Jan. 31st, 2012

mcity: (Default)
I notify the caretakers about a leak in the toilets. They say they'll send a specialist.

About a week later, a mop and bucket shows up in our flat's bathroom. The mop has strands about six inches long, and holds about a teaspoon of water.

I seem to be the only one who uses it.

It's like one of those movies where the protagonist turns out to be the killer, except much, much worse.
mcity: (Default)
Either I bought milk that someone had cracked, or one of my flatmates somehow managed to unravel two reef knots on a plastic bag, take off the lid with "WOOD" in it in block capitals, crack the seal, and only then realized that it wasn't their milk and put it back in the fridge. Since it was on its side and those bottles aren't airtight, a significant portion of the milk spilled out.

Either that, or one of my flatmates is a selfish dick. I don't know which.
mcity: (Default)

There's a popular blog that has recently taken umbrage with trends in the cover of a certain magazine. Every year for a while now, this magazine has featured a "gatefold" cover. The type with one main cover, and two additional panels that fold out, with the "power cover" being the one on the left. This blog shows about half of them, and points out that most of these have only had white people on the cover, with the implication that this is racist.

Let me summarize;

  1. Take a feature that has been going on for nearly twenty years.
  2. Find only the covers that support your thesis.
  3. Show several of these covers.
  4. Mention in an aside, but do not actually show, the covers that contradict you.
  5. Use a title that implies active racism, in a field historically known to be racist, but in a deniable fashion that nonetheless biases the casual reader.
  6. Do not mention a single alternative explanation, such as sheer statistical happenstance.
  7. Make broad generalizations about race in said field to close out the post, using a recent race-related controversy.
  8. Never actually directly accuse anyone of racism.
  9. Watch commenters trip all over themselves to talk about how you've clearly exposed racism, and swarm over anyone who points out the holes in your argument.
  10. ???
  11. Profit!

One of the commenters even went so far as to point out that covers with POCs on the cover were "obviously tokenism". So even when they do exactly the thing the post complains they don't do enough, it doesn't count. I have a habitual distrust of any claim something is "obvious", because I find it's often used by people who are are too biased to consider any alternatives. When they say "obvious", they mean "impossible that it could be anything else".

The funny thing was, the blog didn't limit itself to the front cover, in what's basically the textbook definition of No True Scotsman. If no people of color were selected for the cover at all, it pointed it out, but if POCs were on the cover, it still doesn't count because they weren't on the front cover. And when they are on the front cover, they don't matter in the light of the obvious racism of them predominantly not being on the front cover.

This is like saying the NBA has biased hiring because most of its players are black, without considering other factors like the fact that a disproportionate of the men who try to get into the NBA are black. Actually, that was one of the most unrealistic things about "Hang Time". That, and the basketball court being only slightly larger than your average parking space.

(If you want to see the original version of this post, look at the HTML.)

October 2012

  12 3456
21 2223242526 27

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 21st, 2017 03:52 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios