Argobot

I played this last night and had a lot of fun! It's a good horror game.

Re the idol conversation: There's a difference between respecting someone for specific accomplishments and idolizing them. Idolizing implies ideals and causes us to fill in any gaps of intimate knowledge about a specific person, usually with the best possible characteristics we can imagine. This happens frequently with celebrities, who are revered for generally shallow attributes (looks, fame) but are turned into these paragons of goodness by the people who idolize them. It's therefore disappointing when it turns out a celebrity is just a normal person with normal flaws, or in some cases, worse than normal flaws caused by the pressures of fame. We want our idols to be ideal in every way and are upset when they are not, but it's important to remember that the people we idolize generally never asked to be seen as a perfect exemplar of humanity and therefore, should not take all the blame when they inevitably disappoint us (and I don't think it's cynical to say that idols will disappoint you, because by definition, an idol consists of numerous falsehoods that we cannot reasonably expect to be true for one human). The line between respect and idol-worship is of course difficult to see and I can't blame anyone for dipping into idolization (I do it too). But, it's fair to question our assumptions about people we see as "good" and make sure that we're not taking a specific "good" quality - looks, athletic skill, acting, etc - and assuming that it applies to every other part of that person's being.

I don't know that we could justify skipping books in a trilogy, sadly. I know that I will definitely be reading the third book when it comes out. Maybe I can sneak some unsanctioned Wolf Hall talk into a future podcast....

I really enjoyed Rob's "prison of your own taste" metaphor. Last night I saw the trailer for the new Coen Bros movie - Hail, Caesar! - and was immediately struck by how many elements of that trailer directly appealed to my tastes. That doesn't mean I'm any less excited to see that movie, but seeing the trailer so soon after listening to this podcast made me think a little bit more about the entire situation.

This book trades on references to Greek mythology, for better and for worse. I don't think we're meant to see many of the events that happen in the back half as realistic, especially in comparison to what comes before it. In that way, this book really reminds me of A Little Life, another 2015 novel that layers more and more misery on its main character to the point where it becomes comical, but I think that comedy kind of is the point.

God I hope so. It's so rare for me to be better at any kind of game than Chris (he kicked my ass in Gin)

I've taken to playing bridge online against 3 computers, which means I get owned more frequently than when I played against humans. I am obsessed with bridge now

We have picked the first book! It's Fates and Furies by Lauren Groff. We haven't recorded that episode yet -- expect it by the beginning of February -- but we did record a "zero episode" that reintroduces the podcast and we hopefully get people excited. I know I am excited to get Chris to read books with me again.

So I watched it again yesterday and liked it so much more the second time. Still some classic JJ Abrams problems, but the movie overall is very well done. Stupidly happy for all the little girls who are watching this now and looking up to Rey.

Woof, gang, I did not like this movie.

For those interested in the complexity of gentrification, I suggest reading this article: http://www.bkmag.com/2015/11/02/white-flight-round-two-or-how-gentrification-ends/ If gentrification is unavoidable -- which to some degree I think it is -- than one way to mitigate it as a gentrifier is to try and lift up the community you find yourself in. That article talks about white couples moving to urban areas and then immediately leaving for 99% white suburbs once their kids reach school-age. People need to do a better job of contributing to a community, rather than just taking from it. I hope that the longer I live in San Francisco, the more I'm able to do as a good community member.

It would really bum me out if people felt that I didn't care enough about these issues and attribute that to what's driving my opinion. Not to get all "some of my best friends are black," but my sister is black and was raised entirely by my white mother in an all-white environment. So I've seen first-hand the way many of these issues have affected her and my family. I'm sorry that I'm bringing up this personal history, but I feel the need to defend myself in the face of a (maybe entirely imagined) perception that I might not care enough.

Really interesting, Bjorn. Although the scorn for the New York Times caught me off-guard. You don't have to read the article I linked, obviously, but I'm bummed at the disparaging remarks made against it, especially since the author seems to agree way more with you than with anything I've been saying. I don't think it's fair to set up a choice between your friend's story and what someone might write on the subject of race in a big publication, because that seems like a backwards way of correcting privilege. In a just world, there wouldn't be a choice, and someone with your friend's background could share a byline with the woman who wrote that article. (Unless you think that institutions like the New York Times are inherently oppressive and no number of minority writers will change that. If you do -- and I'm sorry if I'm putting words in your mouth here -- than fair enough. I don't happen to, so I'll try and politely raise my objection. I suppose it's a display of my own bias that the part of your piece that I chose to respond to was your criticism of the NY Times, but I honestly don't have anything else to contribute to your friend's story except to say that I'm sorry the world exists they way it does and I want it to get better for everyone.)

