This is depizan's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following depizan's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Recent Activity
I got the distinct impression that he either just didn't really give a shit one way or another or for some reason felt that I had it coming and was encouraging it. I always had the impression that bullying was encouraged or, at best, completely ignored when I was in school. I do know that you were far more likely to get in trouble for trying to avoid bullying than you were for being a bully. That's one of the reasons I am so very cynical about school. Now, there were individual teachers who had absolutely no tolerance for bullying and, no surprise, bullying never happened in their classroom or where they were. But the schools in general were on the wrong side. I hope that's changing, but given that our culture is often on the wrong side, I don't have a lot of confidence.
@hapax The third was What's Up Doc? which I still think is the funniest movie I have ever seen. I have watched it a million times and am always reduced to a quivering puddle of hysterical laughter. I was thrilled to introduce it to my kids, who think it as funny as I do. :D One of the few comedies I did like as a kid. And still do.
Toggle Commented May 14, 2011 on (Nearly) open-thread Friday at The Slacktiverse
The issue I see is that as long as a culture has genders, unless there are effectively as many genders as people, there will be people who accord more closely to the traits ascribed to their gender and people who accord less closely. It's more complicated than that, at least from my experience and what I know from various friends (including transgendered people). It isn't about traits, it's about how you feel. I almost never feel like a woman. Or a man, for that matter. It's not a matter of thinking I've got the wrong body (though, frankly, the only reason I'd care if I woke up a guy someday is because that'd be a little hard to explain), but somehow my biological sex doesn't... I don't even know how to put it... it's there because it's there, but my hair color is more relevant? (And my hair color isn't relevant.) For other people, biological sex and/or gender are very important. They feel like women or men. I just don't see that going away.
Oh joy, typepad is eating parts of my comments again. I must do something terribly weird to the tags from time to time. That one parenthetical should read: Thank you Han Solo's Revenge by Brian Daley.
Toggle Commented May 14, 2011 on (Nearly) open-thread Friday at The Slacktiverse
Supposedly, the first movie I saw in the theater was Disney's The Fox and the Hound, but either my childhood involved temporal anomalies or that isn't right, because I also saw The Empire Strikes Back in the theater and that was released first. The only temporal anomaly free way that I could've seen The Fox and the Hound first is if, for some reason, my parents and I went to the re-release of The Empire Strikes Back in 1981, but I can't think of any reason why they/we wouldn't have gone to the actual release in '80. I do remember seeing both in the theater as a kid, regardless of whether temporal anomalies were involved. As for seeing them again, well, that's also a little complicated. I had seriously mixed feelings about movies as a kid - I liked animated movies (like most kids), but I hated most comedies with a passion and didn't trust adventure movies (I think The Empire Strikes Back and Wrath of Khan were a little much for me at six (or possibly seven?) and eight), but I had no problem with dramas and sat through Gandhi and Amadaus no problem. Then, when I was in middle school, I grabbed a random book in English class to save myself from hearing my teacher's childhood duck stories yet again, and became an instant belated Star Wars fan. (Thank you, by Brian Daley.) And suddenly I really liked movies, especially adventure movies. Go figure. Weirdly, I think I found more upsetting when I re-watched it as a teen. (I became and stayed somewhat drama-averse.) And The Empire Strikes Back is far and away my favorite Star Wars movie. (For anyone who missed my participating in the various ramblings about Star Trek and Captain Kirk, I also became a belated Trek fan of sorts.) Maybe temporal anomalies do strange things to one's taste in movies.
Toggle Commented May 14, 2011 on (Nearly) open-thread Friday at The Slacktiverse
@Ruby Could be Yellow Jackets, in which case you definitely don't want them moving in. They can be pretty agressive - or at least they're seriously not afraid of people, which makes it very easy to get stung by one.
@Ross Damn. Psychology used to be better than psychiatry. @Literata I have some hope that, as more and more people get to know each other online, the sex and gender stuff will become less of a priority in the real world, too. I mean, for all any of us knows, members of this forum could include sapient computers, highly evolved fish, or a small gaseous cloud. I'm all for that not really caring spreading off line.
@Caryb Whut.
what I do want incinerated, disintegrated, reconstituted and then obliterated again for good measure is the concept of gender as something you can DO WRONG. Oh hell yes. Internal gender (I feel like a man, woman, other) is probably innate, the external trappings of gender certainly aren't. I'm all for a world in which people of all genders can express (or not express) their genderedness without regard to some societal how to list.
A lot of the psychiatrists who guard access to HRT will only grant it to trans people who fall into very narrow stereotypes - I was turned down the first time because I was attracted exclusively to men prior to transition. Effectively, they have the power to force trans people to present and behave according to their ideas of "male" and "female" by threatening to withhold treatment. And that will probably cause some trans people to internalize the stereotypes they're having forced on them. I mean, we all get pretty narrow standards of "male" and "female" pushed at us, but cis people can reject them without losing access to necessary medical care (and yes, I see being able to transition as necessary). Damn, and I already didn't much care for psychiatrists (there may be good ones out there...somewhere, but there are a lot of really terrible ones).
@Lonespark And my husband is considered dreadfully unmanly by various WoW assholes for playing female characters (pretty ones and ugly ones and everything in between) and not liking PvP. And for just not being quite enough of a kyriarchy-cheerleader because occasionally stands up for QUILTBAG folk or people on welfare or whatever. Yeah...that's WoW assholes for you. Which would be why I only play with friends, and why most of my friends only play with friends. @Mary Kaye Gaming is a social activity for me, but the hidden object games (at least as described by you) sound like they'd be pretty fun. It also brought to mind something about WoW - any personality your characters have is completely in your own mind. Otherwise, they have absolutely none. You don't even have a character description page, as in Champions or City of Heroes/Villains, where you can share your idea of the character with other players (though there are RP addons that allow you to do so in WoW). And, of course, in all MMOs (at least the four I've played...which probably doesn't qualify me as an expert), you have no dialogue options - your choices are 1) take the quest/mission or 2) don't take the quest/mission. *sadface* I want an MMORPG that doesn't forget the RPG part. @Froborr As near as I can tell, the criteria for "hardcore" games are: *Must be violent. *Must have elements of FPS, RTS, fighting games, MMOs, or rarely RPGs. *Must allow competitive multiplayer focused on killing other players. *Can't be too colorful. *Must have technologically highly advanced graphics (the actual artistry involved is irrelevant) requiring a high-end gaming PC, PS3, or X-Box 360. And suddenly I understand why WoW players are so down on Burning Crusade - and why the two expansions afterward were less colorful. Ugh. (And yet, WoW is and always has been awfully... colorful and cartoony for a game that people want to be hardcore about.)
@Jason Oh, I wasn't meaning to imply that guys don't like Angry Birds and the like as well. In fact, most people I know who game have about as broad a tastes as you - regardless of gender.
Well, a disturbing number of MMO players (at least the ones that post on the message boards) act as though MMOs are also a guy or most guy thing, too. No matter how many women speak up to say, "um, no, I play that." True, I know at least some console gamers who are adamant that MMOs are not video games, but that doesn't seem to be related to whether or not women play them (or whether the console games that they do consider video games are FPS). (Though, frankly, I've no idea what to categorize some console games as. What are things like Force Unleashed? It's not a FPS, it's not an RPG, though it has some elements of both, really.)
@Literata If it's largely women buying Angry Birds and... the one with Om Nom... crap *googles* Cut the Rope, that's rather interesting in another way, since those are physics based games. That should put the manly men playing manly games/women playing not-really-games people in a strange position. The physics based games, while puzzle games, also rely on spacial perception which is (according to essentialists) a guy thing. @Mary Kaye At least in the case of Angry Birds and Cut the Rope, there aren't really protagonists. Angry Birds features, well, angry birds that you launch at the pigs that they're mad at and they explode in different ways, defeating their enemies in, er, death. (But this is all very cartoony.) Cut the Rope is a set of puzzles involving candy on a rope that you're meant to feed to a very cute monster named Om Nom. (Mind you, at least older FPS didn't really have protagonists, either, or, as far as I could tell, much of a storyline beyond wandering through some maze shooting people. I'm also not sure that, if you just looked at the games, you could make an argument that the puzzle games were somehow more different from other games than any other kind of game.)
@Lonespark we'd love to have you at DS9_rewatch Over on livejournal? If I can get my hands on the show for watching (and the library probably has it), that could be fun.
@Ben What? O_o Do I have my browser set to hide trigger warnings or something, because I haven't seen any in the threads I've been participating in. (Also, any prevarication on here is going to be in writing, unless I'm the only boring person who's computer doesn't talk to them.) Though I must say the idea of a furry bible slash community is sort ... why do I suddenly expect excerpts to show up on Weeping Cock.
