The world was not ready:
The Coup’s frontman and occasional Tom Morello collaborator Boots Riley is known for being something of a political firebrand, but, as Cleveland Scene points out, a local Fox affiliate seems to have been blissfully unaware of that fact. The Oakland outfit was set to appear at LKWD Festival in the city on Saturday and festival organizer Kelly Flamos brought him along for an interview during one of the station’s daytime shows. Things did not go quite as Fox planned.
When asked to describe the Coup, Riley outlined his long-running musical project as “a punk-funk Communist revolution band,” which drew a puzzled response from the reporter on hand. That alone might have been enough to upset the Fox honchos, but he continued saying that his goals are to “make everyone dance while we’re telling them about how we need to get rid of the system” and that “exploitation is the primary contradiction in capitalism.”
When asked what I am working on, I often say I am writing a book about empathy. People tend to smile and nod, and then I add, “I’m against it.” This usually gets an uncomfortable laugh.
This reaction surprised me at first, but I’ve come to realize that taking a position against empathy is like announcing that you hate kittens—a statement so outlandish it can only be a joke. And so I’ve learned to clarify, to explain that I am not against morality, compassion, kindness, love, being a good neighbor, doing the right thing, and making the world a better place. My claim is actually the opposite: if you want to be good and do good, empathy is a poor guide.
Women with chainsaws:
I’ve been working as a lady arborist for more than two seasons. I am one of two women on a team of six who work for a private tree service in Santa Fe. I know how to set a rope line in a tree to direct each limb as they fall to the earth one by one. I own and regularly study a book about tying knots. At my best friend’s wedding, I was the bridesmaid with nicks and cuts along my arms in every photo. My co-worker, Katherine Hancock, is a former weightlifting competitor who can toss logs like toothpicks. She’s also one of the only other female arborist I know in Santa Fe.
I do not want to talk about the Burger King / Tim Hortons merger at the current time. We may now talk about Doctor Who freely, however. You may have any feelings you wish, but those who speak against Peter Capaldi himself, as opposed to righteously supporting other hypothetical Doctors, will be met with a series of expletives from The Thick Of It.
I was so amused and woo-woo’d, in the Open Thread on Friday, to see some commenters addressing the notion of niceness v kindness, because this is something I have been working on for the last week or two with my teacher. I am, of course, very nice, but have become concerned that my niceness is consistently removed from (or at least indifferent to) kindness, and that this might be something to explore via kindness practice. And my teacher was all SOUNDS INTERESTING, I’LL DO THAT TOO.
What’s been fascinating for us, oddly, is that since my teacher is definitely less nice than I am (she is a radiant goddess of truth and power and wisdom, but she is no milksop, she is a GALADRIEL), her experience of kindness practice has been a sea of new, charming, warm interactions with the world and the people in it, rich in goodfeelz, and my experience has been…quite different? I am finding that my relationships with my closest people have been warmer, but my relationships with [waves at world] have been…meaner. By which I mean that some of my rejections have been a little more aggressive, or not aggressive, but more informative? Like instead of a very nice, anodyne response, I have sent a couple of “this is what is profoundly wrong with your submission” emails which are KINDER, ultimately, but not…nice. So it’s interesting, anyway, and I think of great value, ultimately, but just in a way that’s different from what I expected it to be. Which is 99% of things like this, really. Perhaps next time we can talk about attempting to deal with people’s True Selves instead of their…behaviors and opinions and beliefs….which is a FUCKING MINDFUCK.
SIMONE BILES. God, she is fantastic. I managed to tune in to P&G but missed this routine, so thank you for posting it.
I love gymnastics so much. But it is also such a fucked-up sport. I did it for ten years, from ages 5-15, and was never very good. It’s so weird to look at it now, in my twenties – which in a lot of sports is pretty much prime-time for your body – and just know that I will never be able to do even the most rudimentary routines ever again. Even if I lost fifty pounds (not something I’m looking to do) and got really strong and really flexible, worked for years, it would not be possible. Because that’s just not how my body is now.
I am in AWE of her legs. But yeah, from a mostly-outsider perspective, the extreme-seeming youth of the prime gymnastics years always scares me a little. Tiny humans, you are still growing, please don’t hurt yourselves!
Every time she did one of those double layouts I thought to myself “she nailed that LIKE A BOSS.” Amazing.
It seems that, like ballet, you need to have a very specific body type for gymnastics. My daughter loved doing it for several years, but she has very long arms and legs and had trouble with some of the more compact movements.
Absolutely, a specific body type. Elite gymnastic coaches ask to meet both parents, or to see multiple photos of parents. They accept boys and girls with small parents. Not just short, also narrow. No broad shoulders or barrel chests, or, goddess forbid, generous bosoms.
Yeah, I was never on the road to be a great gymnast, nor did I have much interest in being great, but I’m a tall person with hypermobile joints (Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome), and at a certain point I had to quit because there were moves that require locked joints, and mine don’t lock. It was just too dangerous for someone tall with floppy limbs.
A lot of youth sports are dangerous. I used to be a distance runner. I ground down the growth plates in my knees and had a plethora of serious and minor injuries that have led to chronic pain since.
One of the other amazing things is how quick the peak time is–like, there’s concern that she might peak before the Olympics and just be gone. Whereas Michael fuckin Phelps can be in 4 Olympics.
This is why I have encouraged my girl to focus her efforts more on violin and art rather than sports – after all, David Oistrakh and Picasso were doing their best work on the other side of retirement age.
I am sloooowly catching up on Youtube (no TV right now). Simone Biles, man.
Your story is basically my story. I was also never very good, but watching these girls do INSANE things that nobody would have tried “in my day” (the 1990s) is just so inspiring and awesome. Comparing routines now to what Cathy Rigby did 45 years ago is like looking at two completely different sports.
In other words, thanks to the Toast for just handing me gymnastics clips to watch all day.
Oh my GOD, BUZZFEED, NO. Don’t ever put your entire email question in the subject line with nothing in the body, it makes me want to kill you.
Also any time anyone says “Nobody reads any more” I feel like I should be able to smack them.
But I also believe strongly in Just Answering Your God-Damned Emails Already so maybe that is just me. Nothing drives me up the wall faster than sending endless emails into a void, whether it be a friend or someone I’m trying to purchase something from or someone I’m trying to get to hire me or someone I’m trying to WORK WITH or whatever.
And shit, don’t just put “Hi” in the subject line, I will assume you are a spambot and delete the email immediately. Subject lines: they are for subjects!
I also hate the “quick question” suggestion. My email client groups emails by subject line into conversations. I often have a problem with different email chains being grouped together that have the same subject line – such as “quick question” or “hi” – 2 of their egregious examples. Or, if I’m trying to refer back to an email, it’s more difficult to find if I have literally 55 different emails from different people that all have the subject line “Meeting with [my boss’s name]”. Be specific!
Yesssss. All my emails get sorted into project folders and it makes my life SO MUCH EASIER if the subject line has the project number in it. This happens…sometimes.
EMAIL ETIQUETTE, do it right, humans.
No project number in a subject line is my #1 work e-mail complaint. I work on literally a hundred projects at any given time and get about 400-500 emails a day, and when people send me emails like “Research in Germany” (which we do ALL THE TIME), I go to DEFCON 3 instantly. And no, it doesn’t count if the subject reads “I wanted to ask about contacting vendors for German research for project ####.”
400 emails a day? Christ. You are a good person and you deserve a raise.
That’s what I think!
Ughh yes, never “quick question” someone! At least be like “Quick Question about Project X-ray Billing” or whatever. What monster wrote this list??
I am also very against contacts on social media. Maybe I’m behind the times, but I don’t want to perform my relationship with you for the public on FB or Twitter, thanks. Private conversations are still lovely things.
One of the people I work closely with puts “What’s your bandwidth?” in basically all the subject lines of the emails she sends me, which (a) is obnoxious corporate-speak, and (b) makes it impossible to find emails about any particular project, and it drives me nuts.
what does that even MEAN
Be specific! Always! “Hi” or “quick question” is just horrid. Nine times out of ten a “quick question” is actually “a big headache for you.”
One of my students last spring titled every email either “Good morning” or “Good evening” and I deleted about 6 of them before realizing they weren’t spam. He missed the day in class we talked about email etiquette and apparently didn’t read the course handbook, because he was stunned when I told him he needed to use a descriptive subject line.
Love your username.
INEXCUSABLE. (Bless you for discussing email etiquette in class though, someone has to.) “Good evening” NO, BRO.
I needed an author to sign a copyright release form and sent him the first email on July 25. Finally received it yesterday 8/26 after about 9 or 10 emails to him. Today, I received another copyright release form that I’ll need him to sign. God help me.
