Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.…

Did you actually just say this in public? On 5/3/2013 3:04 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.…

Dont worry, that was really just a rhetorical question. On 5/3/2013 3:11 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.…

Not rhetorical enough, but I'll leave this here for now. On 5/3/2013 3:18 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: ______________________________**_________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.…

I think you all really nailed it. On May 3, 2013 3:44 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Allow me to provide a walkthrough then. > To be civilized is, here, to be part of a settled society with an elite > that controls distribution of resources, social standing, and everything > else it can, and therefore to give up one's own capacity to provide for > oneself among peers those things, which includes giving up the use of > violence to a caste approved by the elite to use violence only for ends > compatible with its own. It can be contrasted with different flavors of > being a barbarian, and my favorite way of doing this is Venkat Rao's here<http://www.ribbonfarm.com/2011/03/10/the-return-of-the-barbarian/&g…n/>, > which among many other things sheds some light on the broader significance > of the rise of hackerspaces, I think. > According to wikipedia <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Noble_savage>, > "The term *noble savage* (French, *bon sauvage*) expresses the concept > of an idealized indigene, outsider, or "other<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Other>" > and refers to the literary stock character<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_character> > ." > As lamented by Common in I Used to Love H.E.R<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C99iG4HoO1c>1c>, > playing to the not-so-noble-savage character of the violent, misogynist > gangster to win the patronage of both elites psychologically craving a > shadow other to project their own sins onto, and to subclasses craving the > free exercise of their natural powers that they have given up in the > process of becoming civilized that is perversely represented by the symbol > of elite power and privilege projected onto the noble savage, is a key part > of the story of the co-optation of hip-hop culture into the mainstream. > So, of course, I have no reservations about saying such a thing in public. > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:22 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt; wrote: > >> Not rhetorical enough, but I'll leave this here for now. >> >> >> On 5/3/2013 3:18 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: >> >>> No worries. My response was a rhetorical answer. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:16 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto: >>> netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt;&gt; wrote: >>> >>> Dont worry, that was really just a rhetorical question. >>> >>> >>> On 5/3/2013 3:11 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: >>> >>> Of course. >>> >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net&lt;mailtomailto: >>> netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt; <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>>> >>> wrote: >>> >>> Â Â Did you actually just say this in public? >>> >>> >>> Â Â On 5/3/2013 3:04 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: >>> >>> Â Â Â Â Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the >>> things it sets itself >>> Â Â Â Â apart from and gives up and projects on its image >>> of the noble savage >>> Â Â Â Â though? >>> >>> Â Â Â Â Your description seems more like meditatively >>> flowing through it. >>> >>> >>> Â Â Â Â On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva < >>> netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net<mailto: >>> netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt;&gt; >>> Â Â Â Â <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net> >>> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>>>> wrote: >>> >>> Â Â Â Â Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another >>> example of >>> Â Â Â Â appropriation of african american vernacular by the >>> mainstream. >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Â Â Â Â On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: >>> >>> Â Â Â Â "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote >>> excellence and >>> Â Â Â Â immense progress. it has a violent, forceful >>> connotation. >>> >>> Â Â Â Â friends in the circus community - through empirical >>> evidence - have >>> Â Â Â Â established a belief that operating at the highest >>> levels of talent >>> Â Â Â Â requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a >>> better term, which >>> Â Â Â Â they have started to playfully use, is "cuddling >>> it." >>> >>> Â Â Â Â thought sudoers would appreciate this. >>> >>> Â Â Â Â cuddling it, >>> >>> Â Â Â Â -- len >>> >>> Â Â Â Â founder, ligertail http://ligertail.com >>> >>> >>> Â Â Â Â ______________________________**_______________________ >>> sudo-discuss >>> Â Â Â Â mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.__** >>> ____org >>> Â Â Â Â <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists. <mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.&gt;__**s__udoroom.org <http://s__udoroom.org> < >>> http://sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.__s**udoroom.org<http://sudoroom.org><mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.**sudoroom.org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; >>> Â Â Â Â http://lists.sudoroom.org/____** >>> __listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/______listinfo/sudo-di… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/___**_listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudor… >>> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/___**_listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discuss>< >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> >> >>> Â Â Â Â <http://lists.sudoroom.org/___** >>> _listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discu… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss>< >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>> >>> >>> >>> Â Â Â Â ______________________________**_______________________ >>> sudo-discuss >>> Â Â Â Â mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.__** >>> ____org >>> Â Â Â Â <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists. <mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.&gt;__**s__udoroom.org <http://s__udoroom.org> < >>> http://sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.__s**udoroom.org<http://sudoroom.org><mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.**sudoroom.org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt;&gt;&gt;&gt; >>> Â Â Â Â http://lists.sudoroom.org/____** >>> __listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/______listinfo/sudo-di… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/___**_listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudor… >>> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/___**_listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discuss>< >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> >> >>> >>> Â Â Â Â <http://lists.sudoroom.org/___** >>> _listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discu… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss>< >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>> >>> >>> >>> >>> Â Â ______________________________**_____________________ >>> Â Â sudo-discuss mailing list >>> Â Â sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.__**__org <mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.__s**udoroom.org <http://sudoroom.org> <mailto: >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.**sudoroom.org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt;&gt;&gt; >>> Â Â http://lists.sudoroom.org/____**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudor… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss>< >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>> >> >>> >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**___________________ >>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.__**org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.** >>> sudoroom.org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt;&gt; >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroo… >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>> > >>> >>> >>> >> ______________________________**_________________ >> sudo-discuss mailing list >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >> > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >

2) Where the power is, and where it isn't. Now we come to the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat. For this, credit also goes to a good friend of mine who I won't name here, but who's welcome to name him/herself if s/he so chooses: s/he got me thinking down this trail a few months ago. The proletariat is the working class: basically defined as people who have full-time jobs or at least jobs that provide sufficient income for the core necessities (shelter, clothing, food, transportation, sanitation, communication), but who have little or no ownership stake. This includes people who are in business for themselves, but earning a working class income: they own their employment, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as that of a wage-worker. The lumpenproletariat is the level below that: basically defined as people whose employment is marginal at best, and whose access to the basic necessities is frequently interrupted in some way. The unemployed, homeless, couch-surfers (another form of homelessness), people who live at the margins of the law in order to survive, and people who earn their livings on criminal activity. This also includes wage-workers whose wage income is not sufficient to provide their basic necessities from month to month: they have jobs, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as that of someone who's marginally employed at best. Decades ago, the Bay Area left/radical community made the deadly strategic error of embracing the (essentially Maoist) analysis that the lumpenproletariat is the revolutionary class. This error continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block tactics, which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and provoking police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution. The very same tactic in more obviously violent form pops up in the ideology of the extreme right: such as the Hutaree, a group that was busted by the FBI for planning to shoot a bunch of cops and then set off bombs at their funerals, in the attempt to provoke martial law and thereby set off a "revolution" from the extreme right. But here's the nexus of the problem: To the oligarchy, the lumpenproletariat is disposable: their roles in production and consumption are so minimal that they can be totally disregarded. They have NO power. N-O power. As individuals or as any kind of collectivity or class. When a social movement identifies with the lumpenproletariat and/or attempts to organize the lumpenproletariat, the movement effectively short-circuits its efforts into something that is inherently doomed to failure. They may as well be trying to organize the squirrels on the Cal Berkeley campus to strike for better teaching-assistant salaries. How seriously do you think the UC Regents would take the threat of a squirrel strike? The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce and consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is also the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way. The power of the proletariat takes two forms: One, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's engines of production: by going on strike (which translates to the power of collective bargaining), by going into business for themselves, and by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate capital to labor. Two, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's consumption matrix: by boycotts (consumer strikes), by anti-materialist or "simple living" principles that reduce consumption levels (the equivalent of consumer general strikes), by shifting their consumption to alternative institutions such as coops, credit unions, and small local producers (e.g. buying veggies at the farmers' market rather than Safeway), and very importantly for _us_ as hackers/makers/etc., the power to build for our own use. This is real power. It's the power that makes the oligarchs quake in their boots and have nightmares. And it's the power that gives the oligarchs strong incentive to keep us distracted, digressed, and disempowered by wasting our time trying to organize a squirrel strike. -G. _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

You've opened a can of worms here :) Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately, I have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing. Feel free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as important as free speech). I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power, are rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully) obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are drive, charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important, control. IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language, as shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is to try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like setting markers around, and using the markers to control the direction of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary and concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit damn" slurs. Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings, and one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all can guess where I'm going with this one ;) Hail Eris, aestetix PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon. On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:

Seems to me that traditional Jewish convey family connections, and geography. So until very recent times in history, to my Jewish ancestors, I would be Steve, son of Lou (and Benay added in more modern times), from New York. It helps to identify just which Steve you are talking about when gossiping about Steve, and just what social connections there might be between Steve and other people. So the name evokes questions like, Oh, your from New York, do you know xxxx? Or Lou is your father. Are you related to my 3rd cousin Fred, who has a brother name Lou? Humans are social animals and our social connections are important. You are you because of some combination of what you do, who you know, and who you are related to. Encoding some of that information in the name has been a convenience developed over the past 10,000 or so years, and we should consider carefully whether you are ready to throw it away. -steve On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:07 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote: Aestetix & Yo's- Names are nouns, but I puzzle over the term "proper noun," because a name is an arbitrary character-string that only appears noun-like because we say so. A "proper" type of noun should be one with some degree of linguistic meaning, for example through etymology ("bike" is a contraction of "bicycle", that has "two things that rotate", from which we also derive "motorcycle" that is also colloquially a "bike"), and names should be "improper nouns" because they don't follow that rule. The linguistic meaning of "given names" is limited, though perhaps sufficient for their historic purposes. Conventionally they convey gender, which is only useful in remotely assessing whether someone is a potential sex-partner. By geographic origin they often convey ethnicity, though this is starting to break down through cultural mixing (most of us are mutts, with two or more ethnicities in our families). Sometimes they convey religion, usually by inference from geographic origin or resemblance to historic names identified with specific religions. At one time they conveyed occupation, as with "Baker" and "Smith," though thankfully we have overcome mandatory hereditary assignment of jobs. There was a time when we could infer, for example, that "John Smith" was almost certainly male, probably Christian ("John" as Biblical name), and probably an ironworker ("blacksmith"). Bluntly put, this would tell you whether John Smith was someone you could mate with, someone with whom that mating would be approved by your own church, and where he stood in the socio-economic hierarchy. The use of "Miss" and "Mrs." for women ("Miss Jane Smith") further emphasized that in a patriarchial culture, males had a prerogative of ascertaining the eligibility of females as mating partners. Today all we can be reasonably sure of is that John Smith is male. He might be a Buddhist or an atheist by his own choice, and he probably works at a desk rather than a forge, and his ethnicity might be a combination of English, French, Kenyan, and Chinese for all we know. Some day perhaps we'll have to guess at John Smith's gender. That would be progress. -G. On 13-05-03-Fri 11:30 PM, aestetix wrote: _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss -- -steve

