Argobot

That's a good segue to this Medium piece that was making the rounds yesterday by Sady Doyle: https://t.co/vwba3UPX2m The argument seems to be that a good person can create bad art that can then influence an already bad person to do a bad thing (the example given is a Beastie Boys rape joke that a teenage boy copied when he raped a young girl). Doyle argues that by making a rape joke, the Beastie Boys didn't create a rapist, but they did provide inspiration to a young man who likely would have attempted rape with or without the joke. I don't agree with everything in this article, especially the idea that if an artist creates a work with disturbing content that they are then culpable for every negative action that is inspired by that content, but it's good food for thought in this MGSV discussion.

I don't want to spoil this for anyone as I'm pretty sure Nick and Chris will discuss it during the podcast. I will say that for myself personally, it was one of the surrealist experiences I've had.

The Piroshky line is always long unless you go at random hours, but the staff there is really quick and you can usually get through pretty fast. Alll those little shops in Pike Place are great and really worth checking out.

I'm kind of bummed that I won't be in Seattle for PAX, as it's always a great chance to see a bunch of nice people. Make sure to eat here if you're going to be in the area: http://www.piroshkybakery.com/menu.php

Doesn't hurt that Swift is more successful several times over.

If we can pause for a moment from all this video game chat to further dissect the Bad Blood video: I can't figure out if that video is meant to be taken seriously re: believing that all the women in it are legitimate badasses. Everyone is so thin and fragile looking - not to knock body types, but there is legitimate criticism to be made about the really unrealistic image of female beauty that Swift and her crew propagate - that it's comical when they wield these big weapons or attempt cool fighting moves. The scene that sticks out the most for me is the boxing ring, where two incredibly small, virtually muscle-free women are delivering punches that resemble stereotypical cat fight motions. I cannot figure out if that's intentional or not, but the result is that in a music video that is meant to have this badass, revenge theme (which as Sean pointed out has its own problems) no one looks particularly badass!

Yeah, I would second the idea that Flanagan's article is way more forgiving to college students than the Bitch post lets on. Flanagan acknowledges that college students have their hearts in the right place and are trying to make a better environment for everyone. The problem is there is no appropriate pushback from either school administrations or the student body on what might be good intentions run wild. Flanagan's original article points out that a few minority comedians were passed over because their acts deal with racial identity and the student representatives were afraid of how that would be received. It's one thing to want to weed out comedians who make homophobic jokes, it's another thing entirely to be too worried about bringing in a comedian who uses the uncomfortable discussion of their race or gender for humor. I'm all for the former and have serious questions about the latter. Maybe college students are better judges at knowing when they've gone too far in the name of making everyone feel safe and protected, but I do not like that the atmosphere right now supports the idea that any nod to safer spaces is unimpeachable. It turns out that might not be the case.

This issue always leads to divisive discussion, so I want to preface what I'm about to say with I do not agree with everything in this article and I do not think this article mocks sexual assault victims or suggests that those with a history of sexual assault should just suck it up. Trigger warnings started with really noble intentions, but it no longer seems that they are being used in the original way they were intended. Condelezza Rice may have done many things you disagree with politically, but preventing her from speaking at your campus seems like a bad precedent that only encourages groups of young progressives to remain in their progressive bubble. Providing TWs on books that contain examples of racism is fine, unless it is then used for students to avoid engaging with that material all together. Since the majority of college populations are made up of students who are largely white and affluent - and therefore have likely never experienced institutional racism - providing them with an avenue to disengage from potentially upsetting but instructive information is something I find very distressing. For as many victims of sexual assault who say that TWs really help them cope, I see an almost equal number of people say that TWs do nothing for them. It seems like the actual benefit of TWs really depends on the person, like any mental health practice, so it might be a good policy to just blanket decide what works for half of the group should work for everyone. On its face, I see no problem with TWs for upsetting content. There's no harm in a professor who is about to teach Tess of D'Ubervilles letting her class know that the book contains rape, but there is harm in those students then using avoidance and the lawsuit-fearful college administration to either have the book banned or the professor reprimanded. I guess the real issue here is whether or not you believe TWs can be used without being abused, and it sadly seems that there is a lot of anecdotal evidence to suggest that this is not the case. A few people in response to this article pointed out that adults can choose what media to consume and can avoid all these potentially upsetting topics. I have zero problem with a grown adult not wanting to read something containing rape; I am not a rape victim and I often avoid media like that because I find it upsetting, so I completely understand this inclination. What I do have a problem with is adults avoiding any material that presents a different, potentially upsetting worldview from their own. I don't expect people to go around reading white supremacist literature, but I do believe that to be a thoughtful person requires that you engage with people with whom you disagree with. The ease at which our world allows us to avoid anything we find remotely upsetting is not good and it is not good to encourage college students to start disengaging with parts of the world at an age when they should be exposed to a lot of diverse viewpoints.

