If ONE MORE PERSON says “What if they’d medicated Van Gogh!?” I think I’m permitted to set things on fire. If they’d medicated Van Gogh, he’d either have painted twice as much, or he’d have been happy and unproductive. And you know what? Starry Night wasn’t worth a terrible price in human misery. It’s neat. It wasn’t worth it.
Sometimes I wonder if being an artist makes me jaded to ART. Because it’s not magic and it’s not mystical, it’s just paint or pixels. And it can do amazing things! But you don’t owe humanity to be miserable just so you can move paint around in interesting shapes. Jesus. Art is not some kind of Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas bargain where you agree to be miserable so everybody can go “oh! Neat!” for 5 minutes.
Ursula Vernon, dropping the mic. [x] (via magdaliny)
“Art is not some kind of Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas bargain where you agree to be miserable so everybody can go ‘oh! Neat!’ for 5 minutes.”
But you guys don’t understand, the woman who does this makes other robots and they are all fucking awesome and hilarious. She has a youtube channel and she posts regularly on r/shittyrobots and I’m in love
She’s an awesome woman who codes and builds robots and I think we need more women like her in the world.
watch the vlogs too because she’s also really funny
1/14/2016 Today Soup-Nose the goat suddenly forgot How To Exist As A Three Dimensional Object. She was in the same milking stanchion we’ve been using to milk her almost every day for three years, but was somehow shocked and amazed by the fact that her horns would not pass through the metal bar. It took twenty minutes of vigorous and muddy goat wrestling to get her out.
Between this and the time a couple weeks ago when she unlatched the chicken house, ate 40 pounds of chicken food, and was still hungry for dinner – where did the chicken food go? that’s a third her weight – I am starting to wonder if I can sign her up for some sort of remedial course on Your Life As A Three Dimensional Being Inside A Pseudo-Riemmanian Manifold or something.
Or “Mom Knight” which is what I kept calling it for most of the time I worked on this. This was my story for Valor, a fairy tale anthology I was in last year! It’s a really great book, and I’m so glad I got to be a part of it. You can purchase a copy here.
A friend of mine is a government documents librarian, and he wrote today on facebook:
“The 1940 U.S. Census reported more than 1,100 women with the occupations
of locomotive engineers or firemen. The published Census reports
listed them as “Tailors and tailoresses.“”
Falsely reporting the data to preserve the status quo, exhibit A.
My librarian friend further reports that explaining the intricacies behind why they did this would take ten minutes, but that it boils down to ‘cover your ass.’ So, still – protecting the perceived status quo.
WOW OKAY he just explained it got so much more banal. Still sexist – at least, a reflection of sexism from decades prior – but more convoluted. See:
“Oh
boy. Here we go down the rabbit hole. Starting in 1910 they used sex
as a way to double check machine tabulation of the records. In other
words, if a woman was listed in an unusual occupation, they checked the
original record (ditto for children listed
as lawyers, people over 90, etc.). Inevitably this meant that female
numbers were depressed (if not suppressed). By 1940 when it was obvious
that the early numbers were way too low, they either had to admit the
earlier screw-up, or be currently accurate (thereby suggesting a HUGE
increase in women in unusual occupations) or hide them in similar
occupation classes. RR engineers and tailoresses were considered to be
in the same class: semi-skilled, I believe. So as I said, more CYA than
deliberate sabotage. Clear?”
SO. Initial assumptions lead to depressed numbers of women in ‘odd’ occupations. So they hid the ladies so no one could tell their statistical oops from earlier.
Not ‘falsely reporting data to preserve the status quo,’ as I originally assumed (BAD SHADES), but falsely reporting data to make it look like you hadn’t been screwing up for years prior… said screw-ups being themselves based on the perceived status quo.
Which makes a ton of sense, really. People making bad decisions based on assumptions is a lot more common than people setting out to be malicious, I think.
Earlier this morning I was listening to Pete Williams on MSNBC saying there’s basically precedent on both sides for what the Republicans are now trying to do: block the President from making a Supreme Court nomination at the beginning of the last year of his term, and that the GOP has plenty of precedent on its side. That is frankly an astonishing claim, with virtually no history to support it. It is also a sobering example of how successful Republicans are usually and are now at working the mainstream media to normalize what are in fact unprecedented actions.
It is also a sobering example of how successful Republicans are
usually and are now at working the mainstream media to normalize what
are in fact unprecedented actions.
Hint: None of them set the precedent Pete Williams and Republicans now claim exist.
Look, if I was on a hiring committee for a job that needed doing and I swore to block every candidate before even knowing who they are, people would be totally justified in saying that I was failing to do my job. That’s exactly what this is: intentional refusal to do the job they’re paid to do for political gain.