One of the ways Jews maintained cultural cohesion is through a systematic mutilation of their children that, while overtly hidden, marked them as separate from the culture around them. In this context it is interesting that the US has mainstreamed circumcision, and based on first person reports I have heard, in some ways this does contribute to a global drop in anti-semitism, which increases cultural diffusion. Re gender assumptions, 'someday' we 'might' move beyond... feel free to stop making them at any time. That is something you can do that would help with our cultural evolution. People often keep their name, for all the other reasons elucidated here, even when some of its markers are outdated or overtly misfit. I know female-bodied people who go by male-marked names. Move past your assumptions. Further discussion of names might be informed through reference to neuroscience, as our name is encoded pretty deeply in the brain, and we respond to it with a unique signature even in sleep. R. On May 4, 2013 10:28 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

My BikeSmut organizer in Budapest and I were talking about Hungary's democracy 3 weeks ago: It's definitely falling, and these guys are building their dictatorship. I can't tell from which point is it considered done. I think the people of Germany were confused in a very similar way in the '30's. I think of that era a lot. Germany and Hungary in the 1930's. So much in common. A governance with strong, centralized propaganda, showing off to Europe as democratic, to Hungarians as organised, strict and self-confident, while actually institutions are run by dilettante idiots. They are quarrelling about who's in charge of what. Just like the 3d Reich. There are new laws and regulations literally every morning. Overnight laws. Like: let's criminalize this, I don't like this. And then a few weeks later it's a law. And if it doesn't fit the Constitution? Let's overwright the Constitution. Tomorrow. It's crazy, and bizzarre. Simply: am I looking at jobs abroad? Every week man, every week. My son is 2. And the new education system will affect his life in 1 or 2 years. I'm not gonna let that happen. But it's different then it's seen from the US. This is not going to be a long lasting dictatorship. And I'm not saying this because I'm an optimist. They are going down the drain in a few years. But on the way they will demolish our society, making more long lasting damages. And when they go down, the Nazis come up. Maybe not for long, but... One day of Nazi power is more then hell. So basically, yes on mid-term this country has fallen. A man's life. So there is a chance, that my grandchildren will speak Swedish, English, or German. I hope that makes it clearer. <snip> It is unnerving how quickly our institutions can fail us. Alarmist but encouraging to make communities. rev On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:19 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote: Eddan and Yo's- The third-largest Parliamentary party in Hungary is on an anti-Semitic rip tear, staging a black-shirt rally and making statements that sound like something from the Nazis of the early 20th century. I ran across this in the Beeb today: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-22413301 Quoting the article: "Hungary's far-right Jobbik party has staged a rally in central Budapest in protest at the capital's hosting of the World Jewish Congress (WJC) on Sunday. ... The party, which says it aims to protect Hungarian values and interests, is the third largest in parliament. It regularly issues anti-Semitic statements. ""The Israeli conquerors, these investors, should look for another country in the world for themselves because Hungary is not for sale," party chairman Gabor Vona told the rally, according to Reuters news agency. "The focus of (the WJC's) summit this year will be on the "alarming rise of neo-Nazi political parties and anti-Semitic incidents in several European countries, including Hungary", (WJC) says on its website." And let's not forget the history of "ethnic cleansing" in Europe in the past few decades: As Max will attest, the UK/European English usage of the term "cleansing", as in "Public Cleansing Department," refers to refuse collection and disposal. Thus the term "ethnic cleansing" implies the treatment of targeted minorities as so much refuse to be disposed of. Lest we think of America as somehow less infected with hate-viruses, the United States Secret Service reported a 400% increase in threats against the President during Obama's first term, as compared to previous presidents. 400%. That's just the most obvious statistic, but behind it are poisonous attitudes of all kinds, that express themselves without restraint in many many ways. Never Again? Never say "never." Eternal vigilance is not only the price of freedom, it's the price of preventing another paroxysm of the supreme evils of which humans have proven themselves capable. -G. _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss -- 7 years of sex-positive, human-powered porno ________Hop on The Porny Express________ ----------------------- Bike Smut ------------------------

Most Jewish people I know who go through the ceremonial Brit Milah (circumcision) at 8 days after the birth of a son understand it as the first covenant with God. Even when doing such a thing to your son would significantly increase the likelihood of him being murdered, as in during the Holocaust, parents continued to do that for their children as part of their fundamental beliefs in this world. I have more nuanced notions and struggle with the meaning of it, as I do with most things, but that's besides the point. Suggesting that (from the first person accounts you've heard from ...) it is an intentional part of a world-historical plan to unwillingly dupe modern governments, and incidentally doctors who point to a lot of evidence about health benefits - that takes some balls (pun intended). It is that same kind of rhetoric that made it easier for some of your European ancestry to systematically murder 80% of the two generations before me. According to most accounts in the world (outside the US), anti-semitism has increased dramatically, especially since the myth that Jews orchestrated 9/11 as 'an inside job' has been openly perpetuated in too many places. So I know you well enough to know that you struggle hard against the discriminations prevalent in the world to respect you. But those nonsense two paragraphs scribbled below is vile horseshit (no offense to people who love horses). I know you're not personally responsible for the comprehensive dehumanization, murder, and theft of all my great-aunts and great-uncles and all their parents and friends. But I've stood at the site where 15,000 Jews were killed over a matter of two days right outside the town of Vilkaviski, Lithuania - and I will never know who and how many we're of my family (my grandparents had escaped to the British colony of Palestine). I also know you're half-Jewish, and I'm sorry if I've outed you. I didn't see you at last years World Jewish Conspiracy meeting (there's no such thing, by the way). I just wanted to demonstrate what I meant by the trump card notion, which is different for me than how you understood it. What you described sounds more like solipsism to me. I can trump you in terms of horrible and violent and insensitive things that have been done to my ancestors and in terms of things my immediate family has experienced. But that's precisely why I think a battle to identify with who's been more oppressed and the identity politics that ensue, are not helpful to present-day, you and me, and all the other Sudo folk I know. I think we should all try to be respectful of each other. And that no one has any special rights to offend any other of us. And I do care if I've offended you, whether or not I am part of the designated oppressor class for that particular scenario. I'm sorry to see you say that you don't care if you offend me. With great respect to my friend Rachel. -Eddan On May 4, 2013, at 11:04 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: One of the ways Jews maintained cultural cohesion is through a systematic mutilation of their children that, while overtly hidden, marked them as separate from the culture around them. In this context it is interesting that the US has mainstreamed circumcision, and based on first person reports I have heard, in some ways this does contribute to a global drop in anti-semitism, which increases cultural diffusion. Re gender assumptions, 'someday' we 'might' move beyond... feel free to stop making them at any time. That is something you can do that would help with our cultural evolution. People often keep their name, for all the other reasons elucidated here, even when some of its markers are outdated or overtly misfit. I know female-bodied people who go by male-marked names. Move past your assumptions. Further discussion of names might be informed through reference to neuroscience, as our name is encoded pretty deeply in the brain, and we respond to it with a unique signature even in sleep. R. On May 4, 2013 10:28 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net&gt; wrote: sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

