'm not sure what else I said could be taken that way) but correct me if I'm wrong.
With those assumptions....
First, I want to argue with you when you say "a non-discriminative way." I am willing to accept "in a way not intended to be discriminatory," but what I'm saying is that it is discriminatory, whether or not it is intended to be. Likewise, I very much disagree that my 'translation' of how I interprut the use of gay to mean 'lame' is taking a word "obviously used" in a non-discriminatory way and making it discriminatory. Again, I'm saying it's inherently discriminatory, because of the etymology of the word 'gay,' as well as the ussage of 'gay' to mean 'homosexual.'
Worst of all, the discrimination wouldn't even apply to them.
I'm honestly just not sure what you mean by that.
A professional environment (such as the one your session is presenting) is completely different from a public environment (such as slashdot). If a person can't go out in public without being offended at one thing or another then that person has some deeper issues to work out.
I agree that we should not always have to think about every little thing we say, for fear of offending someone. However, in my original post, I said "If I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language." So first, I'm very specifically including Slashdot as a place where I think it's reasonable to keep in mind the possibility that you may offend someone. You're welcome to disagree, but don't brush off my argument by saying "it only applies to the office," since intentionally included public forums for discussion, such as Slashdot, when making my point.
More importantly, you create a strawman by saying a person should be able to go out in public "without being offended at one thing or another." I'm not talking about "one thing or another," I'm very specifically talking about the use of 'gay' in a derogatory fashion, to mean 'lame' or 'stupid' or somesuch. I agree we live in a very "P.C." society, and that a lot of te time people should have thicker skin and not complain about percieved insults where none exist. But, I would argue, the etymology of the word 'gay' and the use of 'gay' to mean something bad creates a very real insult. If you want to disagree and do so anyway, go ahead. But people like myself are going to call you on it to try and make you justify yourself.
The ones that do are probably still struggling to feel comfortable with the fact that they are homosexual, and again that's their problem to work out.
That's another great strawman, and one that's a bit more out there. If you really don't have a problem with the use of 'gay' with negative connotations, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that's fine. Don't go pretending that any gay person who disagrees with you has some sort of problem with themself to work out...
"Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different, nigger has just one meaning with various connotations, most of them negative."
I'm guessing you mean the three definitions are 1) homosexual, 2) happy or lighthearted, and 3) a derogatory term (as being discussed in this thread). Likewise, the only definition (with various connotations) of nigger is 'a black person.' I'll respond with that assumption, but please correct me if I'm wrong.
"If parts of my social circle -- which is all that matters with respects to my own language usage -- consistently used nigger to refer to something unrelated like, say, read a book, then yeah, I'd probably use it."
Okay. I see the key difference here being "parts of my social circle." As I said in another post, my close group of friends makes what would generally be considered racist and sexist jokes. Since we are also self-depricating and are all comfortable with the level of 'offensive' content we use, I don't see a problem with that. But when you begin to use that language outside your social circle, you run the risk of offending others. When we're with people we don't know well, my friends and I tone down our humor.
So while you're welcome to use 'nigger' to mean 'book' within your social group without my complaint (altough if I hear you do it I'll probably ask you not to do it around me) when you take that slang outside your social group you run into people like myself (and the GP, apparently) who are A) going to think you're a racist (or homophobic, or sexist, or whatever-the-term-is-ist) and B) call you on it.
I have another big problem with your analogy. A book is an inherently (I hope...) non-judgemental label. Sure, there are subjectively "good" and "bad" books, but unless your social circle has an inside joke in which calling someone a "book" is either praise or offensive, saying you'll use 'nigger' to mean 'book' is not a fair analogy to 'gay' and 'lame.'
Finally, you say "Nigger is not an analogous example (because) Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different." Gay has those three different meanings because being racist has been, at least for a couple decades, officially unacceptable. Sure, people are obviously still racist, but you'll at the very least have difficulty forming a political platform by openly stating "We should round up the niggers and sterilize them to prevent breeding." The reason 'gay' has become synonemous with lame in the first place is because being homophobic is still socially acceptable to the point where casual slang like that is not being stopped. To paraphrase, you're saying "Nigger is not an analogous example because people aren't allowed to be officially racist, so there's only one definition of nigger and nigger never entered popular slang to mean 'bad' or 'stupid.' But 'gay' is different because it did.' The principal is not different, only the specifics.
"...I don't know any sensible, level-headed gay men or lesbians who are offended when others do, so long as the intent, the meaning behind those words isn't meant to put-down gays."
Well, I do, so I guess all that proves is anectodal evidence is useless.