I have a customer who bought something in JUNE. He has to fill out some manufacturer-required forms before we can ship it to him–there is no way around it. A dozen emails, phone calls, etc., and no response. I am convinced the next time I hear from him it’s going to be bitching at me as to why he hasn’t received it yet.
Yes, and this is what gets me the most – this is for THEIR benefit. So that his paper can be published, so that your customer can receive his item. Help me help you, idiots.
Client: we need this report posthaste!
Us: Here is your report in a posthaste fashion! We have run ourselves ragged getting it done quickly, for you. Please let us know if it needs any changes and then we can print and send out the final version.
Client: *radio silence for weeks to months*
WHAT THE FUCK POSTHASTE
edit: LET IT BE NOTED that I was just contacted by a client about a report we submitted for comment FOUR MONTHS AGO.
Oh man, please let that not have been me. In my (very poor) defense, sometimes trying to chase down internal review and approval takes forever and leave me hopping up and down going GUYS GUYS I ASKED THEM TO BUST THEIR ASSES FOR THIS PLEASE REVIEW ALREADY FOR THE LOVE OF GOD.
95% of the time I just announce “if there are no comments within x time, I’m signing off on this”, but it’s always the one where you need someone to confirm technical detail that leaves you late and mortified.
No worries, the comments were extremely minimal, so I don’t mind too much. It’s their project, not mine, so if they want to delay it’s on them (and I totally understand, review processes are a MESS no matter who you are).
They would be so much simpler if they would just make us Queens Of Everything, with powers of retribution to boot, though.
it is common practice in Congress to use the subj line as the first sentence/section of the email body as in: Subj. “Its imperative that we address the need” <<nothing>> Email Body: “to kill all men as a means of overthrowing the patriarchy. Our goal of misandry will otherwise never be realized. Attend 12 hearings on this issue.”
How useless, as a subject line!
My dad’s business partner does this, except that he ALSO writes all his emails in all caps. IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ADDRESS THE NEED.
Well that sounds completely maddening.
I find it kind of endearing, but honestly that’s probably just because I’ve known the dude since I was 6. If I had a work relationship with him I’m sure it would drive me crazy.
Dads with the all-caps! At least mine no longer writes in bullet points (I don’t think he’s figured out how to use them in email).
That phrase is actually pretty boss though, in the right context. “IT IS IMPERATIVE THAT WE ADDRESS THE NEED FOR SNACKS” has a nice ring to it.
Oh interesting, that explains why fundraising emails from the Democratic party and such are sometimes like that. Do not enjoy.
Use the “highly important” flag sparingly. “Highly important” means time-sensitive, immediate action required, or actually important. Announcing that there is coffee cake in the break room is not “highly important.”
I dunno, the coffee cake sounds time-sensitive to me.
OK, bad example. Just use it sparingly.
Cake of any kind free for the taking would be highly important to me!
I have certain friends who just never respond to emails, and it is THE MOST FRUSTRATING THING ON EARTH. Especially group emails, like Hey Ladies style (but more sane, obviously) like “Let’s divvy up the meals for our weekend trip” and “What time can you leave on Friday, let’s coordinate rides” and someone has to CALL HER ON THE PHONE to get her answers because she won’t respond to the email. grrrrrrrrrr
but then she’ll bail on you last minute to go to burning man anyway so it all ends up ok
I’d like to start the obligatory DIE MOFFAT DIE thread over here in re: DW. I was a howling ball of feminist rage. Capaldi quite excellent, sadly not Sue Perkins.
I thought the writing was much sharper than previous episodes, and that Capaldi’s influence was clearly having an effect.
Unfortuantely, Moffat still exists and can’t seem to stop getting his misogynist slime on things.
I agree – the actual plot and some of the speeches basically worked and Capaldi really is going to be good, but the boyfriend and I spent approx. one third of the episode giving the screen the finger.
Also, LET MATT SMITH GOOOOO.
DIE MOFFAT DIE is why, despite my love of Capaldi from other things, I am not tuning in even though I’m somewhat curious about Capaldi’s take on the doctor. As long as Moffat is at the helm, I consider Doctor Who an apple with core rot. Looks fine on the outside, but IT’S GROSS INSIDE DON’T EAT IT.
I am an idiot, because I go and watch every new thing he does, DW and Sherlock, with the thought, “Oh, it can’t possibly be as sexist as I remember, I’ve just been on Tumblr for too long. It can’t be.”
OH ME OF LITTLE FAITH, because it always is.
SAME. It’s such a shame. But I mean, given the sheer effort it took to force myself through the last series of Sherlock for cultural relevance points, I just can’t imagine trying to go back to Who would go well. At least with Sherlock I only had to work myself up to it thrice.
I’ve been only sporadically watching DW these past couple of years but have been kept informed of Moffat’s vile misogyny, but when I watched this episode, I was still astonished at the amount of sexuality policing, and I just didn’t get what place it served in the story.
I mean. Just.
Fuck off, Moffat. I will sexually objectify Peter Capaldi if I want to.
And I fucking want to.
I am also down to objectify Capaldi BUT I will say I will be happy to see the end of Doctor/Companion flirtation, at least for a while.
And all of the “oh, I’m so old!” “oh, the Doctor’s so old!” stuff was weird. I mean, yes, Peter Capaldi’s 30 years older than Matt Smith was at the start of his run, but 56 is not old. (Capaldi is about six months older than my dad, who is definitely not old, so I have strong feelings about this.)
I’m cautiously optimistic about a few things – I really like Capaldi as the Doctor so far, and Clara seems to have stronger characterisation – but I have felt the same way before and been very disappointed, so. I doubt I’ll ever be able to stop watching though. It’s still fun, even if so much of it is so so annoying.
He’s actually getting WORSE right? Like Amy Pond had her issues but so did Martha and a lot of RTD women outside of Rose. Now though the only way he can figure out to characterize Clara is to have the Doctor give her a ton of character flaws out of nowhere? I mean my God there’s a scene where two women argue and one WINS by just yelling “you just think I’m too pretty!” And the most terrifying part is I think that was Moffat trying to respond to critics who hate how he writes women and just…just UGH to everything that wasn’t Capaldi going full yelling weirdo in that premiere.
Cosigned. What was even the point of that Vastra speech? “You just don’t like the Doctor any more because he’s not pretty.” I mean, come ON. He’s got a new face and she has to adjust. The only other companion who had to deal with a new Doctor-face was Rose, and she went all to pieces and we sympathized with that. Clara gets to have her sadness that this person she loved is no longer there and is replaced with someone else. But no, Moffat’s just gotta have his commentary about who’s pretty and who’s not and why we care.
+1 to the full yelling weirdo bits. Especially the eyebrow stuff. <3 Otherwise, DIE MOFFAT DIE. You make me so angry!
Die Moffat Die, for sure, but also I felt that the director did a terrible job as well. The last maybe 30 minutes (starting with Clara and the Doctor’s brunch date from hell) were okay, but the first 45 minutes were just dreadful. I was dead sober and could not for the life of me figure out what was going on. Dinosaur???
Also the breaks for commercials (at least the way I watched it – at 8:15p ET on BBC America) were horrifically timed. It might translate better when it’s on Netflix.
One of the things to be thankful for with the BBC, at least – no breaks.
Yeah, I feel like they were married to it being a Special Extra-Long Episode but didn’t have enough relevant material to fill all that time.
I have been feeling that with a lot of Doctor Who episodes recently. What is the plot? What is happening? It just feels like a random assortment of scenes flung at the viewers sometimes.
Steven Moffat’s continued employment (AND HIS BRAND NEW EMMY ARE YOU KIDDING ME???) are a constant thorn in my side. I haven’t watched Doctor Who regularly since midway through Matt Smith’s second season, and it’s all his fault.
That said, I adore Peter Capaldi and can’t resist the chance that maybe it will be better this time?
Moffat has apparently completely forgotten how to write. He wrote some of my favorite episodes, some of the CLEVER episodes, and he seems to have just . . . forgotten how to make a plot come together? So many loose ends.
Plus he’s fundamentally changed the Doctor’s internal moral code. Suddenly we have a Doctor who DOESN’T CARE about the life that was just horrifically destroyed in front of his very eyes? He brought the dinosaur, he’s responsible for it, and yet he doesn’t give a fuck when someone makes it burst into flames? WHAT THE ACTUAL WHAT MOFFAT.
Possible I’m mis-remembering, but I thought he seemed quite touched by dino’s death?
He watched it, turned around, argued with the rest of the crew about the correct question to ask at this moment in time, and finally provided the correct answer, a Sherlockian question: “Have there been any similar incidents?”
