Thanks so much to everyone who posted nice messages about my PhD from #557 onwards. You are all lovely.
And TexAnne @#567 – thanks so much for the poem. That is going on my wall, never mind the diploma certificate.
Have I said how much I adore this place? You come here to post some good news and before you know it someone has written a celebratory poem for you… I am really, really touched. (And she seems to have sussed out my notoriously nocturnal habits without ever meeting me in person!)
kouredios @ #546, good luck, I hope it goes well.
I’m sorry I didn’t reply earlier to all the kind good wishes. I’ve been out of internet contact for a most pleasant reason: in a fit of inspired madness, I booked myself at the last minute (almost literally) on a flight to Istanbul early on Saturday morning, to join my sister who had been attending a conference there, and to celebrate recent events. I’ve spent the last 3 days far away from my normal reality, pottering about the Bosphorus and acquiring a new favourite city. Lord, it was amazing. I’d never been there before, though I'd always wanted to. From the moment I woke up on the plane to see huge ships crowded on the bright blue sea far below me, it was like entering some sort of fantastic dream. I’m still high on the whole thing, so if there are any fellow Turkophiles here who would like to share their experiences, pray do…
PS, Bruce, co-incidence with your post above, my PhD is in history of science and is about seventeenth century astronomers making maps of the moon...
I haven't been posting here very long and most people probably don't know me, but this seems like a nice place to share joy, so:
I just got my PhD!
After six years of more iterations of Murphy's Law than I could ever have dreamed of, truly believing I'd never ever get there.
It's the absolute textbook definition of eucatastrophe. Friends, I'm the living example right now, it's possible for one's bad luck to change.
best wishes to all, and now I'm off to a party...
wow, it still doesn't seem real...
Earl, apology accepted, and I apologise also if my words had an accusatory tone or implied bad things about you as a person rather than just remarking on the one comment.
Greg, your post @ 190, I thought, was a really stellar example of explaining what was going on in people's heads.
(I think what worries me is that the con artists are *better* at it than the people who are really in need, hence it's not a 'win-all-round' situation, by being more skilled panhandlers they are taking the money that you might otherwise give to someone it would really help).
Thanks for saying that, vian, but I think I should also feel motivated to learn to be less easily manipulated by con artists!
But yes, it's a shame if one lets a few bad experiences make you more callous towards those who might genuinely need help, there are always those people as well.
Oh well done elise. What a thoroughly decent and compassionate thing to do. And it takes a lot of - insight? initiative? - to recognise the point where you ought to help someone like that.
I wish I found myself in the situation to do this sort of thing for real more often: I get conned, like Rob Rusick, and I *know* I'm getting conned, and I buy the illusion anyway for a moment of feeling like I'm generous, which makes me feel guilty afterwards.
(Just to mention other truly generous people by name: the owner of the Cafe Journal in Galway, Ireland, once offered to lend my parents £200 to get home safely when we were perfect strangers who might never pay it back. My sister and I were sitting in his cafe all day looking forlorn, waiting for my parents to get back from the police station after they had had their wallet stolen while on holiday. We didn't need the money, in fact, but the offer surely stuck in my mind as an example of pure decency, and cheers me up when I'm inclined to think bad things about human nature).
Ben Engelsberg:
people have repeatedly castigated Earl in an attempt to cow him (and, as a second order effect, anyone who does not agree that his joke was somehow reprehensible) and to enforce through bullying rather than through debate, their views, mores and preferences.
Hmmm, how to get over this impasse? When one person (or group) says something that another person (or group) takes offense at, both sides can end up with the perception that they have been bullied, one because they are silenced, and the other because they feel disturbed by what was said. Then it seems terribly hard to make peace afterwards.
Earl Cooley III, if you are still reading this: I believe you when you say that you weren’t intending for the joke to give offense, and that you intended it in the context of satire on the war in Iraq. My post @184 was an attempt to work out why I was still rather bothered by the joke, even once you’d explained the context that you meant it in. It’s up to the individual reader to decide whether the unease that I feel about it is legitimate. And I’m not casting aspersions on your character in general, because heavens, I wouldn’t like to be judged purely on one thing I said on one thread in Making Light. (Especially since I deeply respect this place and have a great fear of making a fool of myself here!)
