Galactic North

So from then on whenever one of us called something problematic, he would make us talk it out until we could name the “bad” thing we were hinting at. In this particular class, 7/10 it was some type of oppression, and the remainder was like, “I’m uncomfortable because this is very new/confusing/pushing boundaries that made me feel safe.”

Once we stopped calling things “problematic” and stopping at that, class got way more interesting and... we all had to say, like, “that’s racist” or “that’s misogynistic” or “ew capitalism gross” out loud, which a lot of us had never done in a classroom before. Or we had to be like, “Uhhh... I’m not sure what’s so bad?” and confront our own beliefs and that was maybe even more useful.

What I learned is that there is an inflexible rule about how people interact with systems. If your system would work perfectly if people Just Would, and yet they Don't, then your system is bad and you should feel bad. Systems must be built with an eye toward "will people actually do this"?

Recycling was a thing when I was a child. (The 70's.) In my home in New York State, you could carry recyclables to a recycling center. Nobody did. Now in 2024 Baltimore there is a trash truck that comes every week to pick up my recyclables, and I and my neighbors fill our cans with objects that can be recycled, because a system was developed that was easy for busy people to do, and there's a lot of social pressure to do it -- but the social pressure wouldn't exist if it wasn't easy to do. Only the most crunchy granola people bitched at you if you didn't recycle in 1979, when it required a lot of effort. Now it is considered kind of on par with spitting in the street or leaving a dirty diaper on the diaper changing table in the bathroom instead of throwing it out, if you don't recycle.

@alarajrogers what did you mean by this?

A small thing. If you want to support trans and nonbinary people, then on government forms, if they require gender and you can't get around it, allow "other"; better still, don't require gender. If you're building a medical system, and the patient's gender is M, do not gray out all the "female" problems he might be presenting with on the grounds that a man can't possibly have menstrual problems, be pregnant, or have issues with his uterus; likewise if the patient presents as F, don't make it impossible to enter a diagnosis of prostate cancer for her.

Don't set up validation rules that prevent someone with gender M from having a husband. Better yet, let "husband" and "wife" both be covered by the term "spouse", because that is inclusive of non-binary spouses as well.

Because I'm in IT, I think in terms of IT systems. But there are government systems and insurance systems and financial systems and all sorts of systems out there, that should be set up so that a gay person will be able to navigate it as easily as a straight person, and a straight person will see that the available options don't privilege them at the expense of everyone else... a subtle reminder that no, you're not the center of the universe and gay people exist. Why do you think the right wing fights so hard against there being Spanish on forms that are also in English? You'd think, it doesn't harm anyone using the form for there to be both Spanish and English. But they know, the presence of Spanish reminds English speakers that the world doesn't center around what works for them; other options exist. That's what they want to get rid of, the subtle reminder that someone besides them is important too.

This is a discussion about how to make systems work in some way other than If People Would Just, making them easier to promote the result you want, so I'm not sure how you even got "the onus is on gay people to be more palatable", and I get the feeling you don't understand the context of the discussion. I am not even sure how you could devise a system that incorporates "gay people should make themselves more palatable" because that sounds exactly like a thing that People Should Just... meaning, you're relying on humans to behave in the exact specific way you need them to for your system to work, and the whole point of this conversation is that doing that dooms your system to fail. Gay people will never Just Make Themselves More Palatable To Straights, as a cohort, so if your system for getting gay people to be better accepted relies on If Gay People Would Just, your system will fail.

That text post that's been making the rounds that goes something like "Omg you made it to the same red light as everyone else but faster and more dangerously and recklessly, should we call nascar? Do you want a medal?" summarizes exactly what I'm trying to talk about.

It's like when I have to change buses at one of the bigger and busier bus stops, and the people who get off the same bus as me shove and elbow past me to get off before me, and then shove and elbow past anyone even slightly in their way on the way to the bus they're switching, only to end up on the same bus as all the people they shoved and elbowed with several minutes to spare before it leaves and plenty of open seats left.

I think this unnecessary urgency a lot of people feel in their day to day lives drives a lot of bad behavior. I'm not saying I'm innocent of this, I've felt it too in plenty of situations that didn't call for it, and regrettably was less kind than I should have been as a result. But I try to be aware of it, and always try to ask myself it it's really as urgent as my lizard brain is trying to tell me it is, and even if it was that urgent, does that still justify unkind behavior?

Is shoving or elbowing another person aside going to make the difference between whether or not you make it to the bus before it pulls away? (hint: at least where I live, most of the time that's a no because the drivers usually won't leave if they see people from another bus heading towards their bus). Is shoving and elbowing people aside in a crowded grocery store going to make any noticeable difference in how quickly you get your shopping done?

Book that was bad: this sucked 👎

" The names of the demons are Artemy, spawned by the Heat of the Earth, and Danil, begotten by the cold Celestial Flame..."

"...from my window I saw each one of them bring a butcher down within the flaming Suok Ring. They are fighting each other now, but neither will win the fight..."

Phew, finally I managed to get this thing out of my mind. Yes, it's been plaguing (hehe, plague) me ever since I made that 'life-affirming sex on day 11' post.

My first time translating from my native language writing so it's probably clunky, but I tried

On the Brink (5387 words) by ProfessorBonca

Fandom: Мор. Утопия | Pathologic Rating: Explicit Warnings: No Archive Warnings Apply Relationships: Artemy Burakh/Daniil Dankovsky Characters: Artemy Burakh, Daniil Dankovsky Additional Tags: Video Game: Mor Utopiya | Pathologic Classic, Haruspex Route (Pathologic), a bit of bachelor route because the day 11 quest is part of the plot, Plot What Plot/Porn Without Plot, Hurt/Comfort, Near Death Experiences, Fear of Death, Life-Affirming Sex, Mild Blood, Gunshot Wounds, Making Out, Mutual Masturbation, Frottage, Fingers in Mouth, Clothed Masturbation Summary: Eleventh day of the epidemic in the Town-on-Gorkhon. Artemy Burakh, having crossed the threshold of death, passes the trial his inheritance had in store for him. Meanwhile, Bachelor Dankovsky faces an equally dangerous ordeal. Two Lines, two destinies, passing through death's grip. Can they help each other find their way back?

Snippet under the cut

A kudos on AO3 is NOT a ranking system, it is a communication to the author, it's a "thank you" button.

Note that it's called "kudos" not "like" or "upvote". You can sort by kudos if you wish to find the fics that the author has been thanked for the most.

But there is no ranking system or algorithm, there is no "best fics first" button, and the kudos button is for the author, not the other users. So a downvote button would serve no practical purpose.

Culturally, as an archive and also as the product of a community with a gift economy, AO3 does not promote the concept of "better" or "more valuable" or "more relevant" fic. The OTW (the nonprofit that runs AO3) and the community of fans who created and comprise the OTW and who use the archive believe very strongly that ALL fanfiction is valuable and worth preserving, and understand that tastes are varied and subjective. The tag system and search operators allow users to find the fic they think is worth reading without having to rely on the consensus of a community that may not share their tastes and priorities.

Because of this, a "best fic first" feature that a downvote/upvote system exists to support would be antithetical to the site's mission and contrary to the values and needs of the community the site is for.

Without a "best" ranking system, all a downvote button would be is a "no thank you" communication to the author.