<p dir="ltr">I like what G wrote.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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.</p>
<p dir="ltr">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!</p>
<p dir="ltr">Alcides Gutierrez<br>
<a href="http://e64.us">http://e64.us</a></p>
<div class="gmail_quote">On May 8, 2013 2:42 PM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" <<a href="mailto:g2g-public01@att.net">g2g-public01@att.net</a>> wrote:<br type="attribution"><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div bgcolor="#FFFFFF" text="#000000">
<br>
Yo's-<br>
<br>
The distinctions that seem to be emerging here are:<br>
<br>
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).<br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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"). <br>
<br>
a) Asserting superiority/dominance over others.<br>
b) Asserting dignity via reframing or reappropriation of
oppressors' language.<br>
c) Being "edgy" or "provocative" (which can backfire).<br>
d) Asserting free speech rights, regardless of consequences.<br>
e) Misguided attempts at reappropriation (e.g. where it isn't
welcome).<br>
f) Inflaming of one's own and others' passions.<br>
g) Empathy with others: being aware of others' feelings.<br>
h) Understanding of others: being aware of their overall
circumstances.<br>
i) Peace-making on whatever level: spreading emotions associated
with peace.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
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.<br>
<br>
---<br>
<br>
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. <br>
<br>
-G.<br>
<br>
<br>
======<br>
<br>
<br>
<div>On 13-05-08-Wed 12:29 PM, Anthony Di
Franco wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite">
<div dir="ltr">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">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:<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">- 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?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">- 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?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">- 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?<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">
- 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?<br>
<br>
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">
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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">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.<br>
<br>
</div>
<div class="gmail_default" style="font-family:arial narrow,sans-serif">That is the sense in which I ask whether
Heeb Magazine has a place on sudo room's shelves.<br>
</div>
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
<div style="text-decoration:none">
</div>
</div>
<div class="gmail_extra"><br>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, rachel
lyra hospodar <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com" target="_blank">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
<div>
<p>On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" <<a href="mailto:di.franco@gmail.com" target="_blank">di.franco@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> 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?</p>
</div>
<p>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.</p>
<p>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.</p>
<p><a href="http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation" target="_blank">http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation</a></p>
<p><a href="http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to-say.html?m=1" target="_blank">http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to-say.html?m=1</a></p>
<p>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. </p>
<span><font color="#888888">
<p>R.</p>
</font></span>
<div>
<div>
<p>><br>
> On May 7, 2013 10:30 AM, "Anca Mosoiu" <<a href="mailto:anca@techliminal.com" target="_blank">anca@techliminal.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> +1, and Amen!<br>
>><br>
>> Anca.<br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alcides
Gutierrez <<a href="mailto:alcides888@gmail.com" target="_blank">alcides888@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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!<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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.<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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!)<br>
>>><br>
>>> 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!<br>
>>><br>
>>> Alcides Gutierrez<br>
>>> <a href="http://e64.us" target="_blank">http://e64.us</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" <<a href="mailto:maxb.personal@gmail.com" target="_blank">maxb.personal@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> +1<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> Thank you for that.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>> On 05/06/2013 01:40 PM, hep wrote:<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> it is really sad that this list
is literally turning into a game of oppression bingo.
i will make this brief. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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?"<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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 <a href="http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage" target="_blank">http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage</a><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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 <a href="http://dictionary.com" target="_blank">dictionary.com</a>,
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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> 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. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> also everything that rachel
said. <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -hep<br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM,
Anthony Di Franco <<a href="mailto:di.franco@aya.yale.edu" target="_blank">di.franco@aya.yale.edu</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> Anthony<br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14
AM, rachel lyra hospodar <<a href="mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com" target="_blank">rachelyra@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> I am really sad about
this whole thread.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> 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.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> Good luck to you all. I
enjoy many things about sudo community and am sure I
will stay connected in many ways.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> R.<br>
>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>> On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM,
"Anthony Di Franco" <<a href="mailto:di.franco@gmail.com" target="_blank">di.franco@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> 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?<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> Your description
seems more like meditatively flowing through it.<br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013
at 2:58 PM, netdiva <<a href="mailto:netdiva@sonic.net" target="_blank">netdiva@sonic.net</a>>
wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> Here I was
thinking "killing it" was just another example of
appropriation of african american vernacular by the
mainstream.<br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2013 2:46
PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote:<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> "killing it"
is a recently popular term to denote excellence and
immense progress. it has a violent, forceful
connotation.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> 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."<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> thought
sudoers would appreciate this.<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> cuddling it,<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> --<br>
>>>>>>>>>> len<br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>> founder,
ligertail<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://ligertail.com" target="_blank">http://ligertail.com</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss
mailing list<br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing
list<br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>> -- <br>
>>>>> hep<br>
>>>>> hepic photography || <a href="http://www.hepic.net" target="_blank">www.hepic.net</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:dis@gruntle.org" target="_blank">dis@gruntle.org</a> || <a href="tel:415%20867%209472" value="+14158679472" target="_blank">415 867 9472</a> <br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>><br>
>>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>><br>
>>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>>><br>
>>><br>
>>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>>> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> -- <br>
>> -=-=-=-<br>
>> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal<br>
>> <a href="mailto:anca@techliminal.com" target="_blank">anca@techliminal.com</a><br>
>> M: <a href="tel:%28510%29%20220-6660" value="+15102206660" target="_blank">(510) 220-6660</a><br>
>> <a href="http://techliminal.com" target="_blank">http://techliminal.com</a>
| T: @techliminal | F: <a href="http://facebook.com/techliminal" target="_blank">facebook.com/techliminal</a><br>
>><br>
>>
_______________________________________________<br>
>> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
>><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
><br>
</p>
</div>
</div>
</blockquote>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<fieldset></fieldset>
<br>
<pre>_______________________________________________
sudo-discuss mailing list
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org" target="_blank">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a>
</pre>
</blockquote>
<br>
</div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
sudo-discuss mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org">sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss" target="_blank">http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div>