Ahh, that makes a ton of sense. I thought the ending in the redwoods was meant as a counterpoint to Frank's ending in the desert, two different and striking California landscapes.

DeBoer does have a point on how words lose their meaning and effectiveness when they are applied haphazardly. Mansplaining is another good example of a word that once signified something specific, but has now become so diffuse that it no longer feels like a subversive callout of a very real attitude some men have against women. But everyone knows that mansplaining is bad, so labeling someone as such is a really quick way to shut down their argument. I'm sure this kind of critique drift that DeBoer mentions happens on the Right as well, but since I'm concerned with how the Left progresses as a political movement, I'm more invested in fixing this problem among progressive people.

I also was kind of confused at Ani not being present for a lot of the action at the end. It made sense once I saw what the point of the finale was, but during the episode it felt strange and convoluted. I could buy that Ray and Ani would develop feelings for each other, but not that Ani would let herself be pushed to a safe distance like that. But the show needed her to live so she could look symbolically at the Madonna and child at the end. Were the True Detectives Ani and Jordan? Pizzolatto destroys the patriarchy and leaves the show with a pair of symbolic and literal mothers to carry the show out. In that way it's kind of hopeful because maybe Jordan and Ani will be better parents than any of the fathers represented in the show.

Pizzolatto is really fond of extreme versions of the femininity and masculinity. This season was all about parents, so in that way I thought the ending had good thematic closure. I don't care how convenient it is that Ani gets pregnant after one sex session; it fits with the season's fixation on parents harming their children and the ripples that harm creates. Now Ani's child will grow up with the same shadow that the two orphans suffered under after their parents' murder. Narratively, it's a good way to end this season.

Have you tried talking to your employees about these problems? That's a generally a good place to start. Also asking them if there's anything you can do as their manager to make their work experience better. They might ask for something you can't give them (more money), but sometimes having that conversation is good just to let employees know you care. I had a customer service job and it can be really soul crushing, especially if you have managers who only care about metrics and not employees.

I'm sorry. I regret that statement and do not want to force people out of this conversation because they don't know how to respond to what I said.That was a lame move and I shouldn't have used it. These discussions are hard, especially since so many of us are receiving second-hand information and making assumptions about who is or is not offended. It reminds me of when Cuphead was announced at E3 and an article came out stating that because the game promotes racism because it uses animation styles from an era when a lot of cartoons used racist imagery. I didn't buy that argument and had I got into a discussion with someone who did believe that argument, I would have been supremely annoyed if they had deployed the same nothing statement that I just used. So again, sorry. I don't want to shut down this discussion!

It's a bit of a bummer that the staunchest defenders of an overplayed feminist meme are white men who all admit that the meme isn't even that funny. We agree it's not funny and we agree it's not an effective political act. What else is left?

My problem with The Toast (and by extension "kill all men") is really well summarized in the second part of this post: http://fredrikdeboer.com/2015/05/13/maybe-time-for-change/

I call it protest because it is commonly deployed by feminists, usually in connection with some political point that is being made. People who use it are protesting against the current gender imbalance, but again, aren't doing anything concrete or worthwhile to change that imbalance. Not that ever single action you take needs to create change, but it often feels like people arrive at the "kill all men" stage and progress no further. Actual people in power do not care or even notice when someone declares they want to #killallmen. Instead, the people actually harmed by that phrase are often other women and men who also suffer under our power imbalanced society. What's the actual benefit of "kill all men?" I also agree that we shouldn't drop a joke every time some one says they find it offensive, but the overwhelming way that "kill all men" gets is used is both not funny and accomplishes nothing, so I don't really see the point in defending it. I'm genuinely interested to hear from the men who are defending it right now and what your take on its purpose or benefit might be. That's not a snide statement either; I'm honestly interested to hear why other people are not bothered by it because whenever I see "kill all men," I immediately roll my eyes.

Whether or not you agree that "kill all men" has simmering race issues, I hope we can all agree that it is a pretty toothless form of protest. (Again, fully owning up to the fact that I overused the word misandry for a solid year back in 2013.)

"Kill all Men" is certainly an absurd statement (and not really feminist), but it does strike me as a pretty useless phrase to toss around. I don't see it as harmful, necessarily, but it does come across as weak or even idiotic given actual gender issues in the world. As someone who was definitely guilty of using ironic misandry in the past, I now look at that language for what it is; a bad joke that feels subversive but actually accomplishes nothing. It doesn't help that it was mostly white women I saw (like myself) engaging in the "kill all men," "misandry" craze, which gives some weight to the race connections this article raises. I'm sure that Zoe Samudzi understands that no one really wants to "kill all men," but she's not wrong in pointing out the weirdness of a privileged white woman saying that given the history of black men being murdered in this country because they were suspected of or accused of having relations with white women.

I enjoyed how unsexy the Ani and Ray scenes were -- his greasy hair kept falling into her face! -- because it helped that development feel more substantial than just two attractive leads hooking up on screen. There was a lot of good chemistry between Colin Farrell and Rachel McAdams, but neither of them came close to touching the sexual tension that was Woody Harrelson and Matthew McConaughey in the first season.

So I lived in Seattle for two years and was only ever vaguely aware of the earthquake threat because I'm from the East Coast and earthquake preparedness is not something I'm familiar with. That New Yorker article came out two weeks before I moved down to San Francisco and really freaked me out. It sounds like it gave over PNWers a bit of a scare as well because the author released a follow up FAQ that goes into more detail about what areas will be most damaged by such an earthquake and what you can do to prepare. If you're still feeling some fatherly concern, this might help. It certainly helped me pull back and get some perspective. http://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/how-to-stay-safe-when-the-big-one-comes?intcid=mod-most-popular

I said most of my thoughts on Ani's storyline in the previous thread and in the interest of not belaboring the point, I'll try to keep this brief. Pizzolatto is preoccupied with masculinity and the pain it inflicts on men and women (but mostly women). In the first season, he focused on that theme on a larger scale, by looking at the abuse of men in power and how that abuse gets replicated. He gave individual examples in characters like Dora Lange, but the show never significantly focuses on the victims of The Yellow King. Dora Lange is no Laura Palmer. In season 2 of the show, for better or for worse, Pizzolatto seems to really want to drive home individual examples of bad men doing bad things. Ani and Ray's wife both have sexual assault histories that clearly influence their present day characters; Frank and Ray are damaged by abuse given by their fathers and are trying (but failing) to stop that cycle by attempting to be better than their fathers; Paul's closeted shame and irrational desire to raise a family with a woman he does not love stems from his mother's poisoned view of what a man who looks like Paul should be; every one of these characters has father issues. All of this parallels the plot of wealthy men abusing women for sex and possibly torture. These themes are not as well-conceived as the first season and are not nearly as deftly executed, but I can give Pizzolatto credit for trying to give weight to the individual experience. Hopefully he will have the sense to tighten up his writing for a third season and combine the best elements of the first and second seasons. I started reading The Black Dahlia because of a recent reader mail that mentioned Ellroy as another possible literary influence for this season. I've never really read crime fiction before so I had no idea what to expect, but so far I'm really enjoying myself with it. The book feels like it has more in common with the first season though, since the female victim is secondary to the two male detectives and the different aspects of masculinity that they both represent. I am fascinated by expectations men face in society because they are so different from what I experience as a woman and I'm happy when men like Ellroy or Pizzolatto try to shed light on something that I do not have personal experience with.

I'm sure this will be discussed a lot in the actual episode thread, but I want to join in with the preliminary thoughts. Ani still hasn't discussed her assault, and I hope that Pizzolato is smart and just leaves it at the suggestion stage. As for the use of sexual assault in television writing, this to me was one of the better instances. It comes up during a scene where the music and camera shots make it look so much like a classic noir or horror movie, which adds a strong surreal sense to the proceedings. We are spared any scenes of Ani as an actual child getting into that van and those segments are kept blessedly short. My problem with a lot of rape on television is how almost lovingly it is depicted. The quote about never being able to make a film critical of war because war always looks cool on film also applies to sexual assault, in my mind. Directors cannot avoid turning an assault scene into a sexually charged experience where the audience is both excited and horrified. This flashback had nothing sexually energizing behind it and stayed firmly in the realm of dawning horror. Crowds of darkly lit, naked women being essentially assaulted in front of Ani in junction with her quick flashbacks really worked to create a truly uncomfortable scene. I also thought the knife part was well handled. I'm glad she didn't cut the man who was trying to have sex with, but instead cut the security guard out of a survival instinct. It's clear from her reaction in the car that her actions will weigh heavily on her, which makes the knife use feel more significant. I'm still bummed that Ani had to have a sexual assault backstory, but I'm happy it was handled so well.

I absolutely love how Frank and Jordan's infertility issues are being handled. Some of the best moments on the show. I wish they would actually say the word abortion though. Did anyone else notice that Ani is not using her vape pen anymore? I like it as a little sign of how out of sorts she's currently feeling.

Yep. Episode three ends on a freeze frame of Reggie LeDoux walking around his cook camp with a VO of Rust saying something along the lines of "there's always a monster at the end of a story." I'm really disappointed at how contained the conspiracy feels this season. Even though technically it involves whole swaths of California, it still feels very claustrophobic because both the directing and the writing are not doing a good job demonstrating the depths of corruption that are present. I'm hoping that the setup is leading to a conclusion where the detectives never even glimpse the true extent of conspiracy. Maybe Frank will be the only one to realize all the connections between Caspere and the land deal and Vinci (making him the True Detective?) while the other three are only able to unravel one tiny part of the larger tapestry. If that's where the show is going it might excuse the poor way in which the mystery is being set up and doled out.