More to the point, I can't accept that the intent behind a word can be completely seperated from the word's definition or connotation. Have you ever had to suffer through one of those work-mandated " lets learn about harrasment" sessions? I recently had to and the one thing that I came out with which I believe is valuable is that harrasment (or, in this case, the use of offensive language) is in the eye of the beholder. If I'm in my group of friends and we're comfortable making what would generally be considered racist or sexist jokes (and we are), that is an appropriate behavior and use of language. However, if I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that political correctness be held above all other thoughts when trying to say something, or that a public forum such as Sashdot should become a bland, vanilla discussion where no one speaks out for fear of offending someone else. But as someone who identifies as queer and has openly gay friends, to *ME* using 'gay' as a synonem (sp?) for 'lame' or 'stupid' is directly saying "This idea/object/activity/etc is stupid and lame, like those gay people are." It doesn't matter if that's how it was intended or not, but because (to my understanding) the ussage of "gay" in that context stems from a negative perception of deviant sexuality in U.S. culture, that's how I'll see it. (Well, fine. I suppose on some level it does matter if the intent was to offend or not, but the point is my feelings will be hurt either way.)
Once again, I am not saying we should try to avoid hurting feelings at all costs, or that people should refrain from speaking merely because they might hurt someone else. But when you know a substantial portion of the population finds something offensive, and there's no good reason (that I can see) to use the word anyway, why do it?
Please feel free to disagree. I'm interested in responses.
After reading your comment I did some research on ING Direct and have decided to open an account there. I wanted to see if you actually had an account there and, if so, you'd like referr me (selfishly, as I understand they have referral bonus for both the referrer and the reffered). My email (with spamfilter) should be on my account, otherwise reply to this and we'll see if we can figure something out.
-Trillian
PS - If you don't actually have an account there, I'd be curious to hear why you mention them anyway. It looks like, when paired with a checking account, it's a great system for earning some extra intrest. Thanks!
That was a helpful clarification, and I appreciate it. (Can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine others did to.)
What I think would be helpful is if you, either just replying to me here or on the main Boxxet page, provided some examples. Something like "Typing in '[some words]' might get you a page like THIS(LINK)' THat would give readers a better idea of what to expect, so we're not just talking out of our ass.
Not that Slashdot isn't a good place for talking out of your ass. *grin* -Trillian
I have no experience with the ion air cleaners, but had heard they can be bad for the life of rubber components. Anyone have any knowledge if this is true or false?
If you look at my last paragraph, I did say you needed to compare with other posibilities for the $38B. I honestly think there are better usages for that much money than the auto-pool thingamajob. I just disagreed with the GPs claim that the $45.6M "per person" was how money costs are divided for projects funded with taxes. -Trillian
You didn't take the math to its completion. Sure, if each of the 832 people has to pay for their own rescue, it's $45.6M per person (going by your math, which I have no reason to doubt).
But one of the great things about living in a country is that you get to pool (no pun intended) the resources of everyone who lives there. So $45.6M/295M in the USA (according to Google) is about 16 cents per person per year. I'd say 16 cents is a bargain for a life-saving technology.
I think I understand your objection, in that if we buy every new technology we *may* end up paying "too much" and spend all of our money on mechanisms which are only going to save one or two people. But at what point is "too much" to save a life?
I completely agree in that, at some point, a line needs to be drawn. But it's ridiculous to say that "one person must work 1,140 years to save someone else's life" because that's not how our country works (or any, as far as I know). I'm not going to need to work for a thousand years for fire protection or the police department or public education for that matter because those are things that, as a society, we've decided get used enough to pool our resources to buy as a city/county/state/country.
A better argument might be "For $38 billion we could do XXX and save more lives." That I could get behind. I was even with your math for the first two calculations, as I expected you to simply say "for $38B we could save a million people from dying of AIDs" or some other life-saving expenditure. But talking about a 'per-person' cost of something that wouldn't be billed 'per person' seems unrealistic. -Trillian
I've had a tough time with this aspect of Card as well. I do disagree that his homophobia comes out in his more mainstream work: Specifically, I think the Ender's Game series has a message of acceptance which seems out of place when you read Card's writings on homosexuality. However, I would agree that his less well-known work, such as the Homecoming series or "Folk of the Fringe" (not sure if that's the exact title) are definitely filled with Card's Mormon beliefs and the opinions expressed in the essay you quoted.
You're right, in that Card is a practicing Mormon and (as he says very specifically in his essay) believes gays should not be viewed as "equal citizens within . . . society." While I don't feel those views are really present in the Ender's Game series, you may disagree. I also agree with you, in that I think his views are "anti-gay backwards bullshit." But I'm honestly not sure it's that simple to discount all of his writings because of that.