Ten would never have done that. Nine either. Latter-days Eleven totally would have, though. Moffat’s made the Doctor stop caring when people die.
I have a theory about Moffat’s writing: basically, I think his brand of clever only works in the space of a one- or two-hour story. “Blink” was brilliant as a one-off, because there was only so much he could do in one episode, and it was a self-contained story. But then it was like he couldn’t resist the temptation to keep bringing the Weeping Angels back and loading them up with MOAR DETAIL and more rules for how they operated and more EVERYTHING, and they just got less and less scary every time they showed up. And when you put him in charge of an entire season…eh. He can’t resist being the kind of clever that ends up requiring a giant wall chart to keep track of all the plot twists, and those loose ends hang out everywhere.
Yes, completely. All of the New Rules for Weeping Angels made them much less interesting. And the plot arcs are all sprawling and ridiculous.
I would absolutely agree with this. I also have a theory that Moffat’s getting confused writing two egomaniacs at once, and can’t keep them straight in his head. They’ve just sort of melded in his mind into some sort of all-encompassing Mary Sue.
Remember back when Moffat wrote The Doctor Dances? “Just this once, Rose, everybody lives!” He never loses anymore. Everyone always lives. He never has to make compromises or give up something he wants for something that everyone else needs. He never fails. He never gets pulled up short making a stupid decision by a companion’s humanity. He’s just perfect and unquestionable and a little wacky and I guess still a genius even though he never has any fucking idea what’s going on any more.
Put down the pen, Moffat, you’re done.
It’s just so horrifically transparent that it’s all self-insert power fantasies. The Doctor and Sherlock always win and are never really wrong because that would imply that heroes must live with consequences and consider the feelings and needs of others, and what’s fun about that???? UGH.
Yup. I think he definitely needs someone else to go ‘okay, Steve, that’s enough’. He’s not the only one who needs someone else to stop him from excesses, but I find his brand of excess particularly grating. All the plots he’s going for are so convoluted that the last few series have been teflon to my brain. I can’t remember any of them aside from this general irritation in the back of my mind.
But the episodes he wrote while RTD was still showrunner, I remember so well.
Yup. His ability to create and contain a season long arc is non-existent, and he seems to think we should believe him when he insists all the ludicrous bits are actually deeply clever.
I haven’t watched Dr. Who in a couple of seasons, partly because of that. I was thinking I’d watch this one to see if a new Doctor and Companion made a difference. I’m guessing that would be a waste of my time then?
As a friend asked: Why spend that much of the episode scolding the fangirls for thinking of the Doctor as boyfriend material, then turn around and end the episode with a woman who refers to the Doctor as her boyfriend?
I was somehow hoping there wouldn’t be one of those Big Moffat Plot Arcs where people keep saying “[whatever the MacGuffin is this season] is a mystery! SO MYSTERIOUS! Why is [MacGuffin thing]?!?!” and then, many episodes later, we get an elaborate, over-complicated, unsatisfying answer, but alas, my hopes were dashed.
I did love Capaldi, though. “I am Scottish! I can complain about things!”
I did not realize how perfect a thing it would be to have Sue Perkins as Dr. Who until I read your comment. And now it’s the only thing I want. Although, there would have to be a change in show runner for sure. Writing 2 well-rounded lead female characters (because the companion would still be female, right?) is quite beyond Moffat’s capabilities.
It is my personal headcanon, and it makes me very happy, in a sea of Moffat Women making speeches about who’s the prettiest and who gets to have a boyfriend, to imagine Sue Perkins bouncing around the universe being interested in things, making bad puns and being kind to people.
Rejection emails are hard, though. Because in order to go through and kindly point out where they need to work on their piece, you have to have the time and you have to craft your sentences in a way that IS kind, because you don’t want to be mean (even if you don’t want to be nice, either). I’ve been asked for feedback on writing from a couple of friends. I’ve worked out that some friends can take honest feedback as long as I do it kindly, other friends seem to take it as if I’m stabbing them in the heart with a blunt pencil. So in the latter case, I’m ‘nice’, because my friendship with them is more important than the criticism I’m going to offer (which they’re unlikely to take, anyway).
Nice vs kind is an interesting concept, though. I’ve gotta say, I’ve basically very little time for nice. To me, it feels like superficiality and pretense. (But I guess I’d still prefer to get a rejection letter that says, ‘Thanks but no thanks’ rather than ‘argh, this is less than stellar; let me list the reasons why…’)
I get stymied by the regional-cultural differences in what people consider to be nice, polite, or kind. I will be my kindest New York self, putting considerable effort into articulating an emotional response to something that has caused strife in both the hope that it will help the situation and because it is what I would want someone to do for me, and I will be met with a frozen Midwestern horror at my rudeness and aggression.
I mean, not all New Yorkers or Midwesterners, obvs, and probably there is some gendered stuff in there, but yeah. Expectations vary!
You are a more patient, more generous person than I am. I require proof of ability to accept constructive criticism before expending the effort to give more than an anodyne pleasantry.
I am heading in that direction, believe you me.
In the Upper Midwest, you spend your formative years interpreting the Looks that adults give you.
For instance, when I was 12, I was explaining my very aggressive period to a gym teacher (female), because, I’d just bled through my slacks and on up to my shirt and I was absolutely freaked out. In response, she gave me nothing but a steady stare. I said “Oh my, this is bad, right?” She kept the steady stare. I said “Oh, I actually have to go to the doctor, don’t I?” She looked down and away: her job was done here. Of course, I immediately realized I had asked too many questions, and years hence, I Looked back at people, significantly and wordlessly, as they stared at me, and I knew, I knew, I had grown up into a mature adult.
On another note, a widely misinterpreted response is the Wide Smile. If an Upper Midwesterner gives you the Wide Smile, it goes beyond frozen horror. You have just insulted the person in perpetuity. You will never be forgiven. If you get Wide Smile and an offer of food, you will be referred to as “that … person“, losing your humanity, as well as, never being forgiven. Some Easterners interpret the Wide Smile as something good, and can’t understand why anything they say is just met with Wide Smile and nothing else substantive.
Years and years of immersion in the Upper Midwest cultural norms is required to properly interpret Looks. I don’t know of anyone from the Outside who has mastered the art. *sigh* I rue the day that Looks Interpretations dies out. So many words! So much needless noise!
EXACTLY. I have only given the Wide Smile on a handful of occasions; each time I was wishing hellfire on the target. I’m a fan of the language of Looks as well, and it always makes me sad when Easterners think us Midwesterners are saccharine or fake, when we actually express displeasure and discomfort rather regularly. Though as I’ve gotten older I’ve had to admit a wordless language *is* difficult to pick up on the fly.
I am not going to write any of my other thoughts on this topic, because the whole crybaby Midwesterner trope gets me irate fast and I have no desire to touch off yet another comment section regional war.
YES. I am a coastal transplant to the Midwest, and I absolutely cannot stand Midwestern Niceness. It seems so hollow and meaningless and fake.
We are SO nice, that my adopted state is in the process of changing its motto from The Good Life to Nebraska Nice. Which, makes me want to set everything on fire and vomit. NICE SUCKSSSSS
There’s a difference here even between Chicago and Minneapolis–I’ve seen this in writing classes in Minnesota. The Twin Cities writers I know can definitely take and give criticism, sometimes quite vigorously, but it requires quite a bit of trust-building and space-defining first. There probably is some gendered stuff involved, too, but it’s hard to pin down!
Absolutely. My American friends often give me a crit-sandwich, which is endearing. My British friends are MUCH more blunt. My Australian friends need a real push to say anything bad at all. There is a lot of reading between the lines that goes on!
I’m not familiar–except on a very superficial level–with the Midwestern or the NY culture enough to comment, but I can kind of imagine where you’re coming from there.
Also, outside of an agreed upon group setting, this is a big reason why I don’t critique other people’s writing. There are a few friends it works with, so, fine, but unless there’s some external structure, 90% of the time it turns out they were really looking for someone to tell them they were brilliant and perfect the whole time, and that becomes fraught fairly quickly.
90% of the time it turns out they were really looking for someone to tell them they were brilliant and perfect the whole time
I’m really with you on this, and it’s exhausting trying to work out what you’re supposed to say, and what they really want from you.
I’ve got a handful of people I can ask for real feedback, and I’m about to approach all of them to read a draft of my novel, but when it comes to proper editing? I’m not going to ask any of them. Because I need a stranger… someone who’s not invested at all in our relationship.
The difference between niceness and kindness, yes.
I don’t think I’m an especially nice person, but I do think I’m a kind person. People come to me when they want an honest answer and actual help, they go to others if they want to be told they’re doing fine.
