What I’m Reading, October 8, 2014

Why Nobody Ever Asks If Irony Has Ruined Science Fiction, Charlie Jane Anders, io9, September 29, 2014

Every few years, there’s another essay insisting that irony is ruining culture. Hipsters and postmodernism have created an insincere world where nothing means anything. But you never hear anybody insisting that irony has ruined science fiction. That’s because irony is part of the creative life-force of the genre.

We tend to talk about irony in terms of a disconnect between a stated expectation and what actually happens — in other words, as a kind of failed futurism. But irony, more broadly, is about dislocation. And the description of types of irony in the introduction to the book Irony in Language and Thought (ed., Gibbs and Colston) seems like it could be a list of science-fictional story setups: “coincidences, deviations from predictions, counterfactuals, frame shifts, juxtapositions of bi-coherences, hypocrisy, etc.”

Anybody who writes about history, and then tries to imagine history continuing into the future in the same bewildering, illogical, bendy fashion is going to bake a certain amount of irony into the cake. That’s partly because storytelling is about humans, who use technology in ways that its creators never expected, and make choices that no rational observer would expect. The law of unintended consequences is fundamental to narrative irony.

The ironic twist is also part of the DNA of SF, from War of the Worlds onwards — H.G. Wells’ disease-ex-machina ending only really works as irony, rather than as straightforward narrative: they’re too big and powerful for us, but in the end they’re unexpectedly defeated by the tiniest of creatures.

Henrique Alvim Correa [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons


Photo credit: Henrique Alvim Correa [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Share

Refusing to See the Reality

The National Review‘s Kevin Williamson recently wrote that he believes women who have abortions should be executed. He specifically mentioned hanging as the means of execution. I’m not going to get into Williamson’s rhetoric, nor am I going to link to his post (you can look it up.) I’m more interested in how he responded to a few real-life examples of how his idea might play out, as described by RH Reality Check‘s Jodi Jacobson:

In an ongoing Twitter exchange, I asked Williamson if he knew women who had had abortions. He said yes. I asked him if he had told them he thought they should be hanged. No answer. I asked again. No answer. I asked if he would tell the women in his circle who’ve had abortions that he believes they committed homicide. No answer. I asked Williamson if, being consistent and applying the laws he supports to his own family, he would allow his wife to die in a circumstance in which her life were imminently threatened by a pregnancy rather than break his no exceptions rule. He would not answer. I asked if his wife opted for an abortion in a given circumstance, including to save her own life, would he report her to the authorities. Again, no answer. The only reply I got was him calling my line of questioning an “elementary-school trolley problem gambit.”

“Go look it up if you don’t understand,” he added.

In short, he gave no answer when asked to apply his legal proposal to his own family. He refused to take responsibility for the laws and policies he espouses.

Of course, I don’t believe for a second that Williamson thinks anyone he personally knows would ever be subject to his suggested punishment. Either he hasn’t thought it through that far—and refuses to do so now—or he expects anyone in his circle to be above that sort of thing.

What is interesting to me are the ways Williamson, and others like him, choose to deflect the difficult questions. A common tactic I have seen is to dismiss uncomfortable questions by simply calling them “ignorant,” or some similar adjective, and then refusing to discuss the matter further. Here, Williamson cites the “trolley problem,” with liberal helpings of condescension, to dismiss Jacobson. In case you’re unfamiliar with the trolley problem, here’s a version of it: Continue reading

Share

“White, white, white and Will Smith”

A friend started a discussion on Facebook the other day about how she is constantly asked where she is from—this is something that white people like me do not seem to experience nearly as much, and when we do, a simple answer like “San Antonio” will suffice. No one ever asks me where I’m really from besides the American city I just named, or where my ancestors are from (unless it was during a family tree project.) The Facebook discussion led to this comic by Shing Yin Khor, originally published on The Toast and reposted on Upworthy. This is just one panel; the whole thing is worth a look (some NSFW language).

By Shing Yin Khor, via Upworthy

By Shing Yin Khor, via Upworthy

Share

Because we, uh, I mean God, said so, that’s why!

State officials in Alabama are refusing to comply with new EPA standards for carbon pollution, because God:

At their news conference today Cavanaugh and PSC commissioner-elect Chip Beeker invoked the name of God in stating their opposition to the EPA proposal. Beeker, a Republican who is running unopposed for a PSC seat, said coal was created in Alabama by God, and the federal government should not enact policy that runs counter to God’s plan.

“Who has the right to take what God’s given a state?” he said.

You know what God presumably also gave us? Brains. Just sayin’.

Share

What I’m Reading, October 7, 2014

My day at the gun nuts’ confab: Blunt talk, high drama and mass paranoia, Alexander Zaitchik, Salon, October 7, 2014

Earlier that morning, a speaker had flattered the [Gun Rights Policy Conference] crowd by calling them “the most sophisticated gun-rights gathering in the country.” This is probably true. It’s also telling. All of the room’s combined political experience, intelligence and savvy still does not add up to the ability to grasp how America’s largely unregulated gun trade has become a public health crisis, or why background checks and other common-sense measures poll so well. The gun-rights movement continues to see background checks through the same paranoid prism it sees everything else: the threat of door-to-door gun confiscation.

Why I will no longer speak on all-male panels, Scott Gilmore, MacLean’s, October 4, 2014 Continue reading

Share

500

I just noticed that I have exactly five hundred drafts of unpublished blog posts saved here, ranging from mostly-finished posts to a title with one or two links.

Surely I have raised procrastination to an art form by now.

Share

Can’t Hold It in Any More…

You know what? I’ve never even seen Frozen, and yet I’m really tired of this song. Don’t get me wrong—it’s a phenomenal song, and it absolutely deserved an Oscar. It just seems like it is everywhere.

Since it won’t leave my head, I might as well give praise where it’s due, to this kid and her brilliant, poop-based parody:

Share

He Made the Case Pretty Easy for Them

The legal underpinnings of the charge of “attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization” seem like they could become constitutionally problematic fairly quickly, but in this particular case, the defendant sure seems to have done prosecutors’ jobs for them:

An American teenager disgusted with the American way of life has been arrested at Chicago’s O’Hare International airport after he allegedly tried to travel to the Middle East to join and fight with ISIS.

Federal prosecutors announced on Monday that FBI agents arrested 19-year-old Mohammed Hamzah Khan, of suburban Bolingbrook, on Saturday evening before he boarded a flight to Istanbul, Turkey, via Vienna.

They accuse him of attempting to travel overseas to support terrorism which carries a maximum sentence of 15-years and Khan is also charged with attempting to provide material support to a foreign terrorist organization.

*** Continue reading

Share

What I’m Reading, October 6, 2014

Battered, Bereaved, and Behind Bars, Alex Campbell, BuzzFeed News, October 2, 2014

Lindley’s case exposes what many battered women’s advocates say is a grotesque injustice. As is common in families terrorized by a violent man, there were two victims in the Lindley-Turner home: mother and child. Both Lindley and Titches had suffered beatings for months. But in all but a handful of states, laws allow for one of the victims — the battered mother — to be treated as a perpetrator, guilty not of committing abuse herself but of failing to protect her children from her violent partner.

***

No one knows how many women have suffered a fate like Lindley’s, but looking back over the past decade, BuzzFeed News identified 28 mothers in 11 states sentenced to at least 10 years in prison for failing to prevent their partners from harming their children. In every one of these cases, there was evidence the mother herself had been battered by the man.

***

These laws make parents responsible for what they did not do. Typically, people cannot be prosecuted for failing to thwart a murder; they had to have actually helped carry it out. But child abuse is an exception, and the logic behind these laws is simple: Parents and caregivers bear a solemn duty to protect their children.

Road Hazard: Recalled But Not Repaired, Rachel M. Cohen, The American Prospect, Fall 2014 Continue reading

Share

Monday Morning Cute: A Labrador Always Pays His Debts

A little Game of Thrones cuteness for you:

Share