I loved Ender's Game when I first read it as a teenager and continue to enjoy rereading it. I don't think his latest Ender's Game-related books have been as good as the original three or four, but that's irrelevant to whether or not any of his work should be valued due to his (admittedly disgusting) beliefs.
I learned about Card's views on homosexuality after I'd read Ender's Game and some of his other work, and thus already enjoyed his writing. I was working at a local sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in the Chicago area (unfortunately now out of business...) when Card was going to come for a signing. The owner, with her encyclopedic knowledge of sci-fi and fantasy authors as well as books, talked to be about the protocol for Card's visit as well as his political/religious views. To make matters worse, she showed me a "children's" book Card wrote, "Magic Mirror." (Do an Amazon or Google search for 'orson scott card "magic mirror"' to find it. Too lazy to hyperlink.) The book is described as a "contemporary fairy tale," and shows "the consequences of misplaced hopes and what happens when people let themselves become disconnected from one another." The the book centers around a family of four (mom, dad, son, and daughter) all of whom are growing distant from each other. Through a 'magic mirror' they are able to see their faults and come back together. The problem for me is that the 'faults' of the children involve playing videogames, listening to 'bad' music, and (in the daughter's case) not looking 'pretty' because she had dyed hair and dressed 'gothy' (a particular mark against Card, as one of the women I worked with at the bookstore was a dyed-hair goth). At the end of the book the daughter's hair is once again blonde and she's wearing some sort of pink dress.
So Card's idea of a "proper" family seems rooted firmly in the ideals of the 1950s white-picket-fence variety. I'd also agree he's a bigot and (at least in his political and social views) has his head up his ass. In that respect, I'd agree he's full of bullshit.
But how does that affect his writing and the enjoyment of his writing by those who disagree with his social/political views?
After much thought and soul-searching, I've come to the conclusion that (in my opinion) he is an excellent writer and, while I do think he's full of "anti-gay backwards bullshit," to me his extreme views are absent from enough of his novels and short stories that I find them worth reading. (Sidenote: if you *are* a Card fan and haven't read any of his short story collections, do yourself a favor and track 'em down. They're good, and - I think - have minimal social or religious messages in them.) I'm still conflicted in that I don't like supporting someone with views that I so violently disagree with, but I'm honest enough with myself to say that I do really enjoy his writing.
I can completely understand how someone else would feel different and, even in books/stories which aren't explicitly social or religious in nature still find it impossible to get rid of thoughts on Card's views. I think
I am both a Star Wars geek and a performance/theatre geek, a dangerous combination which leads to over-analysis. Since seeing Episode III earlier today, I've been thinking a lot about how the presentation of Episodes I through III alter Episodes IV-VI. "Star Wars," as a single story told through film (ignoring books/videogames/comics/fan films/etc), now functions in six episodes tied together by numerous characters and over-arcing story threads. So how does this single narrative affect how Episodes IV-VI should be viewed?
For example, one of the great things about Ep. IV-VI was discovering Luke and Leia's relationship and that Vader is their father. The problem is, this only works as a dramatic issue for the audience (obviously it still works for the characters) if the audience doesn't know those things going in. Now, it's not an unreasonable assumption to say that everybody seeing Star Wars (even for the first time) already knows those things. But as an artistic work (granting the "Star Wars" films the status of 'art') Lucas removed a large dramatic moment of the story as a whole. Likewise, the way Lucas has set up the over-arcing 6-ilogy (sexilogy?) now places more emphasis on Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption (and in some ways, parallel journeys by Obi-Wan and Yoda) than about the adventures of Luke, Leia, etc in IV-VI.
What does the Slashdot crowd think? Ignoring the actual presentation of Episodes I-III, was the very idea flawed, and does it do damage to the structure of Eps. IV-VI? Does the new over-arcing story cary enough value to disregard the problems it creates? Am I just over-thinking this way too much? -Trillian
Slashdot Mirror
Funny how you sometimes find people where you least expect them...
Congrats on going full-time! I've done some work this summer on getting myself closer to passing (although I'm honest enough to say it's been much more mental work than presentational) but am still quite a ways away.
It's interesting about voice, 'though. My "polite phone voice" is a couple octaves higher than my normal speaking voice and I get "ma'm"ed all the time on the phone. I noticed it first while working in an office at school answering phones and that my greeting, "Thank you for calling [office name]. How can I help you?" was so much higher than I normally spoke, but still comfortable. I've been working on it conciously and can, at least on the phone, pretty consistently get people to assume I'm female. Actually came in handy when I called the phone company and pretended to be my mom to get some service stuff changed (with her permission). I've never tried passing in real life, as I'm just not comfortable enough with myself to try...I think (intelectually) that I might even succeed, I'm just too scared of faliure...
Back to WoW, I think I'm happy enough not playing, both in terms of time and money. WoW never "took over my life," but I was definitely at a high enough level that really advancing required a committment to group with people for a good chunk of time. The fact I broke a finger and couldn't play for about two months helped make it a clean break, as most people I knew had moved to other guilds or servers by the time I got back, but I'm happy I'm not playing anymore. That said, WoW was tons of fun. I just think I'm developing something of a voiced sentiment on Slashdot, that I'd rather play single player games I can schedule for myself or play less intense/time consuming multiplayer games like some of the stuff on the Nintendo DS.
I realize that, once again, I'm posting far too late, so forgive me if this was sort of rambling (and for any spelling errors....)
-Trillian
Just wanted to chime in on the surprisingly large (to me, anyway) trans slashdot population. I'll second the GP in that while I'm off WoW now, when I was playing I didn't use in-game voice chatting software even though I *know* it makes life eaiser. I enjoyed playing not only a female avatar but a female persona - while I'm taking slow baby steps to make my physical body match my mental picture of myself, it was seductively easy to click 'female' in WoW and be in an environment where people treated you as whatever you claimed to be (not saying that always meant being treated better...)
As a side note, I'm gonna say that my understanding of 'transgendered' is different from 'transexual' in that the former is a much broader term while the latter has (to me, anyway) connotations of desiring body modification. So some of the parent posters seem to fall under my understanding of transgendered, even if they don't fall under transsexual. Although I'm also all about the importance of self-labeling, so if any of the parents disagree for their personal label they are, of course, welcome to claim or reject any title they like.
-Trillian
For whatever the hell I want. Backpacking, driving, geocaching, exploring my neighborhood, seeing where I am with pin-point accuracy, fucking around with a Galileo receiver, whatever the hell I wan. See, you're asking the wrong question. The question is always "why shouldn't I be able to do X," not "why should we allow you to do X." I'll ask it again, why shouldn't people have access to that combination of features? Likewise, who are you to tell the EU not to launch satellites?
I really don't buy "But North Korea might use the system for EEEEEEEEVIL!!!" There are lots of technologies that people could use for nefarious purposes, and if N.K. gets the tech to hit the US (or wherever) with missiles, the lack or use of pin-point positioning is only gonna mean they can hit the general area of LA or specifically hit the 'Hollywood' sign. Either way, LA is toast, and I'm still not convinced by your arguments against the necessity of Galileo. We've seen the US's willingness to shut off GPS to "the enemy." But what if 'the enemy' becomes members of the EU? Japan? US citizens?
-Trillian
Forgive me for being a little over-the-top, I just don't like "someone could use this for EVIL so *no one* should use it" as an argument. As a side note, didn't we recently see how well N. Korea's long-rage weapons work?
Look, there may be valid reasons to oppose the Galileo system, I just don't think I've heard any yet from this thread.
-Trillian
It also seems unfair for you to say "Galileo isn't built yet, and they wouldn't mandate a foreign GPS system. Soon enough, Galileo will be mandated. You'll see" but then say (in response to claims that Galileo will be functionally superior) "Nope. It will be the same, because the free GPS signal will be upgraded in response." So let me get this straight - we should judge Galileo to be inferior because it's not released yet but it might become mandated, but we shouldn't judge US GPS to be inferior because it "will be" improved to meet Galileo's (proposed) precision when Galileo is released. So in both cases, you're making a judgement based on something which hasn't happened yet...it seems like you've already made up you're mind that "If it's good enough for the US it should be good enough for the rest of the world."
-Trillian
I think the point being made was that in a world where someone can be sued and forced to remove software from distribution - either from legal rulings or the threat of litigation forcing a chioce of financial priorities - saying that the source will be released "real soon now" may mean it's never released at all. Obviously, releasing well-formated source code with documentation is better than releasing poorly formated code with no documentation, but both are better than releasing nothing at all.
I mention DVD Decrypter in the subject of the post because it's a well-known (if you're into that kind of thing) DVD ripping software that was taken down from a number of (US-hosted) sites after threat of litigation and, since it was closed-source, no further developement was made. Now, I'm not trying to compare FreeDB to DVD Decrypter, either in terms of legality or morality. Just using DVD Decrypter as an example of software which, had it been open source, could still be under developement but because the source code wasn't being released is now "lost forver." (Of course, in actually, it's not that hard to find a download of the final released version of DVD Decrypter, but it would have been nice if the code was out there for other people to continue improving.)
Again, I'm not trying to compare FreeDB to DVD Decrypter. Just providing an example for the parent's point that you never know how some court ruling or sue-happy lawfirm is going to affect what's out there. I'm not even trying to say FreeDB *should* post every line of code currently written - I can understand why the author wouldn't want that. At the same time, I can understand why the GP has an attitude of "all-or-nothing" in terms of calling something 'open source.'
-Trillian
You wouldn't happen to know where to...um...find any, would you? I'm looking for some...for...scientific research...
Yes...
For science...
Wonderful science...
Sorry if I wasn't clear (and re-reading my post, I probably wasn't) but I completely agree with everything you're saying. I just wanted to stress that there are (or, at least, will be) four "new" systems (i.e. ones which will have new games coming out for the forseable future): PC, 360, and the yet-to-be-released Wii and PS3. My issue was the GP said something along the lines of "the three next gen consoles." Market success is as much an issue of mindshare as it is an issue of actual system power. I'd say the constant posts on Slashdot about the iPod not having $FEATURE_X while $PLAYER_Y does are an example of this sort of thing. For example, many publications put the GameCube behind the XBox and PS2 in terms of marketshare when, internationally, this really isn't true - XBox and GC are in the same ballpark, while both are quite a bit below the PS2. I know I'm fighting a losing battle, but I'd like to prevent that sort of thing for the 'next generation' of consoles. By leaving the Wii off (and by implying - intentionally or unintentionally - that no fourth system exists) it sends a message about the Wii's relationship to the 360, PS3, and computer.
Again, I don't think this was intentional on the part of the GP and I think he meant "the three most graphically powerful systems (PS3, 360, and PC)" rather than simply "the three next gen systems (PS3, 360, and PC)."
Just my two cents.
-Trillian
-Trillian
First, even though another reply to your post says I agree with you that discrimination against women could (not saying it is) be the reason for both those things. It's not inherently impossible for one thing (discrimination against women) to have multiple effects...
I also agree that it's possible that more men are garbagemen/coalminers/whatever because, in general, those jobs require physical strength and, in general, men are stronger than women. However, I do think it's worth noting that those are also jobs which, for whatever reason, are more socially acceptable for a man to hold that a women. Not gonna guess why, but there it is.
One thing I did have issue with, however: Um, what? "There are more male criminals, because more men commit crimes." Well, yes. Saying "My walls are white because the paint I used is white" is true but not very informative. I'm not gonna try and guess why there are more male criminals than female (or even say if that is true - I'm guessing it is, but don't have statistics in front of me) but saying it's because "mostly men commit crimes" isn't giving an explanation, it's just restating what we already know. That I wholeheartedly agree with you on, although it's somewhat OT. But again, the fact there are vastly more black men than white (or black or latino or rainbow) women on death row is, in part, due to the fact that (to my understanding) more black men commit crimes eligible for death row than white males. Again, I think there is racism and sexism in the criminal justice system in addition to the skewed demographics of those who actually commit the crimes, but there's a skew there as well.
Just some thougts.
-Trillian
"Seriously, if you want to keep the debate on a rigorous level..."
See, that's the problem. To the people like the GP (and myself, FWIW) there is no debate. To take a mundane analogy, it would be like sitting around the dinner table following a good meal, full and satisfied with lots of dirty plates still sitting around, when someone says "So I'd like to debate whether or not we just ate."
The idea you could debate such an "obvious" conclusion is ridiculous. Likewise, to myself and many others, the idea you could even begin to debate whether or not evelution is responsible for the complexity of life is absurd.
-Trillian
Not surprisingly, this is without citation, so take with a grain of salt...anyone who can speak french and confirm/deny 'dike' would be appreciated.
Trillian
I agree with all that (language changing, the evolution of language, etc). But because I (and at least some others) view the transformation of 'gay' to mean something negative as a bad thing, I'm trying to fight it. It may be a downhill battle, but I don't think that's true. We know language changes, and I'm arguing that (because I feel this specific lanaguage shift is a bad thing) it's reasonable to call people on their use of 'gay' to mean something negative and that it is possible to use the public perception of a word to alter its meaning.
Concerning the use of nigger...
I think I understand your point on the difference between explicitly intending offence (i.e. using 'nigger') and not intending offense (i.e. 'gay' in a negative sense). But whether or not you intend to offend, you do offend at least some people. And I guess I just don't see 'gay' (again, in its negative use) as a culturally important enough word to be worth perserving. There are words like 'lame' and 'stupid' which (I think) serve just fine, so I don't see why 'gay' should be considered okay.