That's an interesting way to summarize this issue, but again, I must question how and who is allowed to measure sincerity? How do you know that a white person isn't earnestly trying to emulate a style of cooking outside of their culture (and conversely, how do you know that a person who looks like they belong to certain culture isn't capitalizing off that appearance to lure in gullible people on the search for authenticity)? I never want to be the smug person who feels morally superior for eating at a Mexican restaurant in the Mission over going to Chipotle, because I'm sure that there are tons of "ethnic" restaurants that are capitalizing off that feeling. I agree that there is a lot of insincere appropriation of a popular minority culture for capitalistic ends, but it's not something I feel very comfortable with policing, because I don't think anyone is really qualified to know who is sincere and who isn't. There was a really great NYTimes piece last week called "White Debts." Here's a really relevant part: "Guilt is what makes a good life built on evil no longer good. I have a memory of the writer Sherman Alexie cautioning me against this way of thinking. I remember him saying, ‘‘White people do crazy [expletive] when they feel guilty.’’ That I can’t dispute. Guilty white people try to save other people who don’t want or need to be saved, they make grandiose, empty gestures, they sling blame, they police the speech of other white people and they dedicate themselves to the fruitless project of their own exoneration. But I’m not sure any of that is worse than what white people do in denial. Especially when that denial depends on a constant erasure of both the past and the present." So unfortunately, my recent posts probably slot me in the denial section. My fear of becoming so wrapped up in the legacy of white guilt makes me push back in a way that may seem callous in the face of real minority suffering. I'm aware that eating quinoa is creating a dangerous economic situation for developing countries, but I bristle at the hypocrisy of someone stating that fact on their smart phone, another item that is crippling developing countries. The fact that every choice we make in a capitalistic society has harmful ripple effects doesn't mean that we shouldn't try to mitigate that harm as best we can, but it also doesn't mean that it's helpful to create groups of "good" and "bad" white people, because none of us can escape the legacy of what white culture has done to the world. Again, I'm willing to admit that as a white person who doesn't like to think of herself as contributing to oppression that I might be too sensitive to this idea. Please let me know, I really value opinions here.

I wish there was a way to talk about these issues without them ending in anger. I guess the seriousness of these issues kind of ensure that will never be the case though. I think it's good for everyone to remember (me included) that everyone here is well-intentioned and wants to get this stuff right. I highly respect everyone on this forum and I don't want anyone to feel so burned out that they have to leave. I will do my part to remember in the future to be more accommodating and less aggressive.

Okay, I will bite at continuing to discuss this topic. There's a book out called First Bite that examines how our upbringing influences our eating habits. I want to quote from the NY Times review: "Take Japan. Believe it or not, Wilson writes in one of the more fascinating chapters on the psychology of change, the country’s cuisine hasn’t always been fresh fish, flavorful soups and elegant, umami-loaded offerings that look pretty in bento boxes. For centuries the diet was unrefined and carb-heavy — a typical meal consisted of grains with shredded yam leaves, radishes and pickles. After World War II, though, when the country experienced an economic boom, newfound affluence allowed for more refrigerators (therefore more protein) and more variety. Gradually, as borders opened and palates expanded, the Japanese were introduced to the idea of eating for pleasure, and Japanese cuisine as we now know it was formed." Essentially, Japanese cuisine as most of us know it did not emerge until midway through the last century. As someone else pointed out earlier, Italian food didn't take on the aspects of what we think of as Italian until the 1800s. All of this accepted cultural food traditions have been in flux for centuries, which is why I'm so dubious with these claims that one group does cooking right and another does cooking wrong, because how do you even determine what is right or traditional if the tradition has changed so much. I see your point, but don't you think it's a little insulting to the legacy of Chinese culture (which is older than French culture) to suggest that it cannot stand up to some non-Chinese people making a version of Chinese food? What even is Chinese food?

I regret participating in this conversation. I did not read the blog post, my comments were in response to what people in this thread said. I do think that cooking is a learned ability that is added by a combination of factors, including what you grew up with.

N/A

http://i.imgur.com/RpgEKV5.png

You're on the razor's edge.

I am slowly buying first edition Alice Munro hardcovers that I find in used bookstores, so that now I generally have two copies of the same Alice Munro book. but really

Can't remember if the big talk on appropriation was here or elsewhere but putting this in because it's interesting http://www.orchestratedpulse.com/2014/11/cultural-appropriation-is-dead/