A question. Have you ever seen anybody introduce themselves to a conversation as the only one who "gets it", and then had your socks blown off by their big brain? Veeeeery unlikely, I would say. (what accent is that by the way, just curious)

If you're the only one getting something, you're also the only one not getting something else. Take a moment to think of the else option.

linking me to this post the next time I undertake some extended educational initiative that only seems to make sense to me?

It would save me so much time.

and you me. i think it happens when you: over-think; over-reach; don't get early consensus. so: give the big brain a rest every once in a while; don't try for the impossible; get some of the losers on side early.

E. J. over-thought this one. and fell into a trap.

is worth overdoing.

perfection is the enemy of the good enough.

you should try that for like a decade or so. (a test drive of sorts)

used to say, "good is the enemy of the best." He said it with such authority. I believed him. But it's hubris, isn't it? As if we ever know 'best'.

I could try good enough. It might save me from the complete chaos that occurs before I make that desperate push for perfection each day. Of course, I'd be less amusing to the people around me, but probably less wear and tear on their mental health, too.

E.J.'s oversight: she's part of the problem she describes, or people already think it, regardless? Lyger's post was funny.

I can't help myself: I have to weigh in on the the New Yorker cover in which the Obamas are drawn as terrorists (one homegrown, one international). ...

it makes me feel a little sick. ...

the cover does matter, and no one seems to understand why. reinscribes ugly stereotypes that are already etched deeply into our mind. ...

etc

Arabic name = Muslim terrorist.

etc

I just wanted to paste in some of her comments.

Yes, we all stereotype, but we don't own the same stereotypes. I have some you don't have. Where we share, some of mine will be stronger, more visceral, more severe, more prominent, more consuming, more lump-in-the-throat real, than yours. Some "stereotypes" aren't even stereotypes.

E.J. feeling sick about that cover gives us information about some of her own stereotypes (and associations .. Arabic name = Muslim terrorist isn't a stereotype).

And that was the brilliance of the cover. If you complain, gotcha, you're it. I'm sure somebody at the New Yorker would love to write a follow-up, but two things once it got out there: why ruin a good thing; Obama spoiled the joke.

-----

Good has its enemies! The perfection thing comes from the systems world, it's just a restatement of 80/20 (or 95/5, whichever version you want) can kill you. You can't program everything. You can't build the perfect system. You'll die (fail, ruin your company, whatever) trying. Let people find workarounds for the esoteric stuff, or they'll just forget it soon enough if you give them some new buttons. Take the new Fray. Look how simple the new stuff is (gosh, a search engine that works), and think of the lost functionality. This really was an 80/20 project .. which explains why archives didn't come across (lots of work, little return). One thing they (management) did right.

Well, you've captured the thing that makes talking about feminism both fun and frustrating (and persistently nauseating): <link>

Stereotypes are interesting. I don't think people really understand what satire is. Sarvis' recent claim that his misogynistic posts were satire seemed a bit of a stretch to me. What was he satirizing, exactly? No obligation to answer, of course; I'm being impertinent, because you're being expansive (you're asking for it!).

On lost fray functionality: if the goal of management was to make me a less interested, less engaged frayster, they've had a resounding success.

Okay, I don't get the first paragraph and the link (did look for Lyger's comment by the way too). Just to say, in case it's relevant, I'm not looking at this through a feminism prism. E.J. could be Edward James for all the relevance it has to my comments. Well, maybe then she'd understand the grin on our faces as we all voted for Richard "Dick" "Cock" Nixon.

We're not going to solve the satire question here. I think it's more that there is a just a lot of bad satire out there. And sure, people use it as a cover, just as she made a cover here with her Obama = Osama = gun-toting terrorist association. Certainly those youtube compilations of the newsguys getting on Hillary, the person, are sickening. But by that I mean sickening in that these assholes have risen to a level of prominence within their respective organizations .. for those that let that reinforce a negative stereotype of Hillary, well, we're just waiting for them to die anyway, aren't we?

----

I probably used too few words on the Fray thing. What I meant was, once the project was defined, bringing it in. From that point of view it was a success. Like saying, tonight I'm going to colour my hair purple. You can be successful (at implemenation), and still have a train wreck on your hands. I agree that they set the bar way too low, and didn't listen to the people they should have. Sometimes I wonder if all these Slate people work for free.

I linked that reply to my post to illustrate how someone can read an indictment of the social environment and its effect on women, personalize it, and take offence. Maybe like E.J. was doing, or maybe not exactly like that, but I believe it reveals the same thing about the mindset of the outraged individual as you find in E.J.'s reaction to the New Yorker cover.

Of course, E.J. <link> may just be one of those famously humour-impaired radical feminists. I'm one of those myself from time to time.

The guy above, and to a lesser extent, Lyger, is working to distance himself from the offensive behaviour instead of considering the broader question of how it such things happen and what it all means.

I'd say the tendency to avoid guilt by association is evident in reactions like these, and the avoidance of that guilt leaves the problem hanging in the air like a fart in an elevator that no one wants pinned on them. Just as soon as the doors open, they can stop thinking about it.

I'm sure you could put that much more succinctly and elegantly than I just did.

Lyger's post that I meant to reference: <link>

The reconfiguration of the Fray is probably like a lot of upgrades that wind up being worse than the original, but I see what you mean about bringing it in. From now on, I'll think of the New Fray as a mohawk hairdo: "It's different."

They weren't working for free, but they weren't working for the Fray, either. Their sponsor wasn't invested in the outcome. From my experience with fund-raising, I know it's hard to tie those multi-stakeholder projects together and make sure the desired outcome remains the focus. Typically, the funder becomes the 'customer', and the intended beneficiaries get side-lined.

If you feel like explaining some more things to me, we could move on to the whole impeachment thing, which has me sort of baffled (kidding) (not really).

That Lyger! Okay. You're ahead of me as usual.

You could get lost in this stuff. I spent quite a few minutes this am at TalkingPoints reading EJ and the links and the comments. It's like that thing, how much room do we have in our heads to care deeply about all the things that need caring deeply about. It can be sad, and sickening, or nothing at all. I admit I like (i.e. find myself reading more of these types vs the caring deeply types) the breezy above-it-all attitude of a Christie Blatchford, Leah McLaren, Rosie DiManno, Barbara Amiel back in the day, etc. Save my energy for the dead Iraqis. (Oh, and I do appreciate that she did it again!)

Thanks.

---

A recurring thought on Dem vs Rep is this: the Dems don't act, they react. The agenda is so controlled by the other side. I posted about this ad nauseum re the war and WMD .. WMD was a sideshow, the war was wrong, immoral, unjust, a huge scam, etc, with or without WMD. But a four year discussion on did they or didn't they suppressed real talk about the criminality of the war and those that brought it to us. Then, with the civil war and 4 million Iraqi refugees and a million or so dead, the debating point was whether or not to call it a civil war. While they all died. And now, the Dems are too cowardly to question giving credit to the surge, when what has really happened is a natural petering out of a bloody and horrific civil war.

Okay, to lighten the mood on this Monday morning (and still to your impeachment question), Dems vs Repubs is like a Revenge of the Nerds movie, for 89 minutes the Nerds (Dems) are shat on, abused, humiliated when not invisible, occasionally hopeful, always devastated, but they put up with it all because they know the script has them getting to kiss the good looking girl (us) at the end. It's like they think they need to get shat on and humiliated and abused and be compliant and keep their mouths shut, in order to get that kiss. And that's my final answer.

Or not, who knows ...

I remember seeing stark parallels between the proponents of war/American people, and an abusive husband/battered wife, so your "kiss the good looking girl" analogy is particularly well-taken.

I don't think she feels especially pretty anymore, but I expect the laudanum helps.

No more questions, but a couple of fun links:

Lost theory: <link>

Post punk: <link>

You're ahead of me as usual. Maybe on the mirror fray, but certainly not on this one.

double fun! i've always loved tunguska, and just last year posted on it (and miss siberia) on my ill-fated blog to try to snag a single siberian reader to get a red dot there for my clustr map. and best x-files ever when they sent mulder and skully over there (as i recall, probably incorrectly). and if they revive deadwood, what a perfect spot for it! (working in everything i know about laudanum)

a nice chat, thanks and see ya around ..

oh, yes. truth is stranger than fiction, no doubt. so there's that.