Concerning 'gay' and its acceptance in terms of the cultural attitude toward homosexuality, I have to disagree with you. This is, of course, an argument without academic backing and merely one of those "it feels true" kind of things, so I may be completely off-base (I'd love to see data either way!). You said "I don't think that the usage of gay is considered more legitimate because homosexuality is still considered taboo or wrong, simply because I haven't met anyone who thinks so in a very long time, certainly nobody I know in my age." I'm not sure if you're in the USA (you said your primary language is German) so I can't speak for attitudes in Europe, but at least in the United States it's still taboo or wrong to a huge number of people, and I think that has influenced the use of 'gay' to mean something negative. I just can't imagine (for example) a teacher ever allowing the same transformation to happen to "black" or "mexican" (two random examples) because those are groups which we are not 'officially allowed' to dislike.
Look at the media frenzy over Mass. allowing gay marriage, Bush promoting an amendment outlawing gay marriage, the fact it took a Supreme Court ruling to legalize consentual sodomy in Texas, or Jerry Falwell blaming September 11, 2001 on "pagans, and the abortionists, and the feminists, and the gays and the lesbians who are actively trying to make that an alternative lifestyle, the ACLU, People for the American Way" (in fact, just look at the whole Wikipedia article on societal attitudes towar homosexuality: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Societal_attitudes_to wards_homosexuality )
I know you said you weren't as intere
With those assumptions....
First, I want to argue with you when you say "a non-discriminative way." I am willing to accept "in a way not intended to be discriminatory," but what I'm saying is that it is discriminatory, whether or not it is intended to be. Likewise, I very much disagree that my 'translation' of how I interprut the use of gay to mean 'lame' is taking a word "obviously used" in a non-discriminatory way and making it discriminatory. Again, I'm saying it's inherently discriminatory, because of the etymology of the word 'gay,' as well as the ussage of 'gay' to mean 'homosexual.' I'm honestly just not sure what you mean by that. I agree that we should not always have to think about every little thing we say, for fear of offending someone. However, in my original post, I said "If I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language." So first, I'm very specifically including Slashdot as a place where I think it's reasonable to keep in mind the possibility that you may offend someone. You're welcome to disagree, but don't brush off my argument by saying "it only applies to the office," since intentionally included public forums for discussion, such as Slashdot, when making my point.
More importantly, you create a strawman by saying a person should be able to go out in public "without being offended at one thing or another." I'm not talking about "one thing or another," I'm very specifically talking about the use of 'gay' in a derogatory fashion, to mean 'lame' or 'stupid' or somesuch. I agree we live in a very "P.C." society, and that a lot of te time people should have thicker skin and not complain about percieved insults where none exist. But, I would argue, the etymology of the word 'gay' and the use of 'gay' to mean something bad creates a very real insult. If you want to disagree and do so anyway, go ahead. But people like myself are going to call you on it to try and make you justify yourself. That's another great strawman, and one that's a bit more out there. If you really don't have a problem with the use of 'gay' with negative connotations, that's fine. I disagree with you, but that's fine. Don't go pretending that any gay person who disagrees with you has some sort of problem with themself to work out...
Again, feel free to respond.
Trillian
So while you're welcome to use 'nigger' to mean 'book' within your social group without my complaint (altough if I hear you do it I'll probably ask you not to do it around me) when you take that slang outside your social group you run into people like myself (and the GP, apparently) who are A) going to think you're a racist (or homophobic, or sexist, or whatever-the-term-is-ist) and B) call you on it.
I have another big problem with your analogy. A book is an inherently (I hope...) non-judgemental label. Sure, there are subjectively "good" and "bad" books, but unless your social circle has an inside joke in which calling someone a "book" is either praise or offensive, saying you'll use 'nigger' to mean 'book' is not a fair analogy to 'gay' and 'lame.'
Finally, you say "Nigger is not an analogous example (because) Gay has three word meanings that are vastly different." Gay has those three different meanings because being racist has been, at least for a couple decades, officially unacceptable. Sure, people are obviously still racist, but you'll at the very least have difficulty forming a political platform by openly stating "We should round up the niggers and sterilize them to prevent breeding." The reason 'gay' has become synonemous with lame in the first place is because being homophobic is still socially acceptable to the point where casual slang like that is not being stopped. To paraphrase, you're saying "Nigger is not an analogous example because people aren't allowed to be officially racist, so there's only one definition of nigger and nigger never entered popular slang to mean 'bad' or 'stupid.' But 'gay' is different because it did.' The principal is not different, only the specifics.
Feel free to disagree,
-Trillian
"...I don't know any sensible, level-headed gay men or lesbians who are offended when others do, so long as the intent, the meaning behind those words isn't meant to put-down gays."
Well, I do, so I guess all that proves is anectodal evidence is useless.
More to the point, I can't accept that the intent behind a word can be completely seperated from the word's definition or connotation. Have you ever had to suffer through one of those work-mandated " lets learn about harrasment" sessions? I recently had to and the one thing that I came out with which I believe is valuable is that harrasment (or, in this case, the use of offensive language) is in the eye of the beholder. If I'm in my group of friends and we're comfortable making what would generally be considered racist or sexist jokes (and we are), that is an appropriate behavior and use of language. However, if I'm in a situation where someone *might* be offended by casual slang (such as Slashdot) it's rude to use it with the assumption everyone is okay with that language.
Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not advocating that political correctness be held above all other thoughts when trying to say something, or that a public forum such as Sashdot should become a bland, vanilla discussion where no one speaks out for fear of offending someone else. But as someone who identifies as queer and has openly gay friends, to *ME* using 'gay' as a synonem (sp?) for 'lame' or 'stupid' is directly saying "This idea/object/activity/etc is stupid and lame, like those gay people are." It doesn't matter if that's how it was intended or not, but because (to my understanding) the ussage of "gay" in that context stems from a negative perception of deviant sexuality in U.S. culture, that's how I'll see it. (Well, fine. I suppose on some level it does matter if the intent was to offend or not, but the point is my feelings will be hurt either way.)
Once again, I am not saying we should try to avoid hurting feelings at all costs, or that people should refrain from speaking merely because they might hurt someone else. But when you know a substantial portion of the population finds something offensive, and there's no good reason (that I can see) to use the word anyway, why do it?
Please feel free to disagree. I'm interested in responses.
-Trillian
After reading your comment I did some research on ING Direct and have decided to open an account there. I wanted to see if you actually had an account there and, if so, you'd like referr me (selfishly, as I understand they have referral bonus for both the referrer and the reffered). My email (with spamfilter) should be on my account, otherwise reply to this and we'll see if we can figure something out.
-Trillian
PS - If you don't actually have an account there, I'd be curious to hear why you mention them anyway. It looks like, when paired with a checking account, it's a great system for earning some extra intrest. Thanks!
That was a helpful clarification, and I appreciate it. (Can't speak for anyone else, but I imagine others did to.)
What I think would be helpful is if you, either just replying to me here or on the main Boxxet page, provided some examples. Something like "Typing in '[some words]' might get you a page like THIS(LINK)' THat would give readers a better idea of what to expect, so we're not just talking out of our ass.
Not that Slashdot isn't a good place for talking out of your ass. *grin*
-Trillian
Yes? Yes? You are what? What are you? The suspense is killing me!!
Trillian
Mine is 425261-389277, nick Trillian
I have no experience with the ion air cleaners, but had heard they can be bad for the life of rubber components. Anyone have any knowledge if this is true or false?
If you look at my last paragraph, I did say you needed to compare with other posibilities for the $38B. I honestly think there are better usages for that much money than the auto-pool thingamajob. I just disagreed with the GPs claim that the $45.6M "per person" was how money costs are divided for projects funded with taxes.
-Trillian
You didn't take the math to its completion. Sure, if each of the 832 people has to pay for their own rescue, it's $45.6M per person (going by your math, which I have no reason to doubt).
/295M in the USA (according to Google) is about 16 cents per person per year. I'd say 16 cents is a bargain for a life-saving technology.
But one of the great things about living in a country is that you get to pool (no pun intended) the resources of everyone who lives there. So $45.6M
I think I understand your objection, in that if we buy every new technology we *may* end up paying "too much" and spend all of our money on mechanisms which are only going to save one or two people. But at what point is "too much" to save a life?
I completely agree in that, at some point, a line needs to be drawn. But it's ridiculous to say that "one person must work 1,140 years to save someone else's life" because that's not how our country works (or any, as far as I know). I'm not going to need to work for a thousand years for fire protection or the police department or public education for that matter because those are things that, as a society, we've decided get used enough to pool our resources to buy as a city/county/state/country.
A better argument might be "For $38 billion we could do XXX and save more lives." That I could get behind. I was even with your math for the first two calculations, as I expected you to simply say "for $38B we could save a million people from dying of AIDs" or some other life-saving expenditure. But talking about a 'per-person' cost of something that wouldn't be billed 'per person' seems unrealistic.