And I would rather kind critique – this is what’s wrong, and why it won’t work – then meaningless niceness.
This is basically how I see myself as well — I don’t think I’m particularly nice all the time, but I do believe that I am kind. I’m not a big fan of people who cover asshole behavior with “I’m just blunt/honest,” but I am definitely the kind of person who thinks saying something as clearly and cleanly as possible, trying to be factual and punctual without being mean or cruel, is preferable to sugarcoating or walking on eggshells to try and be “nice.” I would much prefer kind critique to meaningless niceness. Especially because meaningless niceness when something really does honestly need some kind critique feels like lying to someone, you know? I don’t want to be like “Oh, it’s fine!” when it’s not, and I feel like that can happen quite a lot when people try to just be nice over actually addressing an issue.
The myth of “I’m just being honest” meaning that you are incapable of being tactful is one of our great social ills. It is perfectly possible to be honest and yet tactful and polite. Similarly, it is not polite to deliberately obfuscate or tell someone only nice things–being polite and having manners does not mean that you are being prissy/overthinking things/whatever accusation people want to lob at politeness lately.
Being honest does not preclude politeness, being polite does not preclude honesty, and tact is a severely undervalued trait these days.
Gods yes. I have a certain relative who could really do with learning about tact. Among other things, but I won’t go into that here…
YES.
This exactly! I’m 100% with you here. I think a lot of people think tactlessness is a positive trait somehow? Like they say, “Oh, I’m just an honest person” as if that by itself means they’re above reproach, when honesty alone does not really count for enough.
Yes, precisely. “I’m just being honest!” “I’m just a blunt person.” “They needed to hear it!” “I’m a bitch, deal with it.” “No point in keeping them in the dark!” are all ways of saying “I don’t want to be polite and tactful, but I don’t want to deal with the fallout from it.” You cannot go around being “blunt” and then getting upset when people don’t take well to it and couch it in these faux-defences. There is no virtue in pure bluntness for the sake of it.
Ok, so this is where I think I get confused. I think in the thread below we might be talking about different use cases, as it were. (ETA: and then I deleted the sentence explaining those use cases, and can’t remember what I said. Sorry 🙁 My brain just does not work on less than 6 hours sleep. Anyhoo, yeah, I don’t know if we’re really saying the same thing or not.)
I think what constitutes tact is dependent on culture and the level of trust in a particular relationship (which, holy hell, that can be difficult to sort out!), and I think where I start to squirm is that there absolutely are situations where “they needed to hear it” applies (ETA: as in the thread below), and that, as much as I hate the phrase I’m about to use, reasonable people can disagree about when that might be. It might mean discovering that you just don’t get along with someone, because you have different needs wrt communication, and I think I’m uncomfortable with putting value judgments on that. There are absolutely people I like and respect in theory who I know I can probably never have any kind of substantive conversation with because our styles of communication are so different that we only barely speak the same language. For me, their version of tact comes across as manipulative passive aggression and sends me half-way to an anxiety attack within thirty seconds; I am sure that for them, I am unbearably rude. Neither of us is trying to avoid the consequences of our behavior, and both of us are trying to be tactful as we understand it. Sometimes it just doesn’t work.
Interestingly, the people who pull the “I’m just being honest/I’m just blunt” are often the people who complain that no one likes them. Well, maybe learn some tact, develop an appropriate tone, and don’t redefine assholish behavior as bluntness. That might help.
I think I agree with this about 90% of the time. The other 10%, though…
Sometimes the truth is just hurtful. There is no tactful way to say “you are being abusive” without obfuscating the fact that it’s abuse. I dunno. There are uncomfortable truths out there, and sometimes people are bad. Trying to be kind to a person’s best self had not worked for me in those situations.
I hope no one is thinking that in circumstances like abuse, or something terrible like that, the most important thing is that the abuser’s feelings are not hurt. Pretty much everything I’ve said is about normal social interactions that comprise like 98% of everything most people say.
Oh no, of course. It’s just that recently I’ve run into a number of those situations where no one sees themselves as the bad guy, even though they are at least a little bit an Official Bad Guy, and in those cases…well, they see themselves exactly as someone who you are being rude to, or unkind to, or whatever. Like, they see it as being in that 98%, and react as such. The difficulty is in making the distinction, I guess, and that most real life situations live in the expansive grey area.
Gah, I feel like I wasn’t clear, and my phone won’t let me edit. I was just trying to say that in theory it’s easy to make the distinction between every day stuff and terrible things, but that in my experience it is often much more muddled than that, both because abusers are rarely only abusers — often they are also fun, big-hearted people in other ways — and because people rarely see themselves as the villain of a particular story. So no one ever agrees on when it’s appropriate that honesty stop being polite, and it’s not necessarily easy to make the distinction for yourself.
Is it not a kindness to alert someone to their bad behavior, if they are unaware of it? Allow an abuser to reform by telling him “this is abuse”.
I think it is, but I try to avoid framing it that way for myself, because then I start implicitly assuming responsibility for continuing to help them to be less shitty when really the best thing for me is to be done with the whole thing. Like, it puts the focus on what’s good for them, rather than what’s good for me or the person they’ve hurt (if they’re not the same). I think this is very much a YMMV thing though.
Oh man I identified so much with Nicole saying that’s she’s extremely nice, sometimes at the expense of actual kindness. Guh. Have to think about that.
My advisor in grad school was a master at blunt critique. He’d cross out entire pages of my thesis with red ink and then, in the margins, write simply, “No.” He was kind and encouraging in person, though also blunt about what did or did not work, which actually made me feel really comfortable. I knew where I stood and what I needed to do. I never felt belittled or mocked, just challenged. Now when I critique someone, I always try to keep his style in mind. Honest, but not cruel.
I tell my students every semester when I return their first papers that I have a lot of student work to read in a very short time, therefore I often sacrifice tone and apparent kindness for efficiency. I don’t write anything explicitly mean, but I also don’t go out of my way to wrap criticism up in a pretty package, so they need to come talk to me if anything I wrote looks mean or bitchy. (I mean, I hope they’ll come talk to me anyway, but especially if a comment feels like it stings a little.)
I think not all critiques are created equal as well. I took a workshop on how to give useful writing feedback and the professor said her approach was focus on one “higher order issue” and one “low” per session. So one big thing like, “your paragraphs need to connect to each other more, let me show you” and one easy thing like, “be careful you used this word way too many times” or “check your capitalization here”, something easy to fix.
I think that’s a good rule of thumb. When giving critiques, recognize that you will completely overwhelm someone with too many things.
Also distinguish between your preferences and things that are actually wrong. I don’t get all the bent out of shape when someone changes the phrasing on something I wrote at work, regardless of if it’s better or not, so long at it’s not completely wrong. But I do think that can be very discouraging to most people and often times I think bosses can’t differentiate between, “this isn’t how I’d say it” and “this isn’t how anyone should say it” and that wastes the most time.
And lastly this is a relationship one but it can also extend to other things, ask the person themselves. I often say, “do you want sympathy or advice? Would you like my completely un-objective opinion on this? For work stuff, say, “I have lots of ideas, do you want me to go nuts, or is there something specific you want feedback on? If I send somehting out, I will often bracket what things I’m looking for. “I know that page 3 is rough but so and so’s section is working on it, so please focus instead on page 7 primarily or we’re looking for ideas about this concept.”
I think that is probably the most kind way of being. It also reserves your own energy.
tim hortons sucks though, FIGHT ME
(source: I am Canadian)
GET THEE BEHIND ME
Tim Horton’s 4ever
Ooooo! Canadian fight! We should sell tickets.
What would that look like even? How much passive-aggressiveness can one person witness before imploding?
well well well
looks like more people are on my side
NEVER GIVE UP THE SHIP
(I should probably point out that I don’t even drink coffee that much, their steeped tea is delightful, I live for a steeped tea and a plain old-fashioned doughnut, and I don’t really live somewhere where fancy coffee is an option for meeee)
I WILL DIE ON THIS BOAT WITH YOU and then we can fight over who gets the door as our final Act of Kindness as Canadians. “No no, YOU take it”
I once took the bus from Vancouver to Ottawa (five days!) and it only stopped at Tim Horton’s and I was so so miserable (doubly so as a vegetarian who hates mayo).
I wouldn’t wish that on my second-worst enemy.
Agreed, it sucks (also Canadian)
Canadian cosigning, it sucks.
Tim Horton’s is the only redeeming feature in my glum workplace in downtown Buffalo. Yeah, it’s that bad.
I love Tim Hortons as an institution and on behalf of my dear mother,* but I will eat there never. The regular coffee is terrible, the fancy coffees are just powder and water, and the ice caps are syrup and cream. Bleh.