I never made it to the (apparently) good part of DS9. The first season bored me beyond belief and I quit watching. I really didn't see any of the series regularly after Next Generation. I suppose the idea of Trek has always been more interesting to me than the execution, and, given that, I end up enjoying the cheesy space adventure Trek (that would be Kirk and crew, classic and nu) most. Not because it's that special, but because at least it succeeds at being cheesy space adventure. And I like cheesy space adventure. Enterprise... oh dear... I think you may be understating the disaster that was Enterprise. Though, since I've only seen a few episodes of it, I could well have missed the strong points. (Yeah, I know there's probably something odd about someone who only casually likes Trek having played more than one version of the role playing game. I know people who are Trekkier than I am. And, like I said, the idea of Trek is interesting.)
@CZEdwards That is indeed cool. @Froborr I don't think most missionaries realize they're aiming for a traumatic event. They think they're saving people. Now, the ones playing Conversion: The MMO*, that's a different story and I'm with you on the mockery and hostility for those guys. *As in the person Former Conservative has been discussing on his blog recently. Non-RTCs are cockroaches? WTF!?
@ Will Wildman Trying to balance the worldbuilding claims (egalitarian future utopia) with the demonstrated facts of the show (sexism, racism, imperialism) gives me a headache like watching Escher draw a sketch of Cthulhu doing yoga after snorting hallucinogens. I can't think of a Trek that isn't true for. Even the roleplaying games cause brain cramp over that very discrepancy, or at least the imperialism part of it. Starfleet tends to end up having the usual problems a supposedly inherently Good organization does once you add any kind of storytelling. I don't want to hit it with a big stick the way I do the Jedi Order, but it still has some bad attacks of doing not good things in the name of Good.
@Ross Just assume that in the 23rd century "black hole" has been redefined to describe some kind of magic sucky-thing in space. Y'know, like the Star Wars Prequels. :D @chris the cynic I think Vaal was the computer I was thinking of. I can't remember if it was going to destroy the Enterprise and them independent of Kirk thinking it shouldn't be in charge or not. (Obviously, he couldn't let it destroy the Enterprise. But if it was wanting to off them in self defense or defense - from its point of view - of the planet, his destroying it in self defense is a bit different than if it wasn't. If you poke something with a stick and it attacks you, you might be killing it in self defense, but you're not blameless. Granted, their job is to go poke things with sticks.) Our conversation might make a lot more sense if we'd seen Star Trek more recently - we're both having the "um, there was an episode where something happened... where's wikipedia when I need it" problem. I think you see Kirk or at least nuKirk as a worse person than I do. I thought the characters seemed (roughly) the same, with the possible exception of Scotty, who I agree did seem less likable in nuTrek. (His relationship with... er, other person* in the station on the ice planet bothered me. *Someone somewhere must know what species that character was, or, better still, their name. I fear I don't.) You're factually right about Kirk (classic and nu), but I just can't shake my impression, despite it not matching up with facts. Now it's going to drive me nuts because I've no idea what did give me my respective impressions of Kirk. Darn it.
How does OKCupid work, anyway? It sounds horribly stressful.
@ Lila Miles Vorkosigan, the main character most often liked by people who don't like main characters. :) @ chris the cynic Oop, one last Star Trek thought. I'm not sure I agree about Uhura being brought down. Yeah, now Kirk's her captain, but that's not really a change in her status. She's still the communication officer, language expert, and whatnot of the Enterprise, which is the best (and now only?) ship of the fleet. More importantly, just as in classicTrek, the command crew (Uhura included) don't really have the power dynamic they more realistically would have. There's more a sense of team than of captain and subordinates. If there were a more realistic power dynamic, him becoming her boss would be icky.