Rachel, Your defensive explanation of why you said what you did completely misses the point, 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, devalues your apology, and to me makes the conversation read like you don't care if you were offensive. Don't take refuge in a pattern of defense. It doesn't matter what you've been thinking about, or talking about, or your experiences, or what you meant, or who was sent to the chambers, or what your heritage is. 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. In the future, try harder to modulate your behavior to be less offensive. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 11:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com > Hey eddan, > > I'm sorry. > > I wasn't trying to make any particular point about behavioral standards, > or to act out, just making poorly-thought-out remarks about a group I > identify with. Ironic, I guess. > > It's a big, diverse group, and i'd guess that most of my experiences > within it are pretty different than yours. > > I have been thinking/talking about circumcision a lot in other contexts > and didn't really think about the way my comments would affect you, or > generally be read by someone whose relationship to Judaism varies so widely > from my own. > > Apologies. > > (some catholics were sent to the chambers as well, along with queers, and > other misfits....as long as we're calling out my heritage and tracking > where my hypothetical allegiances lie. and I wasn't alluding to a zionist > conspiracy so much as attempting to examine critically the various strands > of my cultural heritage, and the stories I hear from people about their > lives... thinking more about social acceptance on personal levels than any > sort of global conspiracy. I learned about slavery and the holocaust > side-by-side in school, and saw no difference in describing them as the > wages of hate applied towards the kin of everyone in my classroom. I've > spent a lot of time, then and since, wondering at the ways that I and my > peers are affected by these pasts, and differing presents.) > On May 4, 2013 3:50 PM, "Eddan Katz" &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: > >> Most Jewish people I know who go through the ceremonial Brit Milah >> (circumcision) at 8 days after the birth of a son understand it as the >> first covenant with God. Even when doing such a thing to your son would >> significantly increase the likelihood of him being murdered, as in during >> the Holocaust, parents continued to do that for their children as part of >> their fundamental beliefs in this world. I have more nuanced notions and >> struggle with the meaning of it, as I do with most things, but that's >> besides the point. >> >> Suggesting that (from the first person accounts you've heard from ...) >> it is an intentional part of a world-historical plan to unwillingly dupe >> modern governments, and incidentally doctors who point to a lot of evidence >> about health benefits - that takes some balls (pun intended). It is that >> same kind of rhetoric that made it easier for some of your European >> ancestry to systematically murder 80% of the two generations before me. >> According to most accounts in the world (outside the US), anti-semitism has >> increased dramatically, especially since the myth that Jews orchestrated >> 9/11 as 'an inside job' has been openly perpetuated in too many places. >> >> So I know you well enough to know that you struggle hard against the >> discriminations prevalent in the world to respect you. But those nonsense >> two paragraphs scribbled below is vile horseshit (no offense to people who >> love horses). >> >> I know you're not personally responsible for the comprehensive >> dehumanization, murder, and theft of all my great-aunts and great-uncles >> and all their parents and friends. But I've stood at the site where 15,000 >> Jews were killed over a matter of two days right outside the town of >> Vilkaviski, Lithuania - and I will never know who and how many we're of my >> family (my grandparents had escaped to the British colony of Palestine). >> >> I also know you're half-Jewish, and I'm sorry if I've outed you. I >> didn't see you at last years World Jewish Conspiracy meeting (there's no >> such thing, by the way). I just wanted to demonstrate what I meant by the >> trump card notion, which is different for me than how you understood it. >> What you described sounds more like solipsism to me. I can trump you in >> terms of horrible and violent and insensitive things that have been done to >> my ancestors and in terms of things my immediate family has experienced. >> >> But that's precisely why I think a battle to identify with who's been >> more oppressed and the identity politics that ensue, are not helpful to >> present-day, you and me, and all the other Sudo folk I know. I think we >> should all try to be respectful of each other. And that no one has any >> special rights to offend any other of us. And I do care if I've offended >> you, whether or not I am part of the designated oppressor class for that >> particular scenario. I'm sorry to see you say that you don't care if you >> offend me. >> >> With great respect to my friend Rachel. >> -Eddan >> >> >> >> On May 4, 2013, at 11:04 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >> One of the ways Jews maintained cultural cohesion is through a >> systematic mutilation of their children that, while overtly hidden, marked >> them as separate from the culture around them. >> >> In this context it is interesting that the US has mainstreamed >> circumcision, and based on first person reports I have heard, in some ways >> this does contribute to a global drop in anti-semitism, which increases >> cultural diffusion. >> >> Re gender assumptions, 'someday' we 'might' move beyond... feel free to >> stop making them at any time. That is something you can do that would help >> with our cultural evolution. People often keep their name, for all the >> other reasons elucidated here, even when some of its markers are outdated >> or overtly misfit. I know female-bodied people who go by male-marked names. >> Move past your assumptions. >> >> Further discussion of names might be informed through reference to >> neuroscience, as our name is encoded pretty deeply in the brain, and we >> respond to it with a unique signature even in sleep. >> >> R. >> On May 4, 2013 10:28 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> >>> >>> Steve & Yo's- >>> >>> Yes and yes. Similarly in a range of ethnicities: name-constructions >>> such as "Peterson" implying or directly meaning "Peter's son" (and in some >>> parts of Northern Europe at least, similarly for "daughter") or a >>> geographic origin (last name prefixes that mean "from" or "of" referring to >>> a city or a family or clan: common all over Europe), or including both the >>> mother's family name and the father's family name (common in Central >>> America). >>> >>> All of these are deeply meaningful in establishing that one is related >>> to others and connected to a wider web. But today those social relations >>> are strung across countries, continents, and the globe, where solidarity >>> and mutual support can be difficult at best. >>> >>> To be clear: I don't want to throw away all of those babies with the >>> surveillance-dystopia bathwater. In many ways I'm very square and very >>> traditional. But the future we face is one where we are f-o-o-d for the >>> oligarchy, and social relations are subordinated to economic relations, >>> unless we make a concerted effort to overturn the economic relations and >>> assert the primacy of the social relations. >>> >>> Now something just occurred to me, and the following may be in the "not >>> even wrong" category, but none the less I'd be interested in what you have >>> to say about this: >>> >>> The Jewish people were until recently a complete diaspora, "strung >>> across countries, continents, and the globe" at times when there were >>> effectively no rapid communications as there are today. Yet somehow the >>> Jewish community on a global scale managed a degree of resilience that is >>> truly amazing, including during the Holocaust. >>> >>> We can learn from that. >>> >>> Somewhere in that history are important lessons that we can apply in >>> our present struggle with an oligarchy that is downright benign in >>> comparison to the types and degrees of oppression and existential threats >>> faced by the Jews throughout history. >>> >>> Is this something that can be taught and learned, or is it only >>> something that can be inherited over the course of generations of history? >>> And if the former, then how can we begin to understand the lessons? >>> >>> I'll be AFK until this evening but I'll pick up the thread then. >>> >>> -G. >>> >>> >>> ===== >>> >>> >>> On 13-05-04-Sat 10:04 AM, Steve Berl wrote: >>> >>> Seems to me that traditional Jewish convey family connections, and >>> geography. So until very recent times in history, to my Jewish ancestors, I >>> would be Steve, son of Lou (and Benay added in more modern times), from New >>> York. It helps to identify just which Steve you are talking about when >>> gossiping about Steve, and just what social connections there might be >>> between Steve and other people. So the name evokes questions like, Oh, your >>> from New York, do you know xxxx? Or Lou is your father. Are you related to >>> my 3rd cousin Fred, who has a brother name Lou? >>> >>> Humans are social animals and our social connections are important. >>> You are you because of some combination of what you do, who you know, and >>> who you are related to. Encoding some of that information in the name has >>> been a convenience developed over the past 10,000 or so years, and we >>> should consider carefully whether you are ready to throw it away. >>> >>> -steve >>> >>> >>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 6:07 AM, GtwoG PublicOhOne &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net >>>>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> Aestetix & Yo's- >>>> >>>> Names are nouns, but I puzzle over the term "proper noun," because a >>>> name is an arbitrary character-string that only appears noun-like because >>>> we say so. A "proper" type of noun should be one with some degree of >>>> linguistic meaning, for example through etymology ("bike" is a contraction >>>> of "bicycle", that has "two things that rotate", from which we also derive >>>> "motorcycle" that is also colloquially a "bike"), and names should be >>>> "improper nouns" because they don't follow that rule. >>>> >>>> The linguistic meaning of "given names" is limited, though perhaps >>>> sufficient for their historic purposes. Conventionally they convey gender, >>>> which is only useful in remotely assessing whether someone is a potential >>>> sex-partner. By geographic origin they often convey ethnicity, though this >>>> is starting to break down through cultural mixing (most of us are mutts, >>>> with two or more ethnicities in our families). Sometimes they convey >>>> religion, usually by inference from geographic origin or resemblance to >>>> historic names identified with specific religions. At one time they >>>> conveyed occupation, as with "Baker" and "Smith," though thankfully we have >>>> overcome mandatory hereditary assignment of jobs. >>>> >>>> There was a time when we could infer, for example, that "John Smith" >>>> was almost certainly male, probably Christian ("John" as Biblical name), >>>> and probably an ironworker ("blacksmith"). Bluntly put, this would tell >>>> you whether John Smith was someone you could mate with, someone with whom >>>> that mating would be approved by your own church, and where he stood in the >>>> socio-economic hierarchy. The use of "Miss" and "Mrs." for women ("Miss >>>> Jane Smith") further emphasized that in a patriarchial culture, males had a >>>> prerogative of ascertaining the eligibility of females as mating partners. >>>> >>>> >>>> Today all we can be reasonably sure of is that John Smith is male. He >>>> might be a Buddhist or an atheist by his own choice, and he probably works >>>> at a desk rather than a forge, and his ethnicity might be a combination of >>>> English, French, Kenyan, and Chinese for all we know. >>>> >>>> Some day perhaps we'll have to guess at John Smith's gender. That >>>> would be progress. >>>> >>>> -G. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 13-05-03-Fri 11:30 PM, aestetix wrote: >>>> >>>> You've opened a can of worms here :) >>>> >>>> Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately, I >>>> have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing. Feel >>>> free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as important >>>> as free speech). >>>> >>>> I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power, are >>>> rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully) >>>> obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is >>>> fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are drive, >>>> charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important, control. >>>> >>>> IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language, as >>>> shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain >>>> various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is to >>>> try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of >>>> familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like >>>> setting markers around, and using the markers to control the direction >>>> of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary and >>>> concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the >>>> ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit >>>> damn" slurs. >>>> >>>> Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings, and >>>> one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all can >>>> guess where I'm going with this one ;) >>>> >>>> Hail Eris, >>>> aestetix >>>> >>>> PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon. >>>> >>>> On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote: >>>> >>>> >>>> > 2) Where the power is, and where it isn't. >>>> >>>> > Now we come to the proletariat and the lumpenproletariat. >>>> >>>> > For this, credit also goes to a good friend of mine who I won't >>>> > name here, but who's welcome to name him/herself if s/he so >>>> > chooses: s/he got me thinking down this trail a few months ago. >>>> >>>> > The proletariat is the working class: basically defined as people >>>> > who have full-time jobs or at least jobs that provide sufficient >>>> > income for the core necessities (shelter, clothing, food, >>>> > transportation, sanitation, communication), but who have little or >>>> > no ownership stake. This includes people who are in business for >>>> > themselves, but earning a working class income: they own their >>>> > employment, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as >>>> > that of a wage-worker. >>>> >>>> > The lumpenproletariat is the level below that: basically defined >>>> > as people whose employment is marginal at best, and whose access to >>>> > the basic necessities is frequently interrupted in some way. The >>>> > unemployed, homeless, couch-surfers (another form of >>>> > homelessness), people who live at the margins of the law in order >>>> > to survive, and people who earn their livings on criminal activity. >>>> > This also includes wage-workers whose wage income is not sufficient >>>> > to provide their basic necessities from month to month: they have >>>> > jobs, but their economic wellbeing is at the same level as that of >>>> > someone who's marginally employed at best. >>>> >>>> > Decades ago, the Bay Area left/radical community made the deadly >>>> > strategic error of embracing the (essentially Maoist) analysis that >>>> > the lumpenproletariat is the revolutionary class. This error >>>> > continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block tactics, >>>> > which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and provoking >>>> > police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution. >>>> >>>> > The very same tactic in more obviously violent form pops up in the >>>> > ideology of the extreme right: such as the Hutaree, a group that >>>> > was busted by the FBI for planning to shoot a bunch of cops and >>>> > then set off bombs at their funerals, in the attempt to provoke >>>> > martial law and thereby set off a "revolution" from the extreme >>>> > right. >>>> >>>> > But here's the nexus of the problem: >>>> >>>> > To the oligarchy, the lumpenproletariat is disposable: their roles >>>> > in production and consumption are so minimal that they can be >>>> > totally disregarded. They have NO power. N-O power. As >>>> > individuals or as any kind of collectivity or class. >>>> >>>> > When a social movement identifies with the lumpenproletariat >>>> > and/or attempts to organize the lumpenproletariat, the movement >>>> > effectively short-circuits its efforts into something that is >>>> > inherently doomed to failure. They may as well be trying to >>>> > organize the squirrels on the Cal Berkeley campus to strike for >>>> > better teaching-assistant salaries. How seriously do you think the >>>> > UC Regents would take the threat of a squirrel strike? >>>> >>>> > The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce and >>>> > consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is also >>>> > the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way. >>>> >>>> > The power of the proletariat takes two forms: >>>> >>>> > One, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's engines of >>>> > production: by going on strike (which translates to the power of >>>> > collective bargaining), by going into business for themselves, and >>>> > by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as >>>> > cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate capital >>>> > to labor. >>>> >>>> > Two, the power to remove themselves from the oligarch's >>>> > consumption matrix: by boycotts (consumer strikes), by >>>> > anti-materialist or "simple living" principles that reduce >>>> > consumption levels (the equivalent of consumer general strikes), by >>>> > shifting their consumption to alternative institutions such as >>>> > coops, credit unions, and small local producers (e.g. buying >>>> > veggies at the farmers' market rather than Safeway), and very >>>> > importantly for _us_ as hackers/makers/etc., the power to build >>>> > for our own use. >>>> >>>> > This is real power. It's the power that makes the oligarchs quake >>>> > in their boots and have nightmares. And it's the power that gives >>>> > the oligarchs strong incentive to keep us distracted, digressed, >>>> > and disempowered by wasting our time trying to organize a squirrel >>>> > strike. >>>> >>>> > -G. >>>> >>>> > _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss >>>> > mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>>> > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>>> >>>> >>>> > >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -steve >>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >> sudo-discuss mailing list >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >> >> > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >

Well if you're going to publicly call out and lecture someone at length on cultural sensitivity, it might be nice if you didn't turn right around and say something utterly ridiculous. That's the definition of foolish, if you ask me. I didn't mock you - you mocked yourself. And yes, it is funny. I mean, come on. Don't castigate someone on an open forum if you're just going to eat your foot an hour later. This is what it feels like. Enjoy your moment. On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 12:08 PM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com

... Further discussion of names might be informed through reference to neuroscience, as our name is encoded pretty deeply in the brain, and we respond to it with a unique signature even in sleep. R. On May 4, 2013 10:28 AM, "GtwoG PublicOhOne" &lt;g2g-public01(a)att.net <mailto:g2g-public01@att.net>> wrote: Steve & Yo's- Yes and yes. Similarly in a range of ethnicities: name-constructions such as "Peterson" implying or directly meaning "Peter's son"...

You've opened a can of worms here :) Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately, I have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing. Feel free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as important as free speech). I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power, are rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully) obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are drive, charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important, control. IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language, as shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is to try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like setting markers around, and using the markers to control the direction of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary and concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit damn" slurs. Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings, and one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all can guess where I'm going with this one ;) Hail Eris, aestetix PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon. On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote:

Hi, "This error continues to this day, in the ideology of Black Block tactics, which are founded on the idea that expressing rage and provoking police over-reaction will somehow spark The Revolution." You don't seem to understand what Black Block tactics are. While I

Perhaps maybe the tactic you are talking about (direct confrontation with

"The proletariat is where the power is: the power to produce and consume at the level that drives the engine of oligarchy, is also the power to refuse consent in a meaningful way." Lets be clear, the real power is in the hands of the oligarchy and will

" by going into business for themselves, and by developing alternatives to conventional capitalism such as cooperatives and other forms of production that subordinate capital to labor." it seems like our (proletariat's) only move is to join the oligarchs,

On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 11:30 PM, aestetix &lt;aestetix(a)aestetix.com

You've opened a can of worms here :) Since elucidated discussion seems to be the modus operandi lately, I have a few thoughts on this matter that are worth contributing. Feel free to ignore at your pleasure (free listening is just as important as free speech). I think that the two key elements of your essays, food and power, are rather interchangeable depending on the contexts. It's (hopefully) obvious why we need food. Power in a more abstract sense is fascinating to me, though. Other words that come to mind are drive, charisma, persuasion, but also intellect, and most important, control. IMHO, one of the most fundamental elements of control is language, as shared patterns are effectively a way to communicate and attain various levels of self-mastery. An easy way to experience this is to try to understand a foreign language: there might be some hints of familiarity within the chaos, and as we find them, it's a bit like setting markers around, and using the markers to control the direction of your ultimate understanding. You can extend that to vocabulary and concepts as well. One of the hallmarks of a good education is the ability to curse someone out without using the generic "fuck shit damn" slurs. Language is composed of words, symbols which point to meanings, and one of the most interesting set of words is our names. And you all can guess where I'm going with this one ;) Hail Eris, aestetix PS: it might be worth doing another cryptoparty soon. On 5/3/13 7:58 PM, GtwoG PublicOhOne wrote: <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org

http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss -- ------- Andrew Lowe Cell: 831-332-2507 http://roshambomedia.com

No worries. My response was a rhetorical answer. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:16 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> wrote: Dont worry, that was really just a rhetorical question. On 5/3/2013 3:11 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: Of course. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 3:08 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>>> wrote: Did you actually just say this in public? On 5/3/2013 3:04 PM, Anthony Di Franco wrote: Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though? Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net> <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>>>> wrote: Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - have established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." thought sudoers would appreciate this. cuddling it, -- len founder, ligertail http://ligertail.com ___________________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.____org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists. <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.>__sudoroom.org <http://sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discuss <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss <http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss>> ___________________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.____org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists. <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.>__sudoroom.org <http://sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/____listinfo/sudo-discuss <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss> <http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss <http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss>> _________________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.__org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/__listinfo/sudo-discuss <http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

I am really sad about this whole thread. Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this group. Everything that came after, gah. Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in behavior. Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of 'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your damn self. This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the trump card'. We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's, and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety level. The interesting thing about telling most people they are making you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room. People always have reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were offensive. It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about, the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many. Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time out of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to modulate your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the first time I engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps you'll remember the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply accepted the input, thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of meditative place of return. Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. R. On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself > apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage > though? > > Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. > > > On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt; wrote: > >> Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of >> appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. >> >> >> >> >> On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: >> >>> "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence and >>> immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. >>> >>> friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - have >>> established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent >>> requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they >>> have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." >>> >>> thought sudoers would appreciate this. >>> >>> cuddling it, >>> >>> -- >>> len >>> >>> founder, ligertail >>> http://ligertail.com >>> >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>> >>> ______________________________**_________________ >> sudo-discuss mailing list >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >> > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >

Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote, and while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond what I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context you brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved. The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it, not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I welcome further discussion on this. Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending* reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police - I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that, and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our group. There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting. This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs. When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then, amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that logic being internalized in our group dynamics. I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of values we share. Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved, which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an important discussion about how we treat one another in our community. I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives. Anthony On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: I am really sad about this whole thread. Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this group. Everything that came after, gah. Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in behavior. Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of 'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your damn self. This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the trump card'. We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's, and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety level. The interesting thing about telling most people they are making you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room. People always have reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were offensive. It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about, the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many. Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time out of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to modulate your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the first time I engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps you'll remember the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply accepted the input, thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of meditative place of return. Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. R. On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though? Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> wrote: Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - have established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." thought sudoers would appreciate this. cuddling it, -- len founder, ligertail http://ligertail.com _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

So let's say a hypothetical person A says something that offends person B. Person C sees this happen, and from being acquainted with both persons recognizes that what is happening is not rooted in negative intent. Person B indicates they are offended. Person A doubles down on the offensive behavior. Person B is double down offended. Person C says to person A: hey, you are making B really upset, I am assuming you don't want that, and I don't think that's your intent, so here's why that's valid and relevant. Person A: well now I'm upset! At you, person C! Ok. When I say defensive, I mean this definition from freedictionary: a. Intended to withstand or deter aggression or attack: a defensive weapons system; defensive behavior. b. Defensive attitude. My assertion here is that your behavioral & linguistic response patterns are consistent with someone who is countering an attack when you are not, in fact, being attacked. This stance, IME, makes it difficult to listen & grok. I am not saying that 'people' should only respond to feedback by silently assenting. I am suggesting that you might sometimes listen without rebuttal being your automatic response. I am attempting to explain and illuminate why someone (me, in this case. I haven't talked directly with netdiva about her feelings on this) is so offended by what you are saying or doing, that explanation doesn't help. Offense is subjective and it's impossible to tell someone that they haven't been offended. If you receive feedback that you are being grossly offensive, *if you care about your relationships with the offended individuals*, it's good to pause and think about how and why, rather than argue that you haven't been. A good response is questions, although then it's important to note that some people are at the receiving end of grossly offensive behavior on the daily and if we took every chance as an educational one, the amount of explanation needed would be quite exhausting. Explaining is hard, especially when the person with whom you are speaking displays behavior patterns where they seem to be countering or defending against your ideas instead of listening to them and attempting to understand them. It's important to note that this is not a free speech issue. We are all free to say whatever we want, including you, Anthony. I am not the police, and bear no authority. The assumption made here, by me, is that you might care about the effect what you are saying has on members of your community. Again, I'll repeat that you can say whatever you want. The people around you are affected by what you say, and may say things in response, as they are also allowed to do. Nobody is telling anyone they can't do anything. They are simply suggesting you might care about their feelings, and your impact thereon. It's a little scary to me that this suggestion makes you feel as though your liberties are curtailed. R. On May 5, 2013 2:10 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu&gt; wrote: > Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote, and while > I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond what I > said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context you > brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved. > > The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying to do > as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are > misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion > to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it, > not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle > where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming > and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle > but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on > shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use > them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it > explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual > understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I > welcome further discussion on this. > > Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also uncomfortable > with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and also then to say > that the subject of the attack should *stop defending* reminds me too much > of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police - I could certainly > never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the suggestion grotesque. > It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs victimize people who > are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain their safety and > dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that, and one way the > phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the situation so that > later, biased interpretations of what happened will have something to latch > onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our interactions here than in > those situations but I still really don't like to see us internalizing that > logic in how we handle communications in our group. > > There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is the > idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting. > This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes > myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of > agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let > others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback > and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback > appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more > informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain > information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the > way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs. > When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like > trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then, > amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning > them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a > chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able > than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they > should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a > key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and > because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that > logic being internalized in our group dynamics. > > I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump cards but > if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of > trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's > concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns > themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I > have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that > remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of > Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what > legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and > experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence > is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of > people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially > vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should > be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use > violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem > problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without > accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I > am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in > cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no > comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain > people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability > gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a > logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it > produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for > unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones > anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like > the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of > values we share. > > Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I want to > clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment didn't have > anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't even > remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly > overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for > something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social > gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved, > which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you > dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and > to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way > out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was > when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it > was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because > we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police > interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of > submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While > it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the > others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of > sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much > better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like > potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we > can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let > a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an > important discussion about how we treat one another in our community. > > I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to write > this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the room, > whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us > towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values > and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives. > > Anthony > > > On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar < > rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >> I am really sad about this whole thread. >> >> Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent here was >> not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am responding to >> the specific message below because it is the one that made me want to >> unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this group. >> Everything that came after, gah. >> >> Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an unintentional >> giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending or harming >> them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in behavior. >> Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone says 'i >> think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to elaborate >> on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your amazing nuances. >> Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of 'oppression' is >> that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other people's faces. >> Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your damn self. >> >> This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the trump >> card'. We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to keep our >> own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces - as safe >> as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it together with >> my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety rating. My safety >> reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's, and while I am happy >> if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety level. >> >> The interesting thing about telling most people they are making you feel >> unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason their >> response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what >> happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses >> the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also >> talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room. People always have >> reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read >> about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and >> to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were >> offensive. >> >> It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and >> explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate >> around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in >> the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological >> history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about, >> the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many. >> >> Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time out of my >> life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to modulate your >> behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the first time I >> engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps you'll remember >> the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply accepted the input, >> thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of meditative place of >> return. >> >> Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community and am >> sure I will stay connected in many ways. >> >> R. >> On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; >> wrote: >> >>> Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself >>> apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage >>> though? >>> >>> Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. >>> >>> >>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt; wrote: >>> >>>> Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of >>>> appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: >>>> >>>>> "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence and >>>>> immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. >>>>> >>>>> friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - have >>>>> established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent >>>>> requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they >>>>> have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." >>>>> >>>>> thought sudoers would appreciate this. >>>>> >>>>> cuddling it, >>>>> >>>>> -- >>>>> len >>>>> >>>>> founder, ligertail >>>>> http://ligertail.com >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>>>> >>>>> ______________________________**_________________ >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.**org &lt;sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org&gt; >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/**listinfo/sudo-discuss<http://lists.sudoroom.… >>>> >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> sudo-discuss mailing list >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss >>> >>> >

Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote, and while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond what I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context you brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved. The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it, not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I welcome further discussion on this. Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending* reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police - I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that, and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our group. There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting. This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs. When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then, amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that logic being internalized in our group dynamics. I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of values we share. Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved, which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an important discussion about how we treat one another in our community. I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives. Anthony On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

it is really sad that this list is literally turning into a game of oppression bingo. i will make this brief. 1. using terms like "civilization" to refer to a class of dominant majority with a huge history of colonialistic oppression, at the expense of any class who has experiences colonialistic oppression is pretty offensive. if you want to qualify this as "what they wrongly refer to themselves as" then use quotes and indicate as such. ie "Doesn't the so-self-called 'civilized' psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though?" it would be better however to reword this overall to say something like "Doesn't the privileged majority psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the oppressed culture though?" 2. using tropes like "noble savage" is ok as long as everyone involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage 3. some people are still going to be offended by this term, because it is still hugely offensive to native peoples even as it is used as a handy moniker to call out offensive behavior by the privileged majority. 4. using the term noble savage in reference to african americans is doubly offensive, even if it fits the point you are trying to make fyi. if you MUST use tropes to refer to POC, make sure you are using the correct one that examines the colonial aspects of the behavior being discussed. 5. when someone is offended by your choice in language, the correct thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't being offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am sorry my language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do not attempt to use dictionary.com <http://dictionary.com>, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to try and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye of the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so just accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and move on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive, and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche. 6. free speech is not a get out of jail free card. you have the right to say anything you want. and we all have the right to think of you as an asshole for saying it. if someone says "don't say that" they aren't depriving you of your right to free speech, they are trying to save you from losing friends and allies in your community. "congress shall make no law abridging free speech." there is nothing in there that says someone HAS to remain your friend after you were unintentionally a racist asshole. 7. most people who fight oppression in their communities do not want to argue about it in their hobbies. respect that. just because you have the time and inclination to have a long-winded email argument does not mean that you are not also being totally offensive by assuming the other person wants/needs/is going to engage in it. often times i see people "win" arguments on email lists only because they were the more persistant asshole, not because they are right. and be aware that that is totally obvious to people not involved but still reading. 8. a point to everyone: native american peoples are not dead. there are still many thriving native cultures, and people need to understand that when they refer to native things or topics they are talking not just about past people that were wiped out, but also active real working native peoples still here. the bay area is full of native people who are active in their tribal affiliations, who work to promote native rights, and who are invested in the topics of native americans. when you frame out things like that there is a "civlized" society, and native societies (implying not civilized) many of those people are GOING to be super offended. Like when native people try to call out white people on wearing headdresses as culturally appropriative, and white people rebut with "YOU ARE ON THE INTERNET. THAT WAS INVENTED BY US MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T USE THAT". fucked up. (for the ignorant: native people are americans as well and have equal rights to share in american culture as any other american. besides which: last i checked many native peoples have also contributed to the internet, even as there are colonial privileged oppressionistic usages of native culture as well, such as apache.) try to keep that in mind as you use terms that may evoke native americans, at the risk of being seen as a total racist asshole. also everything that rachel said. -hep On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco &lt;di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu <mailto:di.franco@aya.yale.edu>> wrote: Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote, and while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond what I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context you brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved. The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it, not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I welcome further discussion on this. Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending* reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police - I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that, and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our group. There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting. This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs. When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then, amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that logic being internalized in our group dynamics. I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of values we share. Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved, which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an important discussion about how we treat one another in our community. I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives. Anthony On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: I am really sad about this whole thread. Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this group. Everything that came after, gah. Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in behavior. Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of 'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your damn self. This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the trump card'. We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's, and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety level. The interesting thing about telling most people they are making you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room. People always have reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were offensive. It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about, the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many. Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time out of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to modulate your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the first time I engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps you'll remember the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply accepted the input, thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of meditative place of return. Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. R. On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though? Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> wrote: Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - have established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." thought sudoers would appreciate this. cuddling it, -- len founder, ligertail http://ligertail.com _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss -- hep hepic photography || www.hepic.net <http://www.hepic.net> dis(a)gruntle.org <mailto:dis@gruntle.org> || 415 867 9472 _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

If I may chime in, I think it would be awesome just to coin our own phrases and not try to replace anything. Instead of characterizing any current or past lingo, we could just go ahead and move on... NEW LINGO! I think this would lessen the chances of political/cultural/social frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of describing whatever random related concepts. So, if we actually are interested in creating a new positive lingo, we can just submit positive words and tech words into a bucket and creatively combine them to attach to whatever cool concept. (BEAUTIFUL CODE! = GREAT DISCUSSION!) So, is there going to be a lingo raffle party!?!?!?! That sounds kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading party???? I'm sure there would be great code there! Alcides Gutierrez http://e64.us On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" &lt;maxb.personal(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

On the other hand, creating and using a cant is one of the most extreme steps a group can take to make itself opaque to outsiders, so it wouldn't be very inclusive.

I like Eddan's idea of Mad Libs sounds pretty fun! I think a more positive title could be used though? :D Anthony's view is interesting. I think it deserves attention. I don't completely share that perspective, though. I think this exercise can be a community builder if that's what people wanted. I can see this cant inviting curious minds to explore more as they are exposed to different terms than they normally encounter. I believe outsiders that are intrigued may adopt some terms. If we can strategically invest energy into creating a positive lingo, why not? There are many ways to generate and many ways to distribute. And levels of complexity even... Adding to the level of coolness... Perhaps an equal amount of energy should be made to choose associations that suggest meanings at the first mention, or perhaps exercises to create dialogues that surround the coined phrase to be suggestive. Or even to put an effort to use coined phrases with the intent to explain what the phrase is intended to suggest. "Dude, we made such beautiful code today. Sorry, I mean we had a great discussion today. Let's do it again soon!" * * I'm using "beautiful code" as an example from off the top of my head. Not suggesting a new coined phrase. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer &lt;patrikd(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Alcides Gutierrez http://e64.us _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

I like Eddan's idea of Mad Libs sounds pretty fun! I think a more positive title could be used though? :D Anthony's view is interesting. I think it deserves attention. I don't completely share that perspective, though. I think this exercise can be a community builder if that's what people wanted. I can see this cant inviting curious minds to explore more as they are exposed to different terms than they normally encounter. I believe outsiders that are intrigued may adopt some terms. If we can strategically invest energy into creating a positive lingo, why not? There are many ways to generate and many ways to distribute. And levels of complexity even... Adding to the level of coolness... Perhaps an equal amount of energy should be made to choose associations that suggest meanings at the first mention, or perhaps exercises to create dialogues that surround the coined phrase to be suggestive. Or even to put an effort to use coined phrases with the intent to explain what the phrase is intended to suggest. "Dude, we made such beautiful code today. Sorry, I mean we had a great discussion today. Let's do it again soon!" * * I'm using "beautiful code" as an example from off the top of my head. Not suggesting a new coined phrase. On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 11:21 AM, Patrik D'haeseleer &lt;patrikd(a)gmail.com&gt;wrote;wrote: -- Alcides Gutierrez http://e64.us

On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think that makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that they can be used by you in casual conversation. You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for themselves. I did some quick google searching around this issue and would like to share two links that seemed most helpful here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to… Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you. There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their negative meanings. Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the street amongst a group doing the same thing. R. _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

these are terrible examples.

1. that song has been repeatedly called from as derogatory to both african americans and the plight they suffer, as well as a text book example of white feminism co-opting and erasing the struggles and experiences of POC.

http://msmagazine.com/blog/2011/10/06/woman-is-the-n-of-the-world/ 2. Dave Chapelle quit his highly popular show because he realized that white producers were actually making a legit modern day minstrel out of him, not a parody of that mentality, and white audiences were using his show to embrace ironic racism. http://www.popmatters.com/pm/feature/162955-darkest-america-black-minstrels…

-hep On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:58 AM, Eddan Katz &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: -- hep hepic photography || www.hepic.net dis(a)gruntle.org || 415 867 9472

... yeah how dare those people who still suffer at repeated negative utterances of a racial slur be offended by some rich privileged people co-opting that term and erasing their current struggles.

On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:23 AM, Eddan Katz &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: -- hep hepic photography || www.hepic.net dis(a)gruntle.org || 415 867 9472

I think you are not understanding that there is a long history of white feminism erasing or co-opting the struggles of POC, of which this song is a very famous example. I honestly cannot believe there is someone trying to explain feminism, the struggles of racism, and the history and intersectionality of those things to me quite honestly. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 11:43 AM, Eddan Katz &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: -- hep hepic photography || www.hepic.net dis(a)gruntle.org || 415 867 9472

I beg to differ. > 1. that song has been repeatedly called from as derogatory to both

In the article you link to below, the objections described are from black

It is an unfortunate interpretation of the song and a depressing

But it is my understanding of the intent of the songwriters to

expose the degrading aspects of sexism that were being dismissed in

>>> > There's something to be said for being able to challenge the

I like the quote, "Be the change you want to be in the world." Id like the world to acknowledge the past, but not dwell on it. Instead I prefer the investment of current energy into shaping future energies which will also be shaping future energies. So I like the idea of not replacing anything, but insteading creating something new and allowing (not "persuading") people to adopt/add to something new... Alcides Gutierrez http://e64.us On May 8, 2013 10:59 AM, "Eddan Katz" &lt;eddan(a)clear.net&gt; wrote: > Rachel, > > I partially agree with the special status of the identified targets of > slurs for self-determination about how the socially acceptable language > evolves. But there's still a trump card aspect to it that doesn't sit right > with me. > > The slutwalk you described, which I had admittedly never heard of, > doesn't seem to be the same as walking in someone else's shoes by the way, > or sensual clothes for that matter. Walking around with just about anything > written on your forehead has a high likelihood of being humiliating - with > that word being slut removing any doubts of misinterpretation. > > I worked at the Museum of Tolerance (http://www.museumoftolerance.com/) > in Los Angeles during high school and during vacations in college, > sometimes giving tours. There's a "Whisper Gallery" in the bottom floor > exhibit that they take school kids through especially. It's a darkened > hallway about 50 feet long with speakers hidden in the walls all around. > They're all set on loop and to go off with all these horrible racist, > sexist, etc. insults at you as you walk through. Unfortunately, my > impression of what the junior high kids got out of it, in particular, is > the delight at having learned some new words they had never heard before. > > A couple of examples that come to mind to challenge the Re-Appropriation > trump card rules you described below. Granted, they are both examples of > extraordinary artists piercing through dominant culture in provocative > ways. John Lennon co-wrote "Woman is the Nigger of the World" with Yoko Ono > (http://www.songmeanings.net/m/songs/view/3458764513820543055/), neither > of whom were black. And from the other perspective of the provocative > tightrope on black racist reappropration, I think Dave Chappelle's public > struggle is another important example to consider. ( > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dave_Chappelle) > > My suggestion for a Sudo-Libs kind of thing, by the way, is intended to > help try to toe the line between making the point about the harmful impact > of biased language and the particular sensitivity of entrenched > discrimination through semi-(blind)-randomness, with an ability to have > some prior control over the context. > > > sent from eddan.com > > On May 8, 2013, at 10:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > > On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > > There's something to be said for being able to challenge the mainstream > connotations words have and the implicit assumptions they throw over > everyday discourse. Does Heeb Magazine have a place on sudo room's shelves? > > Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think that > makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that they > can be used by you in casual conversation. > > You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a > process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been > used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for > themselves. I did some quick google searching around this issue and would > like to share two links that seemed most helpful here. > > http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation > > > http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to… > > Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the > african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is > already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't > like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and > cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at > large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you. > There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their > negative meanings. Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a > Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the > street amongst a group doing the same thing. > > R. > > > > > On May 7, 2013 10:30 AM, "Anca Mosoiu" &lt;anca(a)techliminal.com&gt; wrote: > >> > >> +1, and Amen! > >> > >> Anca. > >> > >> > >> > >> On Tue, May 7, 2013 at 10:26 AM, Alcides Gutierrez < > alcides888(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >>> > >>> If I may chime in, I think it would be awesome just to coin our own > phrases and not try to replace anything. Instead of characterizing any > current or past lingo, we could just go ahead and move on... NEW LINGO! > >>> > >>> I think this would lessen the chances of political/cultural/social > frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of > describing whatever random related concepts. > >>> > >>> So, if we actually are interested in creating a new positive lingo, > we can just submit positive words and tech words into a bucket and > creatively combine them to attach to whatever cool concept. (BEAUTIFUL > CODE! = GREAT DISCUSSION!) > >>> > >>> So, is there going to be a lingo raffle party!?!?!?! That sounds > kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading > party???? I'm sure there would be great code there! > >>> > >>> Alcides Gutierrez > >>> http://e64.us > >>> > >>> On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" &lt;maxb.personal(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >>>> > >>>> +1 > >>>> > >>>> Thank you for that. > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> On 05/06/2013 01:40 PM, hep wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> it is really sad that this list is literally turning into a game of > oppression bingo. i will make this brief. > >>>>> > >>>>> 1. using terms like "civilization" to refer to a class of dominant > majority with a huge history of colonialistic oppression, at the expense of > any class who has experiences colonialistic oppression is pretty offensive. > if you want to qualify this as "what they wrongly refer to themselves as" > then use quotes and indicate as such. ie "Doesn't the so-self-called > 'civilized' psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart from and > gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though?" it would be > better however to reword this overall to say something like "Doesn't the > privileged majority psyche secretly crave the things it sets itself apart > from and gives up and projects on its image of the oppressed culture > though?" > >>>>> > >>>>> 2. using tropes like "noble savage" is ok as long as everyone > involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using > that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope > at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage > >>>>> > >>>>> 3. some people are still going to be offended by this term, because > it is still hugely offensive to native peoples even as it is used as a > handy moniker to call out offensive behavior by the privileged majority. > >>>>> > >>>>> 4. using the term noble savage in reference to african americans is > doubly offensive, even if it fits the point you are trying to make fyi. if > you MUST use tropes to refer to POC, make sure you are using the correct > one that examines the colonial aspects of the behavior being discussed. > >>>>> > >>>>> 5. when someone is offended by your choice in language, the correct > thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't being > offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am sorry my > language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do not > attempt to use dictionary.com, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to try > and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye of > the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so just > accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and move > on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't > offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive, > and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with > who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this > point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email > battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche. > >>>>> > >>>>> 6. free speech is not a get out of jail free card. you have the > right to say anything you want. and we all have the right to think of you > as an asshole for saying it. if someone says "don't say that" they aren't > depriving you of your right to free speech, they are trying to save you > from losing friends and allies in your community. "congress shall make no > law abridging free speech." there is nothing in there that says someone HAS > to remain your friend after you were unintentionally a racist asshole. > >>>>> > >>>>> 7. most people who fight oppression in their communities do not > want to argue about it in their hobbies. respect that. just because you > have the time and inclination to have a long-winded email argument does not > mean that you are not also being totally offensive by assuming the other > person wants/needs/is going to engage in it. often times i see people "win" > arguments on email lists only because they were the more persistant > asshole, not because they are right. and be aware that that is totally > obvious to people not involved but still reading. > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> 8. a point to everyone: native american peoples are not dead. there > are still many thriving native cultures, and people need to understand that > when they refer to native things or topics they are talking not just about > past people that were wiped out, but also active real working native > peoples still here. the bay area is full of native people who are active in > their tribal affiliations, who work to promote native rights, and who are > invested in the topics of native americans. when you frame out things like > that there is a "civlized" society, and native societies (implying not > civilized) many of those people are GOING to be super offended. Like when > native people try to call out white people on wearing headdresses as > culturally appropriative, and white people rebut with "YOU ARE ON THE > INTERNET. THAT WAS INVENTED BY US MAYBE YOU SHOULDN'T USE THAT". fucked up. > (for the ignorant: native people are americans as well and have equal > rights to share in american culture as any other american. besides which: > last i checked many native peoples have also contributed to the internet, > even as there are colonial privileged oppressionistic usages of native > culture as well, such as apache.) try to keep that in mind as you use terms > that may evoke native americans, at the risk of being seen as a total > racist asshole. > >>>>> > >>>>> also everything that rachel said. > >>>>> > >>>>> -hep > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> On Sun, May 5, 2013 at 2:10 PM, Anthony Di Franco < > di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu&gt; wrote: > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Rachel, I've had a bit more time to reflect on what you wrote, and > while I don't have anything to add about the immediate question beyond what > I said yesterday, I'd like to talk about some of the broader context you > brought up in your reply and the more general issues involved. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> The first thing is that I am primarily viewing what we are trying > to do as having a discussion, so it seems to me that when there are > misunderstandings that is exactly when we should be having more discussion > to clarify what we are trying to say and find out effective ways to say it, > not less. Meanwhile, you are using the terms of some sort of power struggle > where I am being attacked and defending myself and allegiances are forming > and shifting around the patterns of conflict. I do not see a power struggle > but rather a community trying to communicate and communication depends on > shared understanding among senders and recipients of symbols and how to use > them to convey meaning. Where this is not immediately clear, clarifying it > explicitly seems the most direct way to move towards better mutual > understanding. I hope this can be reconciled with your own views and I > welcome further discussion on this. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Within the attacking and defending point of view, I am also > uncomfortable with some things. To speak of attacking and defending and > also then to say that the subject of the attack should *stop defending* > reminds me too much of the revolting cries of "stop resisting" from police > - I could certainly never meditate on such an ugly phrase and I find the > suggestion grotesque. It's something I've heard while authoritarian thugs > victimize people who are not resisting but only perhaps trying to maintain > their safety and dignity under an uninvited attack, perhaps not even that, > and one way the phrase is used is as a disingenuous way of framing the > situation so that later, biased interpretations of what happened will have > something to latch onto. I am glad we have much less at stake in our > interactions here than in those situations but I still really don't like to > see us internalizing that logic in how we handle communications in our > group. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> There is another aspect of this I am uncomfortable with, which is > the idea that people should respond to feedback only by silently assenting. > This reminds me too much of other situations where people, sometimes > myself, were supposed to be seen and not heard, and it deprives people of > agency over and responsibility for what they do by expecting them to let > others determine their behavior unilaterally. I am happy to take feedback > and, generally, I hope you can trust people to act on feedback > appropriately rather than trying to short-circuit their agency. The more > informative feedback is, then, the better, and it should contain > information people can use themselves to evaluate what they are doing the > way others do so they can figure out how to accommodate everyone's needs. > When feedback consist simply of naked statements it is too much like > trolling in the small or gaslighting in the large, and especially then, > amounts to an insidious way to deprive people of agency by conditioning > them to fear unpredictable pain when they exercise agency, and has a > chilling effect. In general, the idea that certain people are less able > than others to handle the responsibilities of being human, and so they > should have their behaviors dictated to them unilaterally by others, is a > key to justifying many regimes of oppression, especially modern ones, and > because of that I am very uncomfortable when I see any example of that > logic being internalized in our group dynamics. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I don't know what passed between you and Eddan involving trump > cards but if the card game analogy really is apt then it may be a sign of > trivializing the question of safe space by saying that certain people's > concerns trump other people's concerns, based not on the concerns > themselves, but only on who is raising the concerns. Both are important. I > have heard some justifications for 'trumping' as I understand it that > remind me of the debate around the Oscar Grant case. There, defenders of > Mehserle's conduct claimed that police should be the judges of what > legitimate police use of force is because they have special training and > experience that give them a uniquely relevant perspective on what violence > is justified and what demands of compliance they can legitimately make of > people. Another justification I heard was that police are especially > vulnerable due to the danger inherent in their duties and so things should > be biased heavily towards a presumption of legitimacy when they use > violence or demand compliance. To me both these justifications seem > problematic because they create a class that can coerce others without > accountability and can unilaterally force standards of conduct on others. I > am happy that there is much less at stake among us here than there is in > cases of police brutality or Oscar Grant's case, and that there is no > comparison other than this logic being used. But the logic that certain > people's perspectives are uniquely relevant, or that their vulnerability > gives them license to force things upon others unilaterally, is still a > logic I don't think we should internalize among ourselves, because it > produces unaccountable authoritarianism that can be exploited for > unintended ends, and does not help with the ostensibly intended ones > anyway. It results in us 'policing' ourselves in a way much too much like > the way the cities are policed to the detriment of many people and of > values we share. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Finally, you mentioned the evening at Marina's apartment and I > want to clarify my experience of what happened there. My 'aha' moment > didn't have anything to do with the point you were trying to make - I can't > even remember exactly what that point was, because it is so strongly > overshadowed by my memory of how you treated me. You called me out for > something that had passed between you and me in the middle of a social > gathering among a mix of friends and strangers, none of whom were involved, > which immediately put me in a very uncomfortable situation. Then, you > dismissed my attempts to defer speaking to a more appropriate setting, and > to open up a dialog with you where I shared my perspective. The only way > out you gave me was to assent without comment to you. My 'aha' moment was > when I realized that things between us had degenerated to that point; it > was when I realized I was mistaken in trying to have a discussion because > we were interacting like two territorial animals, or like a police > interrogator and a suspect, and you were simply demanding a display of > submission or contrition from me before you would let me slink off. While > it felt degrading, I took the way out you offered to spare myself and the > others in the room the experience of things continuing. I take the risk of > sharing this openly with you now because I think we know each other much > better than we did then and we would never again end up interacting like > potentially hostile strangers passing in the night, or worse. I think we > can and should and have been doing better, and overall it's best not to let > a mistaken assumption about what I was thinking and how I felt influence an > important discussion about how we treat one another in our community. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I, like you, hope you can appreciate that I am taking the time to > write this admittedly long-winded reply, not to suck the air out of the > room, whatever that means, but to contribute to a discussion that moves us > towards a better shared understanding of how to respect our shared values > and towards more appreciation of one another's perspectives. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> Anthony > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> On Sat, May 4, 2013 at 10:14 AM, rachel lyra hospodar < > rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> I am really sad about this whole thread. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anthony, I think I know you well enough to say that your intent > here was not to be offensive, but unfortunately... Here we are. I am > responding to the specific message below because it is the one that made me > want to unsubscribe from this mailing list and unassociate myself from this > group. Everything that came after, gah. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anti-oppression for the priveleged class, ie not being an > unintentional giant jerkface: if someone points out that you are offending > or harming them, they are not seeking an explanation, but a change in > behavior. Perhaps an apology or acknowledgement, even a query. If someone > says 'i think your POV is fucked up and harmful' please do not go on to > elaborate on your POV to them. Even if you think they don't get your > amazing nuances. Your amazing nuances are not always important, and part of > 'oppression' is that some peoples' nuances are always shoved in other > people's faces. Sometimes being a friend means keeping your opinion to your > damn self. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> This relates to something that eddan has on occasion termed 'the > trump card'. We are all individuals, and as such we ultimately need to > keep our own house in order. The trump card concept relates to safe spaces > - as safe as eddan might feel in a space, I'm not going to average it > together with my safety levels to achieve some sort of average safety > rating. My safety reading of a space will always, for me, trump eddan's, > and while I am happy if he feels safe it doesn't really matter to my safety > level. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> The interesting thing about telling most people they are making > you feel unsafe, or that they are offending you, is that for some reason > their response is almost never 'gosh, whoops!'. It's more usually like what > happened here - a bunch of longwinded explanation that completely misses > the point, and then a perceived ally of the offender jumping in, also > talking a lot, and sucking all the air out of the room. People always have > reasoning for why they did what they did. Requiring offended folks to read > about your reasoning for why you said what you said misses the point, and > to me makes this conversation read like you don't care if you were > offensive. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> It's deja vu to me that you are giving all this definition and > explanation around the terms you used. It seems identical to our debate > around the use of 'constable' and it is sad to me to see you take refuge in > the same pattern of defense. It doesn't matter about the etymological > history of a phrase. It doesn't. As fun as you may find it to think about, > the way things are *heard*, by others, NOW, is a trump card for many. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Anthony, I hope you can understand that I have taken the time out > of my life to write this message in the hopes of helping you to modulate > your behavior to be less offensive. I am sure you remember the first time I > engaged with you on this topic, at Marina's house. Perhaps you'll remember > the aha moment when you *stopped defending* and simply accepted the input, > thanking me. Perhaps you'll find in that a sort of meditative place of > return. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Good luck to you all. I enjoy many things about sudo community > and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> R. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> On May 3, 2013 3:05 PM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com&gt; > wrote: > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Doesn't the civilized psyche secretly crave the things it sets > itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble > savage though? > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Your description seems more like meditatively flowing through it. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> On Fri, May 3, 2013 at 2:58 PM, netdiva &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net&gt; > wrote: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Here I was thinking "killing it" was just another example of > appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> On 5/3/2013 2:46 PM, Leonid Kozhukh wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> "killing it" is a recently popular term to denote excellence > and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> friends in the circus community - through empirical evidence - > have established a belief that operating at the highest levels of talent > requires mindfulness, awareness, and calm. thus, a better term, which they > have started to playfully use, is "cuddling it." > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> thought sudoers would appreciate this. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> cuddling it, > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> -- > >>>>>>>>>> len > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> founder, ligertail > >>>>>>>>>> http://ligertail.com > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> > >>>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> -- > >>>>> hep > >>>>> hepic photography || www.hepic.net > >>>>> dis(a)gruntle.org || 415 867 9472 > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> _______________________________________________ > >>>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>>> > >>> > >>> _______________________________________________ > >>> sudo-discuss mailing list > >>> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >>> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >>> > >> > >> > >> > >> -- > >> -=-=-=- > >> Anca Mosoiu | Tech Liminal > >> anca(a)techliminal.com > >> M: (510) 220-6660 > >> http://techliminal.com | T: @techliminal | F: facebook.com/techliminal > >> > >> _______________________________________________ > >> sudo-discuss mailing list > >> sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > >> http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > sudo-discuss mailing list > > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > > > _______________________________________________ > sudo-discuss mailing list > sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org > http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss > >

Thanks for the pointers. It's not the first time I've come across the term or the concept of reappropriation, and the nuances of the idea were part of why I brought up Heeb Magazine specifically. That magazine caused a great deal of controversy by portraying Jesus and Mary in extremely sexually provocative ways, and referencing a long history of oppression of Jews by Catholics, that raises a lot of interesting questions: - Mary was portrayed with bare breasts, and pierced nipples, and the model portraying Mary Magdalene was described as "Evangelist-cum-nymphomaniac." Was this using slut-shaming to fire back at Catholics, a different kind of commentary on Catholic attitudes towards sex, something else, or neither? - Jesus was portrayed with his genitals wrapped in a Jewish prayer shawl. Was this meant to desecrate a holy Jewish symbol, to reflect on the attitudes of some Christians towards what Jews hold sacred, or something else? - The feature contains the quote, "Christians believe the Jews killed Jesus; that is why there is so much anti-Semitism in the world. The church was created on that one simple anti-Semitic principle. Christians who say otherwise are making it up or misrepresenting their own religion." Was this intended just as written, or as a commentary on how some Christians view Judaism in preposterously oversimplified terms, or something else? - Christians and Jews have a long history of complex relationships including antagonism that reached the highest extremes of violence, including the following: Street fighting among gangs in ancient Alexandria, before there was a clear distinction between the two groups; Catholic crusades to invade and colonize the near East and displace the Jewish and Muslim cultures from it; Jews and Christians living together as oppressed groups called Dhimmi under the Caliphate in medieval Andalusia, and many other Islamic states; the complicity of much of the Catholic hierarchy in the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews even as many Christians risked their lives to save Jews from it, some explicitly motivated by their religion, some for other reasons; the Jewish and Italian (strong Catholic ties) mafias working together in America to set up Galveston and Las Vegas, despite many kinds of serious tensions; in the last few years in Israel, anti-Christian hate crimes including a bonfire of New Testaments, regular spitting on an Archbishop, and a member of the Knesset taking video of himself tearing up the New Testament, calling it a despicable book that belongs in the dustbin of history (his words). How should all this influence how I interpret what Heeb Magazine published? Can I draw a simple narrative featuring a privileged group and an oppressed group from all of this to frame my other questions about how to interpret things? Ultimately, very much as a person from a Catholic family with strong personal ties to both Catholic and Jewish cultures, I accept what Heeb Magazine has done as a valuable contribution to a conversation between cultures regardless of, or perhaps because of, its having apparently been calculated to provoke and offend in every available way (which few remarks that cause offense actually are: my own an example). I value offense as a way to break taboos and make new kinds of conversations possible, (but not for the emotional trauma it can cause, which I do my best to avoid,) including especially those that tell truth to power, which is why offense has a special place in satire. But also in lateral conversations where groups that have suffered from mutual antagonism that serves the interests of power overcome the symbols around which their mutual antagonism has been organized and learn to work together on the basis of their ample common ground. I have even taken many of the same symbols Heeb Magazine used, and other related ones from both Judaism and Christianity, and played with them in my own fiction in irreverent, transgressive ways that while very different are also full of ambiguity and make copious references to a complex history and are hard to interpret in any one consistent way (as most language is). I've done this in order to participate in a cultural dialog that seeks common values and cooperation towards bettering everyone's lot. That is the sense in which I ask whether Heeb Magazine has a place on sudo room's shelves. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: mainstream connotations words have and the implicit assumptions they throw over everyday discourse. Does Heeb Magazine have a place on sudo room's shelves? Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think that makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that they can be used by you in casual conversation. You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for themselves. I did some quick google searching around this issue and would like to share two links that seemed most helpful here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to… Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you. There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their negative meanings. Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the street amongst a group doing the same thing. R. <mailto:anca@techliminal.com>> wrote: &lt;alcides888(a)gmail.com <mailto:alcides888@gmail.com>> wrote: 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! political/cultural/social frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of describing whatever random related concepts. 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!) sounds kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading party???? I'm sure there would be great code there! <mailto:maxb.personal@gmail.com>> wrote: game of oppression bingo. i will make this brief. 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?" everyone involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage 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. 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. correct thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't being offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am sorry my language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do not attempt to use dictionary.com <http://dictionary.com>, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to try and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye of the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so just accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and move on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive, and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche. 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. 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. 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. &lt;di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu <mailto:di.franco@aya.yale.edu>> wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. community and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though? through it. &lt;netdiva(a)sonic.net <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> wrote: example of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. 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." <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <tel:415%20867%209472> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> facebook.com/techliminal <http://facebook.com/techliminal> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