Ben may be right, also, that there's a dogpile effect going on. I will try to un-dogpile things somewhat by leaving this thread for a bit, as I've posted a lot here, and have said more or less everything I had to say.
... as Chris said, in fact, @182. OK, it was definitely people posting at the same time. I'll look out for the time-stamps in future.
probably shouldn't jump back in here, but...
Greg's post, saying it wouldn't be offensive if P.H. was cast as a soldier replicant, just made me realise why (I think) this conversation all went pear-shaped.
It's not that anybody thought Earl was serious re the desirability of off-planet wars, slave replicants etc.
It's that the nub of the joke was around this ambiguity: is suggesting that P.H. would make a suitable whore a satire of people who objectify women, or is it supposed to give rise to a knowing smirk in the reader?
IMO the 'knowing smirk' interpretation was at least dangerously possible from the joke (indeed I think it might be what makes it 'funny'). I'm still more persuaded of this because the first response to the joke concerned her undesirability as a whore: 'skanky woman in make-up' etc.
But I don't know what Earl's intentions were: he says he did not mean to give offence, humour is a funny thing to parse, and he may have meant it purely as satire of people who think that way about women. In other words I may be talking through my hat.
P.S. it occurs to me that Earl may actually not have had time to see my post at #174 before he posted, so I take back the accusation that he was deliberately ignoring me, though he hasn't responded directly to my apology/explanation earlier upthread @#172.
Then, Serge, methinks we are in fact on the same side. (Except I loathe peanut butter: can I have jam instead?) I propose an alliance. We can go forth into the world together and exterminate bad coffee.
(starting with the cafe at London Bridge station that sold me a latte made with *sour milk,* eurgh).
@ 175 I no longer trust that any apology I might make here would be interpreted as anything but disingenuous dissembling.
@ 174 'I took the remark at #156 that he didn't intend his joke to be offensive as sincere'
clearly, I have just invented invisible type. Is there a commercial use for it?
@102 but do your infernal devices make a decent espresso?
This is like a little test tube universe of the gender thread. I took the remark at #156 that he didn't intend his joke to be offensive as sincere. But no-one has used the epithets 'monster' and 'wilful, cynical evil' in this thread except Earl.
@99: You think you have me in your power, viper, but you do not know my secret plan. Bwa-ha-ha-ha to you too.
aargh!
Earl Cooley III: I'm sorry if my butting in at #167 was rude. I wasn't saying you were wilful, cynical evil, I was trying to explain what I thought was a genuine misunderstanding between you and Lee about 'honour killing', since I thought you might not realise it referred to an actual thread on Making Light.
If you mean my post at #155, I didn't get the context of your joke till you explained it. I did ask if I'd missed the point.
But maybe I should have left Lee to speak for herself in reply to your post; if I've generally worsened this discussion, I apologise to you, Lee, also.
Pax?
Emma, it was Serge what did it! I'm an innocent victim!
I like today's strip, esp. Gil's face in the last panel. Poor chap, he's so radiantly happy that I'm sure something is going to go horribly wrong (and can think of many reasons why it's almost bound to...)
Hmm, re-reading that, I wish I'd punctuated it differently. The quotation marks around 'invisible male privilege' are meant to indicate that this was the term used in the discussion, not that I think it's a fiction.
I think almost everyone who posted in 'the sky isn't evil' agreed that subtle forms of discrimination against women did really exist, though there was a lot of heated discussion about whether framing this as 'male privilege' was helpful or harmful.
now, I will cease spilling that thread over into this one! I just wanted to clarify what I meant.
Earl Cooley III: there seems to be a lot of contextual misunderstanding here! 'The honour killing thread' is the thread on Making Light entitled 'the sky isn't evil: try looking up'. It started with a link to a post by Joss Whedon about a young woman who was murdered by her family, and has now reached epic lengths, discussing almost every aspect of gender you could think of, plus various digressions about Firefly etc. So, mentioning honour killings isn't a trick designed to slander you, it's a description of the thread Lee is referring to.
The discussion that Lee refers to about 'invisible male privilege' in society kicked off for real around about post 600, I think, though it was mentioned earlier in the thread as well.
| Year | Number of comments posted |
|---|---|
| 2007 | 104 |
| 2006 | 21 |
Total: 125 comments. View all these comments on a single page.
The most recent 20 comments posted to Making Light by Jenny:
Show all comments by Jenny.