I'm a bit too young to have ever seen the original series in order - and I don't own it, so I've never had that opportunity to do so, either - so I have no idea whether or not that episode is the introductory one. (The one where his friend becomes a "god", right? Just make sure we're thinking of the same episode.) I'd remembered that just being a hazards of space exploration thing, not Kirk specifically messing up, but I haven't seen it recently. Actually, I haven't seen the original series recently, period. Yes, he lost sometimes, as in "The City on the Edge of Forever," but I'm sure there were times when he succeeded when he really shouldn't have (other than because he's the main character). I do remember several episodes where Kirk seemed superhuman (the only one not effected by the weird thing of the week or magically able to overcome something just by the power of his awesomeness) and, of course, there's the infamous episode where he destroys the supercomputer that's running a planet. (Exactly how was that his decision to make, again? And why is there never any fall out from that?) Though, the more I think about it, I think you're partially right. I think Kirk as arrogant (oddly superhuman at times) ass is there from the beginning, but I think him getting what he wants is more a movie thing. I just think it started with the classic movies, not the reboot. In the classic movies, he keeps getting command of the Enterprise back (because he's just that awesome), he even gets Spock back, and his demotion for the whole ship stealing business in Search for Spock just, once again, gives him command back, even his incompetence at getting along with Klingons ends up landing him in a position to save the Federation and potentially avoid decommissioning. (I generally ignore the movies after six due to them ranging from...ah... not so good to terrible (imo).) The universe certainly wants Kirk (either Kirk) in command of the Enterprise. I do think we have a small problem in trying to compare three seasons of a TV show, plus six movies to one movie in terms of what's generally true for the character - we've seen a hell of a lot more of classicKirk. If he never had anything not go his way it would be really bizarre, and if nuTrek were a series, we'd almost have to see nuKirk mess up and have to deal with it a few times. (We may if there are more nuTrek movies.) It is interesting that, despite classicKirk having to deal with consequences some and not always getting what he wanted, I still came away with the impression that the universe lurrved him more than in the new movie. Do I just find William Shatner's "I am awesome" face more annoying than Chris Pine's, or is there something about the storytelling or... something in the new movie that says to me "at least this universe doesn't think he's so awesome" while something else says to you "this universe thinks he's even more awesome." (Or, alternatively, something about classicTrek that says to me "the universe thinks he's awesome" but doesn't say that to you.)
Keep in mind, I've always thought Kirk was a complete ass, if entertaining to watch, so NuKirk may look more different from ClassicKirk to those who didn't think he was a complete ass to begin with. (I do agree that NuKirk's rise to captaincy doesn't make any sense at all, but Kirk was never a plausible captain to me, so I've always figured Starfleet must award captaincy by way of a dartboard or perhaps names drawn out of a hat. I mean, really, in what military organization is it standard procedure for the captain to routinely beam into the unknown to poke it with a stick? Never mind the times he broke the Prime Directive in mindboggling ways.) The first time we meet him as an adult he's boasting that he'll win an four against one fight so easily the four should get more support to make if fair. And that boast is completely unbelievable even before they hand him his ass. (Though I might grant the fact that they ended up his subordinates more if I had any sympathy for them. Which I don't. They were just as much asses as Kirk.) Now, the fact that Captain Pike and Old Spock help him because of who he's related to not because of who he is is a bit disturbing and speaks of hereditary merit rather than personal merit. But I felt like he got less arrogant over the course of the movie and more willing to listen to other people (and I thought that we were supposed to believe that his arrogance was something of a cover - at least from his conversation with Old Spock and the fact that he seemed to have no clue what to do with himself until Captain Pike showed up) - which is why I think he could end up a better person. (Not that he's there yet.) Kirk has always had the universe hand him what he wants (and very rarely do his bad decisions come back to bite him - Khan may be the only exception for ClassicKirk) but at least NuKirk has to learn something and/or get the crap beat out of him before he gets his reward. (Okay, ClassicKirk got stomped on quite a bit, too. Perhaps that part hasn't changed.) I guess I just don't see ClassicKirk as any more deserving than NuKirk of his success. Probably because he did all the earning of it off screen and I'm not enough of a Trekkie to know more than the outline of it. The only thing I think I've ever agreed with Kirk about is the Kobayashi Maru - that test makes no sense at all in either continuity and NuKirk is absolutely correct to call it a cheat. But that's an entirely different rant. (And I can't believe I'm - indirectly - defending any version of Kirk at all. I like Star Trek, old and new, but Kirk is only bearable as part of the team.)
@Ruby This was the big failing of the Mission: Impossible movies. The creators apparently didn't realize that IMF stood for Impossible Missions Force--a bunch of people with different talents working together. So the movies were just your typical lone-wolf action hero movies. As far as I can tell, the movie makers just wanted the theme music. They really did throw out everything that made the show interesting, and did so in a way that practically seemed like an "f- you" to anyone in the audience who did like the show. It's really too bad because actual Mission: Impossible movies could be tons of fun.