“I wouldn’t say I threw you under the bus. You’ve been walking blindly down the middle of a busy street, getting repeatedly slammed by bus after bus, and I’m on the side of the road shouting at you, “hey, those things that keep hitting you are busses! If you want to stop getting hit by busses you need to do something about that!” And instead of acknowledging that you need help, you keep shouting back, “don’t tell me what to do!””—Just one of those comebacks that didn’t occur to me until long after the moment had passed. But I liked it enough I wanted to share without context.
paula deen is still a dumb racist bitch idk why you reblog her like she cool.
Enjoying a text is not the same thing as endorsing the worldview of its author, or even endorsing the views represented by the text.
Just because I love Troll 2, that doesn’t mean I agree with its director that it set the precedent for films like The Lord of the Rings. I love Troll 2 because of how awful the filmmaking was.
My love for Troll 2 is not dissimilar from my love for Paula Dean. I love Paula Deen like I love holiday sweaters and folk art festivals. I love Paula Deen like I love locally filmed TV ads for used cars. I love Paula Deen like I love it when old racists verbally give themselves enough rope to hang themselves.
So yes, I will be on the edge of my seat, waiting for the next moment to pounce on something she says, and to memorialize it forever, probably as a Blingy.
From Kat Howard on Blogger on May 24 but made rebloggable here because it needs to be:
"Not All Men
Friday night, a 22-year old man went on a shooting rampage, leaving six people dead aside from himself, and seven others injured. It appears to have been a premeditated act, one inspired by the young man’s feeling that he was owed something by women, something that they had not given him. In a video message, he said he was going to go to the hottest sorority house at UCSB, and “slaughter every single spoiled, stuck-up blond slut" in there.
After hearing the news this morning, I posted a quote from Margaret Atwood on twitter. “Men are afraid that women will laugh at them. Women are afraid that men will kill them.”
It didn’t take long before I was told that I was wrong, that I was generalizing, that this wasn’t about men killing women but people killing people, that only psychopaths kill people, that men could have psycho ex-girlfriends, too. That by posting a quote like that, I was part of the problem.
It’s a thing that happens, whenever I talk about an act of violence or aggression, committed by men against women. I get told, “not all men.” As if I didn’t know any men, had lived all of my life in a same-sex bubble.
The thing is, of course I know. Of course I get that. Most of the men I know are kind, are compassionate, are people I am proud to consider my friends.
I know some very good men, men who have literally put themselves between me and the man harassing me. I believe that most men would do that. But not all men.
I know that most men are decent human beings, who would never call a woman a bitch because she chooses not to speak to him. Most men. But not all men.
Most men do not follow women who don’t want to talk to them down the street, yelling streams of obscenities at them, because they just want some time. Most men. But not all men.
Most men would never put a drug in a woman’s drink, or get her so drunk she can’t even speak, or use coercion, or violence, to force her to have sex with him. Most men. But not all men.
Most men would not kill their intimate partner, because she has chosen to leave them. Most men. But not all men.
Most men would never go on a shooting rampage, because they believed that they were owed sex by women.
Although there was variability across the board, biological men were significantly more likely to prioritize motion parallax.Biological women relied more heavily on shape-from-shading. In other words, men are more likely to use the cues that 3D virtual reality systems relied on.
This, if broadly true, would explain why I, being a woman, vomited in the CAVE: My brain simply wasn’t picking up on signals the system was trying to send me about where objects were, and this made me disoriented.
My guess is that this has to do with the level of hormones in my system. If that’s true, someone undergoing hormone replacement therapy, like the people in the Utrecht gender clinic, would start to prioritize a different cue as their therapy progressed.
I’m not a fan of the clickbait-y headline (and I’m surprised there isn’t a huge shitshow about this on Twitter yet), but this is an amazing piece, and not just because how many cool projects have you worked on in your life, danah? JEEZ.
I didn’t read the study in detail but even at a high level, I love this line of thinking for remembering to investigate the usually invisible assumptions that lay so far at the bottom of the technological stack that we forget they were ever decisions and not simply immutable facts. A group of male computer graphics engineers casually test out a prototype amongst themselves decades ago and their skewed findings become the foundation for something as fundamental as 3D rendering. By the time something like Oculus comes along, so many layers of abstraction have been built on top of this simple assumption that the metaphorical princesses don’t even realize that it’s a pea that’s making them uncomfortable.
This is just the latest (and most personally relevant at the moment) case of this phenomenon at work. So much poor design by convenient exclusion works this way. Remember that time HP and Nikon engineers calibrated facial recognition algorithms only for white people? These design choices are very powerful and long-lasting side-effects (and sometimes enforcers!) of privilege, but they are often invisible and (if I’m being generous) unwitting.
The single most important sentence I read in my undergraduate studies was this one, from Wendy Chun: “People may deny ideology, but they don’t deny software—and they attribute to software, metaphorically, greater powers than have attributed to ideology.” These days, people are getting a lot better at denying software, but in our world of complicated dependencies that transcend nations and decades, it’s nearly impossible to grasp the entire tech tree of research and production that leads to a final product. But hey, that’s what we have academics for, right?
And you know, call me crazy, but as much as these stories are facepalm-worthy, they also make me optimistic in a weird way. Getting designers and researchers to be more aware and intentional about their choices isn’t easy but is doable. We can keep surfacing these pain points, push for awareness, and then maybe—mayyyybeee??—we can make the future a little more evenly distributed.
Oculus VR software architect Tom Forsyth gave a really great talk at GDC 2014, and mentioned something along these same lines. Regarding old research he says, “what is your sample group? 25-35 year old, white, fit, males with perfect eyesight? Okaaayyyy [makes a face]… I don’t know how well your data correlates with my audience.”