![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
So the net's still being fuggheaded. Which irritates me tremendously when I'm trying to get a message to ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
brooksmoses before he goes to bed, and I can see the sequences 'cause I'm logged into another machine at the moment -- I send the mail, I check usenet, I check the logs on the machine, I see that he's checking mail . . . and that the mail I sent a usenet cycle and catchup ago hasn't reached there. It shows up twenty-six seconds later, which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of catching the last mailcheck is a big fucking deal, especially when one's trying to get a clarification on a glitch.
And I've got a couple of delightful little language-use glitches running around in circles at the moment. One's a thread on alt.poly which has me moderately but not exceptionally frustrated, and the other one's here.
I really don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp that "we" and "you" are frequently incredibly unclear language. (I also don't understand why the top of the cat tree seems to have come unscewed, but that's a whole other matter.) And why it's so utterly important to some to make sweeping generalizations and then blame the people who don't fit the generalizations for objecting -- as if it was their fault for not fitting into the little box.
"We make a culture that does this" really only works if "this" is defined as something that's actually agreed to be a part of the culture. Me, I find myself baffled by the idea that anyone could actually observe most of pop culture and, for example, come away with the idea that monogamy is something that humans-in-general can pull off successfully. I watched soap operas when I was a kid, y'know? And as far as I could tell, the problem was that the people in the shows weren't any good at monogamy and for some reason were too adjective to admit it and try something else for a change. (The culture rant actually isn't talking about the mono/poly thing, but that's my pet example of how people who are supposedly part of "the culture" can get completely different results than some folk expect.) (But I do think that most monocultures are essentially imaginary.)
And likewise, "We say this" doesn't work if "this" isn't something that "we" say. And I do wish I knew who that we was. This one's the journal one, and thus easier to find. 'We say "I want more than one person to love (me)"' was one of the claims, and also that polyfolk set themselves up for more hurt than monofolk. And it's been claimed that the vast majority of polyfolk say the said thing.
Me, most of the polyfolk I've seen are such because they fell in love with more than one person, not because they wanted to -- they just did. Except for the ones who have some aspect of their sexuality that can't be fulfilled by a given partner. (Not that those groups don't overlap at all; I'm in both.) And the idea that polyfolk are looking for additional human contact in some way amuses me given the number of poly people I know who are varyingly hermitlike, including some who are poly because they don't want a primary or nesting-type relationship as a result of their hermitude.
And the idea that polyamory is setting oneself up for pain is . . . likewise entertaining . . . given the number of people I know who find themselves seriously damaged by monogamy.
Eh. It's ticked over to collapsed threads. My comments were in this thread part of it.
Addendum: of course, one of the major ironies of this is that my response to the initial post was to roll my eyes and say, "Whatever." It was only afterkalmn pointed out the, er, flaws in we-statements and clarification was at some level requested that I figured it was worth saying anything. I suppose I should know better than to expect any of the devotees of obnoxiously unclear language to be willing to listen by now, but I have such undying faith in the goodness of humanity. (Which is both an extremely sarcastic comment and an extremely true one.)
Mmmph. In other language glitches, I'm baffled by someone who wrote at great length about something to another list, without saying what had or had not been negotiated. I responded, "If you haven't negotiated this, [blah]," and got back a response of, essentially, "HOW DARE YOU ASSUME I HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED THIS! TAKE YOUR IDIOCY AND SHOVE IT, YOU UNETHICAL TWIT!" Which amuses me immensely, given that as far as I can judge, I agree with the ass entirely on the ethical front except for the point of making asinine judgements on the basis of insufficient information.
Oh, hello, a rather belated reply frombrooksmoses. Nice to know that that message got through after all, and I can stop being wiggy in the head about it.
brooksmoses before he goes to bed, and I can see the sequences 'cause I'm logged into another machine at the moment -- I send the mail, I check usenet, I check the logs on the machine, I see that he's checking mail . . . and that the mail I sent a usenet cycle and catchup ago hasn't reached there. It shows up twenty-six seconds later, which isn't that much in the grand scheme of things, but in terms of catching the last mailcheck is a big fucking deal, especially when one's trying to get a clarification on a glitch.And I've got a couple of delightful little language-use glitches running around in circles at the moment. One's a thread on alt.poly which has me moderately but not exceptionally frustrated, and the other one's here.
I really don't understand why it's so hard for some people to grasp that "we" and "you" are frequently incredibly unclear language. (I also don't understand why the top of the cat tree seems to have come unscewed, but that's a whole other matter.) And why it's so utterly important to some to make sweeping generalizations and then blame the people who don't fit the generalizations for objecting -- as if it was their fault for not fitting into the little box.
"We make a culture that does this" really only works if "this" is defined as something that's actually agreed to be a part of the culture. Me, I find myself baffled by the idea that anyone could actually observe most of pop culture and, for example, come away with the idea that monogamy is something that humans-in-general can pull off successfully. I watched soap operas when I was a kid, y'know? And as far as I could tell, the problem was that the people in the shows weren't any good at monogamy and for some reason were too adjective to admit it and try something else for a change. (The culture rant actually isn't talking about the mono/poly thing, but that's my pet example of how people who are supposedly part of "the culture" can get completely different results than some folk expect.) (But I do think that most monocultures are essentially imaginary.)
And likewise, "We say this" doesn't work if "this" isn't something that "we" say. And I do wish I knew who that we was. This one's the journal one, and thus easier to find. 'We say "I want more than one person to love (me)"' was one of the claims, and also that polyfolk set themselves up for more hurt than monofolk. And it's been claimed that the vast majority of polyfolk say the said thing.
Me, most of the polyfolk I've seen are such because they fell in love with more than one person, not because they wanted to -- they just did. Except for the ones who have some aspect of their sexuality that can't be fulfilled by a given partner. (Not that those groups don't overlap at all; I'm in both.) And the idea that polyfolk are looking for additional human contact in some way amuses me given the number of poly people I know who are varyingly hermitlike, including some who are poly because they don't want a primary or nesting-type relationship as a result of their hermitude.
And the idea that polyamory is setting oneself up for pain is . . . likewise entertaining . . . given the number of people I know who find themselves seriously damaged by monogamy.
Eh. It's ticked over to collapsed threads. My comments were in this thread part of it.
Addendum: of course, one of the major ironies of this is that my response to the initial post was to roll my eyes and say, "Whatever." It was only after
kalmn pointed out the, er, flaws in we-statements and clarification was at some level requested that I figured it was worth saying anything. I suppose I should know better than to expect any of the devotees of obnoxiously unclear language to be willing to listen by now, but I have such undying faith in the goodness of humanity. (Which is both an extremely sarcastic comment and an extremely true one.)Mmmph. In other language glitches, I'm baffled by someone who wrote at great length about something to another list, without saying what had or had not been negotiated. I responded, "If you haven't negotiated this, [blah]," and got back a response of, essentially, "HOW DARE YOU ASSUME I HAVEN'T NEGOTIATED THIS! TAKE YOUR IDIOCY AND SHOVE IT, YOU UNETHICAL TWIT!" Which amuses me immensely, given that as far as I can judge, I agree with the ass entirely on the ethical front except for the point of making asinine judgements on the basis of insufficient information.
Oh, hello, a rather belated reply from
brooksmoses. Nice to know that that message got through after all, and I can stop being wiggy in the head about it.![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
Wig to bed.
From:
no subject
From:
jodawilect
It is used transitively and intransitively. One may wig something, wig, or wig oneself.
Wig oneself to safety. Wig oneself to bed.
Bewig to bed. [admonishing finger]
I wig to bed.
From:
Re: jodawilect
Ah well. I suspect I'm working on a migraine again; I was yesterday and the day before. Though I haven't got the dancing technicolour amoebae yet.
From:
no subject
Hm. I don't want to go to sleep. Do I make myself go to sleep, or do I make myself cookies?
From:
no subject
Which is, erm, true. ı
From:
no subject