*My mother has a three-Tims-a-day habit. It is basically the only coffee she drinks. She PINES for Tims like a long-lost lover every time we cross the border. No matter how many environmentalist diatribes my sister and I subject her to, she consistently resists the reusable mug because she believes that even the PAPER CUPS are superior there. If something ever happened to Tim Hortons, I truly do not know what would become of her.
The iced capps always remind me of that episode of Futurama where Bender decides to become a chef and it turns out that unbeknownst to him, his “secret ingredient” is LSD and that’s why everyone thinks his food tastes good. I know they’re just shitty coffee, cream and sugar, but I take one sip and it’s like I’ve never known pain in my life and never will again.
I grew up in Montreal, which is known for its amazing bagels (NYC, you can fight me on this too) so it always pained me to see people getting them at Tim’s instead.
Haha I actually used to work there, so that is pretty much perfect. I think ice caps are what shocked me the most – IT’S NOT EVEN COFFEE AT ALL. It is actually just syrup that comes in bags like milk, mixed with ice and cream. That said, we all need a thing that makes the pain disappear. It is best not to consider from whence that thing originated and what it contains.
my favourite part about working at Tim Horton’s 5 or 6 years ago was when people would ask me for a cappuccino, expecting to actually get something involving espresso. The question “French vanilla or irish cream?” could crush a coffee lover in a single blow.
Timmies is the only option where I live and is a staple of my workplace, so my tastebuds have adjusted (and I drown the coffee in cream, that helps). I also try not to think about Bridgehead in Ottawa, where I used to live, or I get sad.
And now I’m sad 🙁
Ahhh I used to work at Bridgehead! Bank and Gilmour 4ever!1
Getting my morning coffee at the Bank & Albert or Sparks St locations was ALL that made my 1.5 hour bus commute (Aylmer to south Ottawa) bearable for the last 8 months at that job! The staff were always great, at every Bridgehead I visited 🙂
I carpool with a coworker who NEEDS to stop at Tim’s every morning. I am slowly growing unable to hide my disgust.
Their coffee is terrible.
Also I used to work there and nothing makes you stop eating Tim Horton’s faster than seeing the shrink wrapped trays of pre-cooked pseudo meat that get shipped in.
I volunteer to join your ranks!
I am also Canadian, although western, and didn’t grow up with it, but then I lived in TO for undergrad, and ate a lot of their cheap bagels, and actually now I’m feeling a bit nostalgic for a sweet milky tea from Tims and a bagel with cream cheese and cucumber and then maybe I’ll read some Latin American social history and later get suuuuuper drunk on keg beer?
YES IA TERRIBLE
I always feel deep regret and anger every time I am forced to visit a Tim Hortons because it’s the only thing around and as if Tim Hortons senses my animosity, something always goes wrong. My cup leaks. My bagel is stale. My coffee tastes like chemicals. My tea bag rips open and I accidentally eat pieces of mint leaves.
There’s a customer review Facebook group for my small town that regularly has vicious (well, Canadian viciousness) fights over whether the service at Tim Hortons is terrible or the haters are being too mean. At the moment there is a huge argument over whether Tim Hortons selling is a travesty or whether those haters are being too mean.
I agree their coffee is disgusting. (Source: have lived in Alberta for 5 years)
It’s acceptable. Adequate. I can’t work up enough emotion about it to get towards hatred. It will do.
I like McDonald’s coffee better. But since the great Subway food poisoning incident, Tim’s is the only fast food place where I can just get a sandwich when I want something quick that’s not a burger and fries. The steeped tea though. Starbucks can’t do tea. A large tea merely requires more water. Not more tea. The only time I’d use 2 tea bags is in a pot when I have multiple people drinking it.
Nicole, I love hearing about your teacher and the things you are learning/exploring. Always gives me something good to think about for the day!
Same here, I’d love to read a full post about your journey with her someday! 🙂
I’ve been hopping up and down since Saturday to squee about Vastra and Jenny – “Men are monkeys.” I love it so much. I guess this is the thread for everyone who doesn’t hate Moffat?
And Capaldi, well…. he just completely knocked it out of the park for me. I thought he was just flawless.
I thought the beginning of the episode was draggy but the last 10-15 minutes were CLUTCH. And I know it was emotionally manipulative when SPOILER SPOILER OMG SPOILER Eleven called Clara, but damn if I didn’t get weepy. And Capaldi/12’s pleas for Clara to JUST SEE HIM. Gah. Also, who is “Missy?” What was going on in that last scene! Ahhh!
I got weepy too, mainly because I had been watching a marathon of episodes, so I had been crying for like 3 hours by that point. Stupid Day/Name/Time of the Doctor.
I think the beginning of the season, when they introduce the new big bad, is so exciting! I am assuming Missy is it for this season. I want to hope she is the Rani but that is probably too obvious.
I don’t watch Doctor Who so I can’t contextualize the Moffat hate, for the most part. I adore Sherlock and think he and Gatiss are solid writing/producing partners, and I think it’s probably easier to recognize Moffat’s signature sexism if you’re already familiar with his brand.
I’ve been watching Doctor Who since the 80’s. The thing I look for on Doctor Who is clever plotting. Douglas Adams was amazing at this – he wrote a few storylines and they were among my favorites. So I actually love Moffat and Gatiss and Gaiman, because they write clever episodes.
– Loved Capaldi, excited to see where he goes with the character
– I don’t think the episode needed to be THAT long, could’ve cut it down and had it move along faster. Though I agree with whoever reviewed the episode for AV Club who said it had a lot of structural similarities to The Christmas Invasion
– Curious to find out WHY he chose to be Capaldi, a.k.a. the guy from Fires of Pompeii. (Unless it’s actually a callback to Capaldi’s Torchwood: Children of Earth character? I forget – where even was the Doctor during all that?) Also wondering if the reference to the Madame de Pompadour will be relevant or just a red herring.
Re Moffat, I agree with all the criticisms about his writing/characterization, and I know this is a poor argument, but there’s a LOT of garbage, anti-feminist TV out there and I don’t feel like he’s egregiously worse than average?
(For me at least) it’s not that he’s the Worst of the worst, but that he’s in charge of juggernaut shows instead of a couple same-y crime dramas on USA.
And it’s a show that has a history of and reputation for tackling social issues such as gay marriage. So sexism on DW is a bigger issue than sexism on [insert formulaic network drama here].
Hm, I guess not being British I don’t have the proper reverence for DW’s importance, but a lot of “prestige” shows have their share of Issues With Women too.
My guess is that it’s a reference to Pompeii, not Torchwood – it’s not likely that many of the younger fans will have seen Torchwood. It wasn’t really a kid’s show, IIRC. I am glad that his choice of face is shaping up to be an actual plot point and not glossed over like it was with Martha.
I was sad that there wasn’t more of a remembrance for Madame de Pompadour. That was one of my favorite episodes. It would have been nice to have a flashback or something.
I thought I’d read somewhere that they’d come up with some Grand Unified Theory of Capaldi that tied in both of his previous characters, but that could be totally wrong.
I liked Girl in the Fireplace too and I hope that the connection gets explored more and isn’t just a throwaway reference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8FswjRpmFXU
Fucking Children of Earth. Destroys me every time.
Ahh right. I think I blocked out most of the last episode from my memory because it was JUST TOO SAD.
*silently weeps in a corner for Ianto Jones*
ATTACK EYEBROWS
Isn’t it wonderful? My Beloved showed me photos of his father, who died before I could meet him. The father refused to allow his eyebrows to be trimmed. Andy Rooney territory. My Beloved fears having such eyebrows. He made me promise, early marriage, to alert him if his eyebrows ever looked the least bit uncontrolled. And made me promise to trim them myself if he should ever be incapacitated.
Now I can just say “Attack Eyebrows alert!” and watch him scurry to the mirror.
I LOVE CAPALDI. Ahem. No but really, you just see all the inherent “strangeness” and “otherness” that I feel like 11 in particular, and 10 to some extent, lost. He’s an alien, dammit! Be weird! Be Not Us. I am so excited to see what he does with this. He’s already carving out his own version of the Doctor, so I have high hopes. They may be dashed later, but in the meantime, I am full of expectation and glee.
And my husband and I cackled through the “Men are monkeys” scene. Yayyyyyy Vastra and Jenny.
On board with Peter Capaldi as the Doctor. I did the Day/Name/Time marathon too, none of which I’d seen before. FULL DISCLOSURE: I only started watching the Matt Smith years last week, and after nine episodes I’m still kinda ‘meh’ about 11. I’m liking 12 from the start.
Ok, I loved the “Men are monkeys” line, and maybe the first two “We’re married” lines from Jenny & Vastra (whom in general I 100% love, just to be completely clear), but I thought they stared mentioning the marriage so much that it got to be tiresome. Am I alone in this? Yes, we get it, you are the most kickass women in the universe, married to each other. No need to protesteth so much.
Capaldi is great, and I can’t wait to see where he goes with this role. I never really thought Matt Smith’s Doctor had a crush on Clara though, exactly, so that whole storyline feels weird to me. (It makes sense as a way for Clara to emotionally realign to the new Doctor, but they keep calling Matt Smith her boyfriend and I just…no!)
Apparently Moffat was criticised for not putting any explicitly queer characters in his first DW series, so it feel a bit to me like he’s trying really really hard to remind us that look, he can write gay characters! Look at how gay they are!
(So, no, you’re not alone.)
Oh god. “I can only do two gay characters but they will be REALLY REALLY GAY. They will be gay TO DEATH.”
Here is an interesting piece from 1974 profiling women in the workplace – a maid, a receptionist, a factory worker and a federal government employee.
“The first myth that blew up in my face is that a college education will get you a job,” said the receptionist. 40 years later, I glance at my next-to-useless MLIS diploma and chuckle bitterly.
This looks like a great read! Thanks for sharing, will read at lunch/on break and then come back and yell.
I believe you when you say that was all done in 1974 but holy shit, so many of the issues they talk about are still so true today. Really excellent read, thanks again!
I have had many jobs. Almost every one required a college degree. But every last job could have been done by any intelligent high school graduate. Classism.
I’m trying to be a writer of fiction, and I’d call myself a writer-in-training. But if I were to write something for The Toast, I would appreciate a kind response of “this is what’s wrong”.
I’ve received both rejections and edits to accepted pieces that were kind but very direct about where they missed the mark in terms of Toastiness/tone. I’m a grizzled veteran but still find that kind of feedback to be arresting at first, then helpful to my writing overall. You just pull out the dart and make the edits, and the piece is better for it.
My toddler is sick and it is SO SAD. “Give a kiss?” she says, and then flops wanly onto the floor.
My toddler does that when she’s sick too. Poor little thing. I hope she feels better soon.
Ha, my husband does that when he’s sick
Awwwwwwww! Poor little bean. 🙁
I fell in the street and messed up my knee last week and immediately got in a cab to do this very thing in the presence of my own distressed mother. So, if you two have a great relationship, you might be in for another 20 years of this! On the flip side I also call her whenever anything good happens on America’s Next Top Model, so you’ll probably get that too.
Odds that America’s Next Top Model will still be airing 20 years from now: HIGH.
I just rushed off to google if ANTM started again when I wasn’t paying attention
Oh my god, this season is going to be incredible.
Definitely called my mom and demanded that she “poor baby” me when I was sick at the age of 26. I would have begged her to come over if I didn’t live 2000 miles away.
I am sorry for her, but I am sorrier for you, who will soon be sick and pregnant and denied all the decent drugs.
Mine too – well, if 13 months is a toddler? I don’t know. She just learned how to walk and say “book” and it’s both sad and kind of funny when she feverishly stumbles around yelling “boooooook, boooooook” like a confused zombie.
The against empathy article is fascinating. One of the most interesting pieces I’ve read in a while.
Super-empathetic Hannah sounds exhausting, to be and to meet.
It reminds me of that scene in Sherlock where John’s yelling about Sherlock not caring about the victims, and Sherlock says, “Will caring about them help them?” and John says, “No”, and…yeah.
Which also goes to the niceness vs kindness thing as well. Sherlock is quite, quite kind when you look at his actions. But damn, he is not nice.
“Safe?” said Mr. Beaver; “don’t you hear what Mrs. Beaver tells you? Who said anything about safe? ‘Course he isn’t safe. But he’s good.”
“He’s wild, you know. Not like a tame lion.”
My learnings:
Empathy is bad because it is limited and biased; we extend more empathy to those we like and identify with, less to those who not so much, which distorts our judgment. Empathy is also bad because it is too all-encompassing, and we are vulnerable to empathetic distress and poor boundary skills, which distorts our judgment. Mostly, though, empathy is bad because it makes you slightly nicer but not *all the way nicer,* and you still have to have additional strengths and virtues in order to do a good job at being human in the world.
So. More empathy, but also less empathy, and feelings impair your rational judgment, never forget that. And we are Against Empathy because we are also for many other things besides.
Yeah it was kind of a mess…
can you fucking IMAGINE how miserable it must be getting trapped into talking to that guy at a party?? i would jump out a window
And we would all empathize with you.
I do think there’s an interesting point buried somewhere in there, but it’s too lost on empathy. I’d say its more about action versus feeling that takes the place of action. My paper would be more like “Slacktivism and Sentiment”? And that would be something about sitting on the couch watching documentaries about horrible stuff, reading slate, etc, getting terribly upset but then doing literally nothing about it. No money, no letters to congress, no volunteering, just facebook posts. Something about how you burn off that caring in the feeling world but not in the corresponding action world and then something about that and probably millennials?
Whether or not you are a religious person, The Screwtape Letters by CS Lewis is an excellent book for his insights on humans. Head devil giving advice to low-level tempter explains that one must keep empathy and fellow feeling out of the will and in the realm of feeling, for “The more often he feels without acting, the less he will be able ever to act, and, in the long run, the less he will be able to feel.” That’s it, I think, in a nutshell.
Ok, seeing it written this way just makes me think we were being Punk’d. Were we being Punk’d?
Aaand if women would stop with the empathizing, they they would be less sad; why don’t women react more like men, amirte?
Man, I don’t know what to think about that empathy article. I keep on typing out my reactions to it and deleting my thoughts, but it comes down to how I’m so used to thinking of “empathy” and “sympathy” as two distinct concepts that comparing the two is making my brain hurt.
We were obviously on the same page (or maybe just a similar one, I don’t know your life Pretzel), because it probably took me 30 minutes to get my thoughts in order. And I’m afraid I didn’t even cover the whole spectrum of what I was thinking.
Niceness v. kindness and empathy and stuff! I sorta wrote about this once (http://uncommon-courtesy.com/2013/11/08/lets-stop-calling-having-strong-opinions-rude/). I think so often, women especially internalize this idea that we have to be “nice” all the time, which quickly turns into being a doormat, or never calling anyone out when they’re being assholes, or even providing constructive criticism because you think it’s mean. And that’s all sorta bullshit. I am all for being nice and understanding and taking a moment to compose yourself before expressing an opinion, but not at the expense of expressing it at all.
Yeah, being socialized to avoid conflict at all costs is buuuuuulllshit that does us no favors in adult life.
Thesis: niceness comes from a position of weakness; kindness comes from a position of strength. that is why women are socialized to be nice, more than to be kind. Being nice is a way to beg indulgence from those who could crush you, to show them how harmless you are and how well you follow rules; being kind is to look down from a lordly height on someone and offer them generosity they cannot depend on and receive only by your gracious will. nice people flatter; kind people show mercy. that is why niceness can irritate but kindness can humiliate.
having said that, I like nice people and I am not terribly kind. but I think it is something to aspire to.
That is a pretty kick-ass thesis.
Very interesting! I would quibble that the distinction lies more in how far they adhere to social rules -nice is following the letter of the rules, polite is following the spirit of them, and kind goes its own way but in the same direction. Using this view, “nice” is often the first casualty in cases of culture clash (it’s not nice to accept the last doughnut), but “kind” is usually unchanged across cultures (Sally’s hungry, so she can have the last doughnut).
Very well said! Had not thought of it this way, but now I do. Thank you.
I would say kindness comes from a position of strength, but doesn’t entail “looking down on” or “showing mercy”. Kindness is eye-to-eye, between equals. You’re not declaring yourself superior to someone by being kind to them, if you’re truly BEING kind.
YES
YES YES YES. I completely agree.
I also think you can be nice insincerely but you can’t be kind insincerely. You can SAY something insincere in order to BE kind, but actual kindness is a real thing, whereas you can be nice to someone of whom you think nothing.
And if I may sprinkle on some Sondheim: “Nice is different than good.”
Always appropriate to sprinkle on some Sondheim.
“So be nice Cinderella, good Cinderella, nice good nice kind good nice…”
…and then she gets slapped, so look how well that worked out for her.
You’re so nice; you’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just nice; I’m not good, I’m not nice, I’m just right; I’m the witch; you’re the wooooooooooooorrld
Perfectly said! “Kind people show mercy”, my God nothing truer was ever spoken. And as for aspiring to be a better human being, here is my go to mantra that I’m happy to share: Be Patient. Be Kind. (Notice “nice” is deliberately absent). Some days are tougher than others putting it into practice.
