BEST FRIENDS YOU DON’T GET TO TALK TO VERY OFTEN BC YOU’RE BOTH JUST REALLY BUSY WITH SCHOOL OR WHATEVER BUT ITS NOT A BIG DEAL BC YOURE STILL THE BEST OF FRIENDS NO MATTER WHAT, ARE THE BEST KINDS OF FRIENDS IN THE WHOLE WORLD
This is so true for a whole assortment of things but I’ve never been able to put it into words. Like when people find out I’m queer and they suddenly act less homophobic. I have relatives who magically stop showing their racist tendencies around people of color. Just because you don’t display your prejudice around the people you’re prejudiced against doesn’t make you a good person - it still means you’re shitty, but also extra shitty because you realize your behavior is offensive and you only display it around people who won’t be immediately harmed.
"When I was about 20 years old, I met an old pastor’s wife who told me that when she was young and had her first child, she didn’t believe in striking children, although spanking kids with a switch pulled from a tree was standard punishment at the time. But one day, when her son was four or five, he did something that she felt warranted a spanking–the first in his life. She told him that he would have to go outside himself and find a switch for her to hit him with.
The boy was gone a long time. And when he came back in, he was crying. He said to her, “Mama, I couldn’t find a switch, but here’s a rock that you can throw at me.”
All of a sudden the mother understood how the situation felt from the child’s point of view: that if my mother wants to hurt me, then it makes no difference what she does it with; she might as well do it with a stone.
And the mother took the boy into her lap and they both cried. Then she laid the rock on a shelf in the kitchen to remind herself forever: never violence. And that is something I think everyone should keep in mind. Because if violence begins in the nursery one can raise children into violence.”
if you find terms for queer identities confusing, arbitrary or unimportant then you’ve probably never had to experience how terrifying it is to not understand your own identity, or the relief of finding a term that helps describe you
What is smarm, exactly? Smarm is a kind of performance—an assumption of the forms of seriousness, of virtue, of constructiveness, without the substance. Smarm is concerned with appropriateness and with tone. Smarm disapproves.
Smarm would rather talk about anything other than smarm. Why, smarm asks, can’t everyone just be nicer?
Here we have the major themes or attitudes of smarm: the scolding, the gestures at inclusiveness, the appeal to virtue and maturity.
But let’s get at the deeper substance. What defines smarm, as it functions in our culture? “Smarm” and “smarmy” go back to the older “smalm,” meaning to smooth something down with grease—and by extension to be unctuous or flattering, or smug. Smarm aspires to smother opposition or criticism, to cover everything over with an artificial, oily gloss.
Smarm should be understood as a type of bullshit, then—it expresses one agenda, while actually pursuing a different one. It is a kind of moral and ethical misdirection. Its genuine purposes lie beneath the greased-over surface.
If negativity is understood to be bad (and it must be bad, just look at the name: negativity) then anti-negativity must be good. The most broadly approved-of thing about Barack Obama, in 2008, was his announced desire to “change the tone” of politics. Everyone agreed then that our politics needed a change of tone. The politicians who make speeches, the reporters and commentators who write the articles expressing the current state of political affairs, the pollsters and poll respondents who ask and answer questions about politics—in short, the great mass of people who do anything that could conceivably generate something that could be called a “tone” of politics—all were dissatisfied with the tone.
Romney was responding to the response to the disclosure of his private fundraising remarks dismissing 47 percent of the electorate as unreachable parasites. Romney had been caught in breach of the agreement never to speak divisively—and so he clambered up to a new higher ground, deploring the divisiveness of dwelling on his divisiveness. He had been attacked as a person, the kind of person who would write off 47 percent of the public. How low could the Obama campaign get? What ever happened to changing the tone?
The sin of snark is rudeness, the anti-snarkers say. Snark is mean. And meanness and rudeness are the worst misdeeds in the world. So Robert Benmosche, the chief executive of AIG, told the Wall Street Journal that the hard-working, heavily compensated employees of his disastrously run company were being persecuted—that the critics of AIG, “with their pitch forks and their hangman nooses,” were “sort of like what we did in the Deep South. And I think it was just as bad and just as wrong.”
Ever since the global economy imploded, the people who imploded it have been talking this way. The plutocrats are hurt that anyone should resent the power of wealth. They spent the past election fretting aloud about “class warfare,” which under the rules of smarm means any mention of the fact that classes exist, and that some classes have more or less money than others.
These terrible snarky people even go on television, sometimes. CNBC let Salon’s Alex Pareene on the air, and he dared to describe JPMorgan Chase as “corrupt”—to the shock and disdain of the hosts, who could not imagine why a bank that was facing at least $11 billion in fines (later amended to $13 billion) for wide-ranging misbehavior could be characterized that way. (To actually say a plain and direct word like “corrupt” is more outlandish, in smarm’s outlook, than even swearing. A disagreeable attitude is one thing, but a disagreeable fact is much worse.) “The company continues to churn out, you know, tens of billions of dollars in earnings and hundreds of billions of dollars in revenue,” Maria Bartiromo said. “How do you criticize that?”
So what if Snowden is telling the truth? Just look at the way he’s telling it.
If any one thing gave rise to this essay, it was a long-running dispute that I had, on blogs and Twitter, with an award-winning magazine journalist. This writer, a specialist in features and celebrity profiles, had published online a piece of advice to young writers, urging them to seek out as their subjects the obscure and unknown.
Find-the-overlooked-person is an old saw in feature writing. At its best—Jimmy Breslin interviewing JFK’s grave digger—it encourages real attention to the subjects, while at its worst it feeds into a messianic tendency for certain writers, who believe that it’s their attention and their prose that gives meaning to the lives of common folk. In this case, though, it was more or less the opposite of what this award-winning writer did for a living, and I said as much, in a blog post. The argument escalated from there.
The reason it escalated, I eventually realized, was that we were speaking in completely different terms. He was giving instruction to aspiring writers—as Eggers had given instruction to literary-minded college students—that was itself aspirational, a guide to the feelings that a person ought to have about being a writer. A writer, the writerer proclaimed, ought to take an interest in ordinary people. I was describing what he actually did.
He took this to be malice, personal malice. His friends and supporters agreed that I, and the people who agreed with me, were motivated by envy of his career and his gifts, that we were cynics, snarking from the sidelines (a powerful recurring metaphor, those sidelines, for this class of writer, who is by implication in the game). One woman who criticized him (his female critics seemed to have an especially hard time getting through), he dismissed as “a dabbling writer” and a “graduate student.”
Eventually, as a final statement—Do you know who I am?—he published a list of his clips. Some of the stories were good; some were bad. As far as I could tell, though, when it came to the original question of a writer’s duty to illuminate the obscure, not one of them was a story about someone who was not famous, or who had not at least been part of a nationally reported news event.
The actual answer, and his actual fear—the fear that keeps the smarmers tossing on their bullshit-stuffed mattresses on the beds of bullshit they would have us all sleep in—is this: We are exactly the same size as you are. Everybody is.
Honestly, calling people out on their bullshit is the only way they're going to stop. In your case, it seems like the people you've called out are so scared that their reputations might be ruined that they spread falsehoods and send their friends and followers after you. If they didn't want to look bad, then they shouldn't have acted shitty in the first place. End of story.
that is exactly how I feel
call me out on actual shit I do and I will go “you know what, that was wrong sorry,” and I will do the same, as I expect others to
I made a dA journal to warn people of the content already in this post (talking about Sean Chiplock harassing me resulting in threats of killing my cats), and ended up editing it to include more events since then: it can be read here
Some highlights of the latest update include:
Mr. Chiplock leaving comments on many profiles, claiming he doesn’t know why he couldn’t comment on the journal when it was a result of me blocking him for harassment/rumor mongering from months ago (where you can see he thought I wouldn’t be able to tell who it was, and was trying to tarnish my name)
A screenshot of Mr. Chiplock asking the person (making the threats on doxing to get someone to kill my cats) for information on rumors I had already dispelled for Mr. Chiplock himself in the above comment thread
Tweets where Mr. Chiplock claimed he was just trying to find out information on these rumors, despite the fact, again, that I had already told him the truth of the matter months ago. I asked why he would participate in propagating rumors and he said, “[19:05] <PommyN64> Well, frankly, because you’re not a very nice person and I don’t care what happens to you as a result.” - so this makes me unconvinced that he would “not condone” someone making physical threats.
An “apology” to the public, where he downplays what he did, leaves out the real life harassment, leaves out the part where he spread rumors and tried to defame me.
No public apology to me, but still jabs at my character
I DID, however, receive a special apology from one of Mr. Chiplock’s coworkers on Dangan Ronpa, on behalf of Sean, since I haven’t gotten one from him. I’m super stoked. I’m about to make a post on that itself, but it needs to wait for something special I’m doing. You’ll understand when I post it! (As an aside, I want to frame the email I got. Good people do exist in the world!!! I could cry!)
I guess a lot of people have heard the history of Pommy (English dub voice actor of Dangan Ronpa’s Ishimaru), since the lovely :devpurplekecleon: posted a journal exposing the way that he’s treated her throughout the past 6 months or more. At first I wasn’t going to say anything about the ordeal, but then I noted PK and got such a positive response from her, as well as increasing amounts of encouragement in her stream, that it really inspired me to speak up about my experiences with him.
First off, my communication with Pommy started back in August, when I spoke to him regarding a commission he hadn’t received after quite some time, from a r
[18:55] <PommyN64> But how many people has that ‘once’ happened to? People will usually spread info to inform or warn others. If you piss off a lot of people, at some point those feelings are going to converge.
[18:55] <PommyN64> You literally could only have brought this on yourself.
Because I posted about what Pommy/Sean Chiplock/Ishimaru Kiyotaka’s voice actor actually did (stalking irl), there are people now trying to get my address from others who knew me because they want to come harass me IRL and kill my animals.
"why don’t you just ignore them and they’ll go away"
one: no, they won’t. they went away last time for a while, until they found something new to heckle us over. so either we have a whole lot of ignoring to do or we hide anything about our lives that might…