-Trillian
I've had a tough time with this aspect of Card as well. I do disagree that his homophobia comes out in his more mainstream work: Specifically, I think the Ender's Game series has a message of acceptance which seems out of place when you read Card's writings on homosexuality. However, I would agree that his less well-known work, such as the Homecoming series or "Folk of the Fringe" (not sure if that's the exact title) are definitely filled with Card's Mormon beliefs and the opinions expressed in the essay you quoted.
You're right, in that Card is a practicing Mormon and (as he says very specifically in his essay) believes gays should not be viewed as "equal citizens within . . . society." While I don't feel those views are really present in the Ender's Game series, you may disagree. I also agree with you, in that I think his views are "anti-gay backwards bullshit." But I'm honestly not sure it's that simple to discount all of his writings because of that.
I loved Ender's Game when I first read it as a teenager and continue to enjoy rereading it. I don't think his latest Ender's Game-related books have been as good as the original three or four, but that's irrelevant to whether or not any of his work should be valued due to his (admittedly disgusting) beliefs.
I learned about Card's views on homosexuality after I'd read Ender's Game and some of his other work, and thus already enjoyed his writing. I was working at a local sci-fi/fantasy bookstore in the Chicago area (unfortunately now out of business...) when Card was going to come for a signing. The owner, with her encyclopedic knowledge of sci-fi and fantasy authors as well as books, talked to be about the protocol for Card's visit as well as his political/religious views. To make matters worse, she showed me a "children's" book Card wrote, "Magic Mirror." (Do an Amazon or Google search for 'orson scott card "magic mirror"' to find it. Too lazy to hyperlink.) The book is described as a "contemporary fairy tale," and shows "the consequences of misplaced hopes and what happens when people let themselves become disconnected from one another." The the book centers around a family of four (mom, dad, son, and daughter) all of whom are growing distant from each other. Through a 'magic mirror' they are able to see their faults and come back together. The problem for me is that the 'faults' of the children involve playing videogames, listening to 'bad' music, and (in the daughter's case) not looking 'pretty' because she had dyed hair and dressed 'gothy' (a particular mark against Card, as one of the women I worked with at the bookstore was a dyed-hair goth). At the end of the book the daughter's hair is once again blonde and she's wearing some sort of pink dress.
So Card's idea of a "proper" family seems rooted firmly in the ideals of the 1950s white-picket-fence variety. I'd also agree he's a bigot and (at least in his political and social views) has his head up his ass. In that respect, I'd agree he's full of bullshit.
But how does that affect his writing and the enjoyment of his writing by those who disagree with his social/political views?
After much thought and soul-searching, I've come to the conclusion that (in my opinion) he is an excellent writer and, while I do think he's full of "anti-gay backwards bullshit," to me his extreme views are absent from enough of his novels and short stories that I find them worth reading. (Sidenote: if you *are* a Card fan and haven't read any of his short story collections, do yourself a favor and track 'em down. They're good, and - I think - have minimal social or religious messages in them.) I'm still conflicted in that I don't like supporting someone with views that I so violently disagree with, but I'm honest enough with myself to say that I do really enjoy his writing.
I can completely understand how someone else would feel different and, even in books/stories which aren't explicitly social or religious in nature still find it impossible to get rid of thoughts on Card's views. I think
I am both a Star Wars geek and a performance/theatre geek, a dangerous combination which leads to over-analysis. Since seeing Episode III earlier today, I've been thinking a lot about how the presentation of Episodes I through III alter Episodes IV-VI. "Star Wars," as a single story told through film (ignoring books/videogames/comics/fan films/etc), now functions in six episodes tied together by numerous characters and over-arcing story threads. So how does this single narrative affect how Episodes IV-VI should be viewed?
For example, one of the great things about Ep. IV-VI was discovering Luke and Leia's relationship and that Vader is their father. The problem is, this only works as a dramatic issue for the audience (obviously it still works for the characters) if the audience doesn't know those things going in. Now, it's not an unreasonable assumption to say that everybody seeing Star Wars (even for the first time) already knows those things. But as an artistic work (granting the "Star Wars" films the status of 'art') Lucas removed a large dramatic moment of the story as a whole. Likewise, the way Lucas has set up the over-arcing 6-ilogy (sexilogy?) now places more emphasis on Anakin Skywalker's rise, fall, and redemption (and in some ways, parallel journeys by Obi-Wan and Yoda) than about the adventures of Luke, Leia, etc in IV-VI.
What does the Slashdot crowd think? Ignoring the actual presentation of Episodes I-III, was the very idea flawed, and does it do damage to the structure of Eps. IV-VI? Does the new over-arcing story cary enough value to disregard the problems it creates? Am I just over-thinking this way too much?
-Trillian