This also reminds me of the distinction that Seneca makes between ”misericordia’ (“pity”/”empathy” — BAD and WEAK and indicative of out of control passions) and ‘clementia’ (“mercy”/”kindness” — GOOD because involves doing shit from a place of rational emotional detachment). Though Seneca is kind of the worst and also not a sterling example of being a successful teacher of ethics…
I write a lot of rejection emails (and sometimes real letters, that go in the mail, with a stamp and everything!) and it never really gets easier to craft anything other than a form rejection. I think one of the kindest things you can do is not even related to what you write — it’s just to respond quickly, so that people aren’t waiting to hear from you. That is a real kindness.
YES. Anything to feel like we aren’t just throwing our personal information/work/effort/time into the void. Please always respond, even if it is a rejection.
YES. Responses, as quickly as they can be managed, are magic. Nothing sucks out your soul like throwing endless time and effort into the void.
Sympathy does not equal empathy. I feel like the author acknowledges the significant differences in these two words, and then goes on to say something along the lines of “but some people use them interchangeably, so I think empathy is bad.”
Words are important, and there’s almost always a really good reason for having them. Empathy is a perfectly good vocabulary word, and describes an emotion that is useful and constructive. It means, or ought to mean, that you understand and relate to a person’s feelings, specifically because you share a lived experience and know first hand what that feeling is like. It isn’t “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes,” it’s concurrently wearing the same pair of shoes as another person.
For example, most white people can sympathize with the people of Ferguson. They can also feel sadness, anger, and frustration at the situation, because that is a compassionate human response. Many white people cannot empathize with the people of Ferguson, because they and their children have not likely been direct victims of racialized police brutality.
There’s a depth of understanding that is implied in the definition of empathy, and it is misused for sure. I hope that doesn’t mean that we need to stop using it, just that we need to start using it correctly.
Actually, he goes into that in the article — because we are disposed to feel empathy for people like us, and less able to feel empathy for people unlike us — empathy is a poor driver of public policy, because we’re likely to direct money, resources, etc, towards people like us without regard to where those resources are most needed or will be most useful.
Yeah, that’s definitely valid. At that point, it becomes something like emotional nepotism, which is particularly unhelpful considering who tends to be in positions of power and influence over public policy.
I do still think that “putting yourself in someone else’s shoes to understand and support their struggle” can be shallow emotional tourism if done carelessly (like wearing a warbonnet to Burning Man, taking a week long mission trip to Africa, etc), and I think we do a disservice to the word empathy to call it that.
But now I’m wondering, does it depend on who is using empathy to impact change? Thinking back to Ferguson for example, who should be directing the public policy that could help correct this situation for the future? The people who lived that experience and empathize with the systemic problem of racialized violence, or people who live and exist entirely outside of that system of oppression? Should it comes from a compassionate, but distanced third party?
(Ack, now I have a lot of questions and feelings about this article.)
YES, this is what I was trying to articulate but couldn’t. I’m lucky in that I can empathize easily. (I was just telling people last week how, when someone was describing intense arm pain, I caught myself clutching mine in response.) But even then, I realize I don’t know entirely.
My coworker was recently looking at a federal job opening for an arborist. He was reading the description, which went something like “healthy male under x years of age.” Until I screeched, “Male?? Can women not apply?” he hadn’t even noticed that requirement. And then he half-jokingly came up with reasons why women wouldn’t be allowed to be arborists, some of which had to do with child-birthing hips and needing to stay on the ground to have babies. Aren’t women supposed to take easier to climbing, though?
Lower center of gravity=better balance, I think!
Whoa. This was a FEDERAL job? I can’t believe that was posted. I mean, limiting a job like arborist to one gender absolutely has to be illegal, right? Right???
It was definitely government, I think federal. Yeah, I couldn’t believe it either! Maybe an idiot just wrote the post and no one checked it? Clearly the government does have female arborists.
also seems weirdly ageist?
Yes. Also limiting them to a certain age.
I know a cloistered nun who does some arborist work at her monastery. She got permission to wear a modified habit with pants to do this. I guess you wouldn’t want to hire women arborists if you thought none of them had permission to wear pants.
sounds like an awesome nun.
unless I am currently in the midst of baby-birthing, WHY can I not climb trees and do things in them
Hi-5 for calling him out on it!!
My good friend is an arborist and she had a pretty even gender split in her apprenticeship program (and a range of ages, for that matter). Try Canada, maybe?
Chicago Toastrons! Roxane Gay is reading tonight at Women and Children First! If you are there, I am the pregnant lady wearing a black and white striped t-shirt and will probably be knitting something wee. Come say hi!
AUGH! I am SO ENVIOUS! I was in Chicago a few scant weeks ago! I went to Women & Children first and bought many many books! I am CURRENTLY READING BAD FEMINIST as in I started it THIS VERY MORNING ON THE TRAIN. Life is so unfaaaaaair.
But have an amazing time!!!!!
I wonder how much empathy and niceness go together.
Like, if a person has a problem, and I am sympathetic to that problem (“sympathetic” here meaning, “I recognize their experiences and am familiar with them, but I do not experience them at this moment”), so I am kind to them in the sense that I offer support or solutions; OR am I empathetic to them (here meaning, “I recognize their experience [usually “hurt”], and experience it myself as I see it”), so I am nice to them in the sense that I say or do things that I think will make them feel better.
There’s a real doozy of a Dear Prudence question about dildoes today. (Unless that went up yesterday and you already discussed it. In which case…well, it’s still great.)
Edit: Dildos? I’m not 100% sure what the plural should be.
I prefer the spelling “dildoes”, because it seems like the opposite of “dildoesn’t.”
oh god! I do not know about that advice! Leave the dildo on the mantle?!?
“I’ve dealt with a remarkable number of errant dildos”
Prudie is a national treasure and we should all cherish her
also I wish I had the nerve to put that on my resume as a job accomplishment
I am SO CURIOUS about what the dildo in question looks like. Obviously dildo-y enough that the writer recognized it at once, but non-dildo-y enough that auntie could mistake it for a lovely mantelpiece ornament? HOW?
(I have been in this situation! I mean, partly. When my husband, his aunt, and I were cleaning out my mother-in-law’s house after she died, the aunt and I took charge of the bedside table, and we found one thing that Auntie didn’t recognize but that I did. Luckily, unlike with Prudie’s LW, we both knew what general type of thing to expect in that drawer, so we didn’t reach the “oh God Auntie don’t put it on the mantel” point. Instead we just got the church giggles.)
To be fair, I know someone who has a hairstyling tool that A) runs on batteries, and B) looks so, so much like a metal dildo. It’s really disturbing. So I kind of understand mistaking it for something else, because who knew they could resemble other things so uncannily??
Extra like for “church giggles”
“This kind of negative personality criticism—watch your tone! step back! stop being so judgmental!—shows up twice in the 83 critical reviews received by men. It shows up in 71 of the 94 critical reviews received by women.”
An analysis of self-submitted performance reviews in technology: http://fortune.com/2014/08/26/performance-review-…
*sets everything on fire*
*joins you with additional kerosene*
Holy crap. >:(
*rages*
Nicole, being rejected kindly but not nicely by you definitely made me strive to be a better writer. It also helped me not to take rejection too personally. Although now it means I now take acceptance very personally and love all my editors to an absurd degree, including you.
Actually, that’s how I think of kindness versus niceness. Kindness is actual care for the person, while niceness is dressing up your words specifically not to offend or embarrass the person. Kindness — especially without niceness — gives off a sense of authenticity which authentic people are drawn to, leading to realer relationships. However, niceness is a type of diplomacy (which, hah, I literally have a degree in) that can potentially get people to listen to you because you’re hiding your anger, distaste, etc. at their ignorant or silly or frustrating behaviors and prioritizing a mutual goal instead.
I tend not to get very close to people who prioritize niceness over kindness though. But I’m just nice to them so they mostly don’t notice.
I don’t know where I fall on niceness/kindness/empathy. I think I am a Hannah, but I may be flattering myself.
You are definitely high on the kindness scale.
Super high! And pretty high on the niceness scale too, actually. You’re a role model in niceness / kindness, personally.
I’m pretty sure I’m kinder than I am nice? Though I do have “retail mode,” which I can turn on & off at will.
Large-scale empathy is paralyzing for me, though, because I start blaming myself for the world’s problems, and then feeling selfish for doing so (“ugh, it’s not all about you, Anna”) and then I have to withdraw completely until I stop feeling suicidal. SO YEAH, NOT A GREAT LOOK.
“You’re so…nice. You’re not good, you’re not bad, you’re just…nice.”
(I worry that deep down I am not a kind person, and that I am instead a nice person. This haunts me.)
I think the most frustrating thing about having any of your work appraised is to know that there is a flaw with it but no one will ever tell you and therefore your work will be flawed forever so I am pro kindness!_But as I am an emotionally weakling I need my kindness delivered nicely.
One more Doctor Who question: at one point, when they’re struggling to escape the restaurant-seat-with-iron-restraints, the Doctor tries to pass Clara the sonic screwdriver & as she struggles to pick it up with her feet, he says: “It’s times like this I miss Amy.” I loved the call-back to the Ponds (esp. because I was waiting for Capaldi’s Doctor to make some reference to his ginger, Scottish companion), but why in this context? Was Amy particularly acrobatic? Or is he just referencing the fact that Amy was pretty capable by the end of her run (at least, that was how they wished to portray her)?
I didn’t get that either. If you’re going to drop an Amy reference, why not at the point where he’s flummoxed that everyone has an English accent?
It felt like the overarching theme of the episode was “let’s all shit on Clara” though, so I hope that’s out of everyone’s system and the rest of the season isn’t like that.
Yes, exactly! The timing was weird and forced.
And I definitely agree that everyone was mean to Clara which…I never really liked her that much (rather, I was indifferent to her? Because she lacked personality, as scripted), but she kind of kicked ass this episode, and I wished everyone would lay off her. I sometimes wonder why the Doctor doesn’t more often talk to his companions about past companions, at least casually. I suppose it would get tiresome, & interrupt the dynamic of every companion feeling like the most important person in the universe, but realistically of COURSE the Doctor remembers his other companions and thinks about them from time to time. And Clara seems like she could handle (and might benefit, in terms of giving layers to their relationship) some info at least about the Ponds, since they shared a Doctor incarnation.
I don’t dislike Clara, but I’m hoping she becomes more of a real character now that the whole “Impossible Girl” mystery has been solved. I liked that she was able to talk her way out of trouble with the mechanical guy by drawing on her own (non-Doctor-related!) life experiences. Glimmer of hope?
Definitely glimmer of hope. Though I do not like the way they shoehorned that flashback to the Coal Hill School in there. I don’t object to the way it was used, it just could’ve done with better integration.
Yeah, it was confusing – I had NO idea where that was going for a long time.
For sure. That’s not Clara’s fault, of course!
I thought it was in reference to Amy’s longer legs, which may have made it easier to get the sonic screwdriver.
That at least makes sense, but still seems obscure to me.
Oh, definitely. It was right up there with retconning Clara as some kind of control-freak egomaniac who the Doctor needed to look and act boyish to please. Even though…she wasn’t around when he regenerated into Matt Smith. Which makes no sense, but Moffat needed to yell at the silly lady fans for their silly lady fan ways, so…
Yeah, I felt like Clara was acting as a stand-in for so-called “tumblr fangirls,” which was…………… not great.
[Woops, looks like I have more feelings about this]
Furthermore, she’s bopped around in the Doctor’s whole timeline AND hung out with 3 versions of him at once, so it’s not like she would be completely baffled by the concept of regeneration. WTF.
Yeah, it really didn’t make any sense to have this particular companion be that thrown by regeneration. It’s understandable that the character would need some time to get used to it, but she’s met all the Doctors, including the younger versions who looked older.
I agree that it was definitely a stand-in for ‘tumblr fangirls’ which is gross AND hilarious because, please, Moffat is like the biggest tumblr fanboy re: The Doctor and Sherlock Holmes. I feel like he writes all of his shows with Homer Simpson’s Poochie rule. “Whenever Poochie’s not on screen, all the other characters should be asking, ‘where’s Poochie?'”
Yeeeessss. Not to mention that it’s a waste of Capaldi to just have him scold her. (I have mixed feelings about that I guess; I like that they bantered & argued, but disliked that he was just one big part of telling Clara she had Too Many Feels.)
I thought that was for all the fans of new-who, who think the Doctor always looks like a young man. He just did that to please us (people who started watching in 2005) but now that he has got our attention and reassurances of our love doesnt feel the need to cater to us anymore. The us could certainly be ‘silly lady fans’ ofcourse, but thats just how I got it. (I am attributing some kind of trauma to Doc 7 for being cancelled in 1988 or whenever).
Well, I don’t care to be personally scolded by Moffat for what he believes to be my views of the show, anymore than I want the Doctor to waste time scolding Clara. Also, someone waaaay upthread (or actually, in the DIE MOFFAT DIE thread) mentioned how ridiculous it is for Moffat to spend so much time telling people not to sexually objectify Peter Capaldi just because he’s older than Tennant & Smith. HE’S STILL A FOX, MOFFAT.
I think it was definitely also that, but something about all the ‘not your boyfriend’ stuff along with Moffat’s general attitude towards women made me think it was directed more towards female fans.
Agree. Eight inches of height difference between the two women.
Amy was much taller than Clara. (As someone who is five foot nothing, I admire Clara’s skill in reaching the screwdriver.)
“Nice” to me has a class component that “kindness” does not. Like, “nice” is what “nice people” do, and that includes things like shunning people who are Not Nice People, which is as frequently a critique of their social status as it is of them being an asshole. “Nice” also includes things like inviting people to parties even though you hate them and talking about them behind their back, Including Everyone No Matter What but making sure the social pecking order is incredibly clear, and a variety of other subtle Mean Girls-type activities. And all of that seems incredibly middle-class-snobbish to me.
(Cultural differences subthread: I am from Iowa and my parents are from Kansas; I have Midwestern bred into my bones.)
I’m Midwestern too, but I wouldn’t call any of those behaviors “nice.” Niceness can be shallow, but if it doesn’t at least go deep enough to get you through a round of small talk without wounding someone, then it’s not niceness at all–more like passive aggression.
I was pretty underwhelmed by Doctor Who, which made me sad. I just want to love it! It’s not that long since I did. But recent episodes have felt really weirdly paced and haphazard (to quote The History Boys, it’s just one fucking thing after another, rather than a plot). I still don’t feel like I know who Clara is as a person, and I don’t have strong feelings for her, and while I am very fond of Vastra and Jenny and want more queer representation in the programme, the fact that every other line seems to be along the lines of “Don’t forget, we’re married” makes things feel a bit forced; it’s starting to grate.
I’m sorry, Doctor Who. I promise not to abandon you.
After reading the above “no no no no no no no” comments re: the “how to email” link, I am now firmly convinced that a) only Toast people should ever work in an administrative capacity and b) I would like to hire all of you, always, and forever. Also c) so that we can train some other people (men, presumably, of the attractive and submissive variety) to do things EXACTLY THE WAY WE WANT THEM DONE, and then we can all skip off to brunch, followed by World Domination.
You in?
I’m in.
Man, I love Boots Riley. I can’t believe the station called that a “rant”. Can we have a moratorium on calling things rants for a year until people can manage to use it to describe actual rants and not people talking about things they are passionate about? Especially if they are being interviewed?
Hey, that’s MY local fox affiliate! V. excited about seeing this on the toast. Unfortunately I didn’t go to the LKWD fest because I was working bbuutttt
I am sorry for her, but I am sorrier for you, who will soon be sick and pregnant and denied all the decent drugs.
I think Paul Bloom might secretly be me. I’ve been convinced for years that empathy is a poor substitute for morality, and until now, it seemed like I was the only one who thought that way.
It is my personal headcanon, and it makes me very happy, in a sea of Moffat Women making speeches about who's the prettiest and who gets to have a boyfriend, to imagine Sue Perkins bouncing around the universe being interested in things, making bad puns and being kind to people.
90% of the time it turns out they were really looking for someone to tell them they were brilliant and perfect the whole time
I'm really with you on this, and it's exhausting trying to work out what you're supposed to say, and what they really want from you.
I've got a handful of people I can ask for real feedback, and I'm about to approach all of them to read a draft of my novel, but when it comes to proper editing? I'm not going to ask any of them. Because I need a stranger… someone who's not invested at all in our relationship.
Absolutely. My American friends often give me a crit-sandwich, which is endearing. My British friends are MUCH more blunt. My Australian friends need a real push to say anything bad at all. There is a lot of reading between the lines that goes on!
I'm not familiar–except on a very superficial level–with the Midwestern or the NY culture enough to comment, but I can kind of imagine where you're coming from there.
I worked for a woman who had come to Canada from Poland in the 1980s. She came with nothing and did all kinds of terrible work while going to night school to learn English and business management. She used to complain to me about Canadian niceness. She didn’t understand why she was expected to politely request we do things rather than tell us what to do. She found our niceness to be a weird facade we used to cover our true feelings. I really liked working for her. Once I got used to her bluntness.