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

Thanks for the pointers. It's not the first time I've come across the term or the concept of reappropriation, and the nuances of the idea were part of why I brought up Heeb Magazine specifically. That magazine caused a great deal of controversy by portraying Jesus and Mary in extremely sexually provocative ways, and referencing a long history of oppression of Jews by Catholics, that raises a lot of interesting questions: - Mary was portrayed with bare breasts, and pierced nipples, and the model portraying Mary Magdalene was described as "Evangelist-cum-nymphomaniac." Was this using slut-shaming to fire back at Catholics, a different kind of commentary on Catholic attitudes towards sex, something else, or neither? - Jesus was portrayed with his genitals wrapped in a Jewish prayer shawl. Was this meant to desecrate a holy Jewish symbol, to reflect on the attitudes of some Christians towards what Jews hold sacred, or something else? - The feature contains the quote, "Christians believe the Jews killed Jesus; that is why there is so much anti-Semitism in the world. The church was created on that one simple anti-Semitic principle. Christians who say otherwise are making it up or misrepresenting their own religion." Was this intended just as written, or as a commentary on how some Christians view Judaism in preposterously oversimplified terms, or something else? - Christians and Jews have a long history of complex relationships including antagonism that reached the highest extremes of violence, including the following: Street fighting among gangs in ancient Alexandria, before there was a clear distinction between the two groups; Catholic crusades to invade and colonize the near East and displace the Jewish and Muslim cultures from it; Jews and Christians living together as oppressed groups called Dhimmi under the Caliphate in medieval Andalusia, and many other Islamic states; the complicity of much of the Catholic hierarchy in the Nazi Holocaust of the Jews even as many Christians risked their lives to save Jews from it, some explicitly motivated by their religion, some for other reasons; the Jewish and Italian (strong Catholic ties) mafias working together in America to set up Galveston and Las Vegas, despite many kinds of serious tensions; in the last few years in Israel, anti-Christian hate crimes including a bonfire of New Testaments, regular spitting on an Archbishop, and a member of the Knesset taking video of himself tearing up the New Testament, calling it a despicable book that belongs in the dustbin of history (his words). How should all this influence how I interpret what Heeb Magazine published? Can I draw a simple narrative featuring a privileged group and an oppressed group from all of this to frame my other questions about how to interpret things? ​Ultimately, very much as a person from a Catholic family with strong personal ties to both Catholic and Jewish cultures, I accept what Heeb Magazine has done as a valuable contribution to a conversation between cultures regardless of, or perhaps because of, its having apparently been calculated to provoke and offend in every available way (which few remarks that cause offense actually are: my own an example). I value offense as a way to break taboos and make new kinds of conversations possible, (but not for the emotional trauma it can cause, which I do my best to avoid,) including especially those that tell truth to power, which is why offense has a special place in satire. But also in lateral conversations where groups that have suffered from mutual antagonism that serves the interests of power overcome the symbols around which their mutual antagonism has been organized and learn to work together on the basis of their ample common ground. I have even taken many of the same symbols Heeb Magazine used, and other related ones from both Judaism and Christianity, and played with them in my own fiction in irreverent, transgressive ways that while very different are also full of ambiguity and make copious references to a complex history and are hard to interpret in any one consistent way (as most language is). I've done this in order to participate in a cultural dialog that seeks common values and cooperation towards bettering everyone's lot. That is the sense in which I ask whether Heeb Magazine has a place on sudo room's shelves. On Wed, May 8, 2013 at 10:03 AM, rachel lyra hospodar &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: On May 7, 2013 11:15 AM, "Anthony Di Franco" &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: mainstream connotations words have and the implicit assumptions they throw over everyday discourse. Does Heeb Magazine have a place on sudo room's shelves? Sure, right next to Bitch Magazine. But woe be unto you if you think that makes 'heeb' or 'bitch' appropriate descriptors for anyone, or that they can be used by you in casual conversation. You are basically bringing up the practice of reclaiming language, a process where members of oppressed groups take words that are/have been used pejoratively towards them, and defiantly use the language for themselves. I did some quick google searching around this issue and would like to share two links that seemed most helpful here. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reappropriation http://www.womanist-musings.com/2011/11/reclaiming-language-and-who-gets-to… Basically, any white folks wanting to REclaim language around the african-american experience, can't. Boo hoo. It's because that language is already CLAIMED by white folks, for its pejorative purpose. If you don't like that, well, sit on it. Meditate on our white supremacist culture and cry big salty tears. Whatever. Similarly, if you want to help women at large reclaim some kinda nasty word, but you are a man, too bad for you. There is no way for you to use those words without reinforcing their negative meanings. Unless & until a woman invites you, eg, to go on a Slutwalk. Then you can write the word 'slut' on yourself & walk down the street amongst a group doing the same thing. R. <mailto:anca@techliminal.com>> wrote: &lt;alcides888(a)gmail.com <mailto:alcides888@gmail.com>> wrote: 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! political/cultural/social frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of describing whatever random related concepts. 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!) sounds kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading party???? I'm sure there would be great code there! <mailto:maxb.personal@gmail.com>> wrote: game of oppression bingo. i will make this brief. 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?" involves understand that you are referring to the named trope and not using that term as an offensive term. this can be solved by referencing the trope at hand. ie http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Noble_savage 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. 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. correct thing to do is not double down and try to explain that you weren't being offensive. the correct thing to do is to say something like "i am sorry my language choice offended you. what i was trying to say was___". do not attempt to use dictionary.com <http://dictionary.com>, etymology, wikipedia usage, etc to try and prove that you weren't being offensive. offense is not in the eye of the person who offended, it is in the eye of that person offended. so just accept that you behaved offensively even as you did not intend to and move on. trying to explain to the world at large how you totally weren't offensive citing media to try and "prove" it just makes you more offensive, and it is incredibly disrespectful to the person you are communicating with who likely doesn't give a shit what you were actually trying to say at this point, and did not sign on for a weeks long multiple page scroll email battle/war of attention attrition. accept, move on. don't become a cliche. 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. 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. 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. &lt;di.franco(a)aya.yale.edu <mailto:di.franco@aya.yale.edu>> wrote: 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. &lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com <mailto:rachelyra@gmail.com>> wrote: 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. 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. '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. 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. 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. 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. community and am sure I will stay connected in many ways. &lt;di.franco(a)gmail.com <mailto:di.franco@gmail.com>> wrote: sets itself apart from and gives up and projects on its image of the noble savage though? through it. <mailto:netdiva@sonic.net>> wrote: of appropriation of african american vernacular by the mainstream. excellence and immense progress. it has a violent, forceful connotation. 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." <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <tel:415%20867%209472> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> facebook.com/techliminal <http://facebook.com/techliminal> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org> <mailto:sudo-discuss@lists.sudoroom.org>

If I may chime in, I think it would be awesome just to coin our own phrases and not try to replace anything. Instead of characterizing any current or past lingo, we could just go ahead and move on... NEW LINGO! I think this would lessen the chances of political/cultural/social frustrations due to sensitive associations and differing perspectives of describing whatever random related concepts. So, if we actually are interested in creating a new positive lingo, we can just submit positive words and tech words into a bucket and creatively combine them to attach to whatever cool concept. (BEAUTIFUL CODE! = GREAT DISCUSSION!) So, is there going to be a lingo raffle party!?!?!?! That sounds kinda fun to me!!! What if it was a raffle / poetry / public reading party???? I'm sure there would be great code there! Alcides Gutierrez http://e64.us On May 6, 2013 2:01 PM, "Max B" &lt;maxb.personal(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: _______________________________________________ sudo-discuss mailing list sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss