digital_snowflake: (Default)
So... minecraft is sort of one of those things that my gaming group has discovered. On a whim, I decided to use my old computer to host a minecraft server. I got it done today, as well as getting the port open. I suppose I need to configure an access list of some kind, but it's up and running.

I'm rather proud of myself. I took an outdated Ubuntu machine, updated it, set it up appropriately for the network, got the proper libraries installed, then set up the network to allow access to the port for minecraft on that machine alone. While this may seem simple to you, it's the first time I've done any of this without someone sitting over my shoulder and feeding me numbers.

So, I'm in a good mood. n.n

Bein' odd

Jan. 7th, 2011 03:13 pm
digital_snowflake: (Default)
On a whim, I went looking at naginata online last night, and discovered that there is actually training for it (naginatajutsu) going on in the United States.

One of these places doing the training is out in Bellevue.

See?

Well, to be more specific, there's Tues/Thurs classes in Bellevue and Saturday classes in Mercer Island. But for all it's worth they might as well be on the moon for me; I can't do the Saturday classes due to prior commitment and the weekday classes are full to the best of my knowledge. And even were they not, it'd still be a two hour transit each way.

Though I will find it something to keep in mind for the future.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Someone recently confronted me with what was, in their eyes, a contradiction that I'd presented to them. I maintain that people, by and large, are individually stagnant, which is to say that they don't do much in the way of changing their behaviors, their opinions, or their methods of thought. They follow the patterns laid down during the pruning stage, and that's pretty much that. This isn't to say that it's impossible, merely that it's highly unlikely, and in order to do so effectively requires maintaining their interest and presenting them with information in such a way as it does not conflict with previously held data. Moreover, this level of awareness isn't considered important, and in its way is the antithesis of any evolutionary developments towards efficiency in thought. There is some evidence to suggest that our logical fallacies and our "skill" with probability relates to this tendency towards efficiency as something of a survival mechanism.

However, this person couldn't understand how my view on people being mostly incapable of change to the greater situation of societal change in the first place. It sounded, to him, like my statement of individual people not changing translated to a stasis in culture, which he had multiple points to disprove. And, y'know, more than ever we're in a culture which is changing for reasons that I'm about to go into.

It boils down to this. Society is an aggregation of individuals over time. Those last two words are the important part here, because the system is not static. People are being born, people are dying. Particularly, people don't become locked-in until after the pruning stage; before this their context of society is still developing, influenced by the behaviors of their peers and the actions and *responses* to social deviance that they see. This is hugely important at this stage in "the world" because of the internet!

The internet, in this context, is merely a byword. What's more important is the amount of information that people are subjected to, or that they can access simply by indulging their curiosity. It's this information, especially during the teenage years, that determines what the context of society is going to be for that segment of the populace. This is how it has always been; it's the cornerstone of how we determine what is "right" and what is "wrong" in the first place.

We develop our norms through mirror behavior. Monkey-see, Monkey-do. Smaller communities tend to be more strongly normative and have stronger restrictions on behavior and less tolerance for deviance, on the whole, than larger communities. Or, to put this in more precise terms, population density is a key factor for determining the strength of norms.

This is a probabilistic function, at this point: larger populations have more deviance simply because there are more people. It has nothing to do with 'people in cities are different from people in the countryside'. People, by and large, and people, and follow the same developmental and behavioral patterns in a sufficiently generalized fashion. (Meaning that while behavioral practices may differ, the way they're approached, the reason behind them, and the ultimate functions remain sufficiently similar.) This generalization gets less and less the closer cultures are together for purposes of influencing and development. In short: someone a hundred miles from you over level terrain capable of being crossed in two hours by car isn't sufficiently different from you to claim them as another species altogether.

What cities have traditionally done, however, is provide more opportunities for deviance to arise by virtue of having more people for deviance to arise in. The probabilities do not change, but a probability of 1/1000, for example, means that in a town of a thousand people it may not even have one, but in a city of a few million it'll possess enough to populate that original town. The ratios stay the same, though the outcome is certainly different.

Understanding this is key to the next part, though: we develop our norms through what we're subjected to. If we see our peers treating others with respect and kindness, we're more likely to develop along those lines. If we see lynchings and bonfires, we're more likely to develop along those lines. Those areas of low population density are traditionally seen as backwater because of those norms, because they aren't subject to the same level of deviance as is held in the cities. Because of that, they hold more strongly to their norms, and deviance isn't put up with as it is in more populated areas.

However, we're entering a period of time in which the rate of change is beginning to happen remarkably fast, considering the history of the species. In part it's because of the number of humans on the planet (considered to be roughly 7 billion at this point) and in part because of our access to information.

We see much more than we saw before, and our culture is developing a distinct tolerance for deviance--change, in the more common parlance.

Heh. Enlightenment through internet. This amuses me.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
A thought came to me earlier when explaining why social change seems to take forever to accomplish, why it seems to be utterly glacier in comparison to other forms of change, and why we're rather resistant to it on the whole. Mind you, that's a statement I'm sure I've made before, but it brought to mind some other interesting idea that has been gone over, though I'm not sure it's been quite approached from the perspective I've seen it, myself.


It can be posited that authority systems have their rule-sets based in the social norms of the groups wherein it is created. I don't know how tautological this is, but basically: our legal rules are such because we believe, on the whole, that such things are wrong.

Admittedly, this is only in theory, and it breaks down once we apply the influence of resources and the distribution of power based on those resources as an influence on it. Yet the majority of people still have a stake in many issues, and these issues are the ones that reflect the held norms of the people involved.

Looking back through history, there's always been an organization of some kind which serves as the institution for norms. I'm curious now how institutions develop, potentially as an outgrowth of societal norms. Just something for me to think about.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
I wish I could remove myself from politics. Even if I disengage from those sources where I normally come across it (newscasts), I find myself buried in a deluge of partisanship and politics in the online social circles I frequent.

This is moderately annoying, because by and large, I don't care overmuch what happens in politics. Why? The system is broken. You, the you who are reading this, know this: we currently have a hot-button measure of whatever's at work, a democracy trying to act spry to deal with the issues of a populace that takes an immediate and simplistic view of the matters at hand. We have a culture of political myopia, where people rally around the most asinine of points and, in the end, nothing much gets done.

Meh. I just want to crawl into a hole and pull it over my head until the crazies finish blowing each other up. It feels like the leadup to fascism and, however truthful this feeling may or may not be, it's turning my stomach.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Not that this will be particularly entertaining to many of you, but I find it hilarious. I've been watching a group of people online, and the discussion was about how to behave in public. I'm contributing in my usual way, talking with someone who actually is trained in the fields of sociology and psychology and making him happy that I know this too, but that's beside the point.

What the amusing part was that someone is working on building a primer of some kind for undersocialized furries so that they know how to behave in public without being triggering a normative response from the people around them. (Not that he put it in those terms, but he wasn't thinking of it like that; it just so happened that's what he was doing.) However, someone else started immediately attacking him for 'telling people how they should behave and what to believe' and practically running down the list of genuine normative behaviors in order to get him to capitulate.

Hence, irony.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Benoit Mandelbrot apparently died today, according to the internets.

At my own risk:

I guess that he...

*dons sunglasses*

Completed his set.

*ducks, flees, giggles madly*
digital_snowflake: (Default)
I bloody loathe furries today. Not any single person in particular, merely a loathing for the entire bag of neurotic behaviors and impropriety that likes to address itself as the archetype of the furry fandom.

So, I admit, I'm a little bored. I've been writing and getting work done solely because I hate everyone recently, and the normal levels of stupidity that would just blow over me harmlessly are pushing the buttons in my head that make me want to engage in wholesale wanton slaughter. This is, of course, hyperbole, but regardless, it's still seriously annoying me.

Honestly, in part it's because I'm thoroughly disconnected from furries at this point in my life. I don't attend furry events, and my only regular contact with anything 'furry' in person is Chris whose connection to it is entirely image-based, these days. Our friends are all fairly successful geeks (married, with jobs, the whole in-their-thirties thing). I'm more busy with working on writing these days to actually spend much significant time on furry networks, and when I do, I'm left with this sincere feeling of disappointment that they're all so very shallow.

Granted, this could be simply because that's all they're showing, because, lo and behold, social networks, and one in particular that rewards straightforwardness and a lack of ambiguity. It's only causal that this would result in a populace which is permanently straightforward and seemingly shallow when dealing with other people. Even so, I'm so very bored with shallow.

Of course, there's a bunch of people-things that I'm bored with of late. The reflexive no, the inability to think through situations, the various concept-links that populate the popular ideological matrix--I don't really have a good term for this offhand; it's whatever you'd call the shared set of ideas that enable and allow people to communicate and have things mean the same things. I don't doubt that it's useful, and my point taken to extremes would be so much "Chicken", but sometimes the concept-links that associate certain ideas are just so faulty as to make me want to cry. Especially in politics.

I've been reading Transmetropolitan again. Bear with this diversion; it's somewhat related. I found myself marveling today at a panel in the first book, in which Jerusalem makes a single-panel reference to the bicameral mind, something I'd missed in previous readings. It made me warm and fuzzy inside.

Went back to something I hadn't realized I'd missed. Spent most of last night--hours of it--just working out stories in my head. Scenes, just playing with my imagination and seeing how things would work out. It's an important part of trying to get things written for me, of seeing how they play out instead of simply writing the outline. It tells me how the world works for them, how they respond, what they feel and what happens next.

I should get out more. There are things to remember; of watching cherry blossoms fall like ash, caught in the wind and pressed against the dank grey sky of autumn in Seattle. Memories of gangers sitting and waiting, of hookers flashing potential johns, of petty criminals and more upstanding ones. Of cigarettes abandoned before their time, of people standing on the street with signs asking for money, providing reasons why they should get it in preference to the next one over. Of the madness of people wandering the streets, sleeping in doorways and bringing their devout message to anyone who'll listen. Of people trying so very hard to make a buck without begging, busking on the street using the most absurd of skills.

These are the important things; these are the things which piss me off to no small end. These are the things that need to be remembered because they are the things that remind us that not everything is sweetness and light. Sure, they're sitting on the very bottom of the population probability curve. So what?

Trying to find a way to make all of this sit together cohesively. Everything's all fucked up, so fucked up, and it's all because of how we're wired, how we think, how we're built on such a fundamental nature that change isn't possible given the current situation. The flaws of society aren't simple; they're restrictions built into our brains that we can spend all of our lives trying to overcome, because we can't look outside and see it all. Because we're not designed to.

Posthuman? The word is accurate, but the idea is corrupt, debased, linked to so many different things now that it might as well mean the same thing as dogshit. I get it, now. It means getting over the little flaws in our neurology that make it so that we think that our success is ours, our failures belong to others, and that the guy on the street deserves his punishment as much as the man down the street deserves his millions.

This isn't a declaration against the rich. Far from it; ideas such as 'deserve' aren't integrated into this yet by me. You get what you get. Deserve implies an order, a system, a way things ought to be, implicit and levied by whatever measure of fate you ascribe to.

I haven't any more to say tonight. These are my thoughts; whatever they may be.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
“Do you believe in destiny?”
This is not the question most people expect to be asked when sitting down for a drink.
“What?”
The owner of the voice dropped onto the stool beside me, back kept to the bar, arms folded across his chest. “Do you believe in destiny?” he repeated, in the same careful, questioning voice.
Normally I'd write this kind of thing off—I mean, come on, what kind of lame pick-up line is that?--but this time, there was something serious about the guy, even if he was a total freak.
“What kind of a man wears sunglasses indoors, at night?” I asked, pointing at the wraparound glasses, tinted practically to black, on the guy's face.
He finally turned to face me, though contrary to what I'd imagined he'd do, the glasses stayed on. He didn't look like a crazy person. At a more serious glance, he looked like someone who'd stepped straight out of some kind of pulp novel of detectives, complete with beige trench-coat and fedora. “The kind that doesn't want to show his eyes,” was his sincere response, one eyebrow raised beneath the brim of that hat. “I have a job for you.”
“What is this, Mastercheese theater?” I asked, taking to my feet to walk away. “Honestly, you've got to have better things to do than offer cheesy pick-up lines.”
I'd like to say that there was something in his manner that stopped me, but in truth, it was his grip. Like a snake, he'd uncoiled and grabbed my arm, his grip like a vice. I'm not a small person, by and large, and despite my disdain leveled at him I really was looking for a job, which ratcheted up my own paranoia quite a bit more. Where he looked to be playing the role, I was a private investigator; licensed with my own business. “Do you have any idea who I am?” I icily told him, looking to lock eyes with those hidden behind those damned shades.
“Diana Aisling,” came that same tone of complete sincerity. “I need you to locate the Heart of the Many.”
“This is an actual job offer?” I asked. “Pardon my incredulity, but most people who have jobs for me usually call my cell or make an appointment at the office.” The man's hand relaxed around my arm and I made a show of pulling it free. I wanted to walk away, just because of this breach of decorum, but I really, really needed the job. The office wasn't going to be mine much longer without being able to pay the bills. With a sigh of regret, I saddled the stool in front of me again, hands wrapped around the remnants of my drink. “What do you want?”
“The Heart of the Many,” he repeated in that same earnest voice, as though this matter were of significant importance. “I am aware that you can locate it.”
“Never heard of it,” I answered, tipping the glass back and emptying it out. “What the hell is this 'Heart of the Many' thing, anyway? And why do you need someone to find it for you?” The man's head tilted as though he couldn't understand what I was asking. “Look, guy, I don't work for free, and I sure as hell don't do snipe hunts. You're going to tell me what this thing is, or I'm just going to walk out of here, and your little hearts can just go hang themselves for what I care.”
“Not hearts. Just the one.” He turned his head to face away from the bar, a scowl of concentration on his face. “It is... not something easily explained. But I can tell you where to find it.” He stretched a finger out to the door, pointing beyond it. “It's out there, somewhere.”
I'd had enough. “Do you really think,” I spouted angrily, fetching my tab out of my wallet and slamming it down on the bar, “that I'm going to put up with this crazy act? Look, man, I don't know who you are, but I'd suggest to take your stalker habits elsewhere before I call the cops.”
It was at this point that he reached up to remove the glasses. “Is this an act?” he asked in a thoughtful voice, turning his gaze to look at me. His eyes were completely silver, like staring into a pair of pools of mercury. Such was my surprise that I stumbled back, still tangled with the stool beneath me, only managing to catch myself from falling by dint of luck.
“Just—look, just stay away, okay? I don't need this job, I don't want to deal with you and your creepy, fucked up little... everything!” I screamed, drawing glances from the other patrons of the bar. As each of their conversations stopped at my interruption, every single one of them gave me this horrible rictus grin, each and every one of them sharing the same silver eyes as the man at the bar.
I'm not a proud woman. I know when it's time for me to run away, and it was that time. Bolting through the door, I didn't even check to see if any of the crazy silver-eyed people were following me as I burst out onto the street. A street I'd never seen before, in point of fact. I may not live in the best neighborhood possible, but even where I live wasn't this... decayed.
The street was a wrecked cobblestone ruin, fungal caps sticking out of the mortar between the broken blocks like weeds. Even the stones themselves were stained nearly to black, though what would have caused such a thing I couldn't say, as there was no traffic going by, neither vehicle or pedestrian. No signs, no lampposts, no fire hydrants marred the street; only the broken blocks of the shattered skyscrapers around me, crumbled and left as nothing more than the skeletal steel frame, their stone facades wrecked and littering the ground before.
All up and down the street that I could see the same story played out, and not a soul beside myself. Not that I could see very far; without any artificial lighting, the only thing that was providing any contrast for me to see by was the pink sky above, that salmon color that cities get at night when it's going to rain hard, providing just enough light to see by and certainly not enough to dispel the worries of things haunting those shattered spires above.
I backed nervously into the wall behind me; whatever door that I'd walked through moments before had disappeared, leaving me in this desolate nightmare landscape with only a jacket and my wallet in hand.
“I am so very screwed,” were the first words out of my mouth.
“Screwed? Nah, that'll come later,” came a voice from the shadows behind me, causing me to jump out into the cobblestone street, straining to glare at wherever the voice had come from.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
It seems, again, that the clarion call of minimalism has been taken up around the country. I've talked on the matter before in various statements; this particular goal is nothing new, but the ideology that supports it is once again gaining momentum. This idea--that government is nothing but a burden--is gaining momentum again around the country, having become the national rallying points of the Republican Party and the rival younger sibling of the Tea Party.

Of course, it's nothing new. "Small government" has been a calling point of Republicans for quite some time. For over a century, the big businesses have been allied with the Republican party, and the same arguments that we've been hearing against social reform and security nets are the same arguments that have been trotted out and levied against anyone who threatens the status quo of business gains.

What's surprising to me is that it seems that quite a number of people have deen drinking the kool-aid on this one of late. The ideology has shifted in a small but very important way, the key of which is that the government is incapable. Of what? It doesn't matter. What is important is demonstrating by dint of obstruction that the government is weak, unable to make or meet certain goals, and that it can't be counted upon to do anything except serve maliciously. These are the ideas which are being spread about the government: that it steals from you, that it threatens you, that it looms over you, promising gold and leaving dross.

What the Republican and Tea Party line wishes for is a weak government, whose policies are small and cannot be enforced. This is the traditional conservative view: "Let me do what I want to do." Which sounds all well and good, really. Nobody likes to be told they can't do something. As children we throw fits, as teenagers we rebel, and as adults we gripe against those things which tell us that we can't do what we want to do. This, in the view of many, is what the American dream is.

Except that the dream is being sold to you corrupted. As Americans currently, we enjoy freedoms which would make previous generations swoon with envy and shock alike. Indeed, we have no secret police dragging people off for mysterious reasons, and even if our human rights record isn't sterling at the moment, by and large we've haven't set our worried little hearts on the mysterious and elusive "Enemy Within". We have the lowest tax rate in history for a modernized nation, and we possess significant freedoms. Yet these are glossed over, because the deconstructed version of the statement "They can't tell us what to do" is "They are telling us what to do". These talking heads, these propoganda-spewing demagogues, are spouting that the government currently restricts us and that it's their duty to take us into freedom.
These same people are the ones who wish to legislate morality under the guise of protecting culture. These same people are the ones who wish to take checks and balances off of systems which can readily spin out of control. These same people are teh ones who wish to liberate businesses, for many of whom nationality is a convenience, who can and have happily taken their business to places around the globe where they can make the most money, leaving American bereft of significant income. It's true, what they say, that the overall number of jobs remained the same for this. However, the number of jobs does not equate to the quality of these jobs, and many of the high-paying manufacturing positions were replaced within the minimum wage service industry, resulting in a net loss of money to those people who work for a living.

The strategy is simple, obvious, and most importantly, working. I will not make many predictions, but I will say that, unless the Republicans seriously screw up who they present for office in 2012, the Presidency will shift again to the red. The policies of obstruction, mudslinging, lying, and generally doing everything in their power to make the government seem weak are working, and all they need to do is say 'We will do things' and people will gobble it up like paupers begging for food at the back door of the Ritz.
Of course, the recognition of a problem is easy. Anyone can say 'that's a problem!' without doing anything about it. Many do; who has the resources to combat this kind of issue, after all? Still, it would be remiss of me, knowing the problem, to not offer some measure of solution for it. It wouldn't be easy, because the dialogue is controlled in what Orson Welles had called Doublespeak: the art of saying something which means its opposite to the people using it, but sounds like a good idea to those hearing it. We protect freedom by curtailing rights. We protect culture by outlawing difference. The first step to this is to take back the dialogue. Know the truth, know the facts, and present the facts as they are. Doublespeak is misdirection on the linguistic level, and the "Truth" they so proudly proclaim has the singular flaw of not being true.

Still, this situation will not take the field completely. People will believe what they already know; this is termed precedence and almost always takes the place of rational behavior and thought in those that would claim otherwise. Even most that would read this; it's a function of human psychology. Ask yourself: did you believe these before reading this? Would you think that someone who disagrees with them would mystically turn their view around? This small issue means that the argument is not easily resolved or the battle easily won, because the people who support these political vampires have fallen for the speeches: that they're protecting liberty, they're restoring honor, they're bringing glory, they're protecting the rights of people.

This fight isn't easy, and it isn't going to be won overnight. But the weapons of this war are truth and information- and providing the information and the truth will at least level the playing field of this propoganda-laden morass of popular culture that the Republican and Tea Parties are bringing to the country.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Despite the title, this isn't exactly a psych paper of any sort, but just something that I kind of intuited. It's something that amuses me greatly to think of it, because as far as I can tell, it fits because of the interleaving of the kinds of social mores and the way they're handled as a matter of drama coming out.

Not that this will be a surprise for those people more involved with psychology as a practical field; this is hardly new ground I'm breaking. However, it's an interesting look, and something I'm going to share with you lot in hopes that those of you who aren't familiar with it have some measure of expanded learning.

Everyone in my social circles is vaguely familiar with the concept of the social norm and normative behavior, or at least think they are. I've had charges of engaging in normative behaviors leveled at me in the past, and it's for that reason alone that I'm going into this.

Normative behaviors aren't behaviors which match up to social norms. They are, instead, the little social influences which are leveled to try and influence people to engage in those self-same norms. Behaviors such as shunning, gossiping, or the resultant loss of face in social circles is, by and large, the effect of normative behavior on the offending individual by their social circle. It's not always done intentionally, or rather, it's not necessarily done with the thought of 'making that person do the right thing'.

The behaviors in question which lead to normative influence are mostly social information trafficking and nitpicking for social face among groups. The more insular and tightly knit the group is and the more certain they are of their own social identity, the more stringent these unwritten rules are going to be. A failure to live up to these unwritten rules by both those involved in the group and those aspiring to the group result in this information being spread around the group, effectively forming the pecking order of authority as it comes from a group.

Drama, as it's known, is typically the intersection of this social information traffic meeting opposing camps of thought within the same general school. Drama in this instance is almost a sorting mechanism or training procedure to determine by means of public influence and debate the way that a certain group's developing social norms are going to be.

It's worth noting that social norms are not static, and not all members of the social group may hold the same ones; in essence, this is the root of all drama- the disparate ideals of 'what is right' among the members of these groups and the response given by those people who are offended among differing degrees.

Sorting out drama- or rather, how it comes to rest- depends on the group. Largely, isolation is the answer as the social groups splinter, unable to reconcile their differences, as at least one party's norms are too stringent for participation by the others if not both. The secondary effects of drama are little more than reinforcement of the social norms in play, reminding everyone involved via gossip and the usual social information trafficking of what the expectations of belonging to the group are.

In essence, drama serves an important part in social identity, as well as developing and determining the limits of behavior that certain groups are expected to go through and into.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Chris got the job. Good money, good transit, good people, salaried, and something more interesting than resetting the passwords for flight attendants.

That is all.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
So, I finally decided to mention this today, because it's hit a critical point of amusement for me. I've been getting called cynical in places where jaded and cynical is the norm. I'm not particularly bitter, hate-filled, misanthropic, or even particularly jaded (any more than normal, at least), yet my comments are being met with a cavalcade of 'that's cynical!' at least once a day for the past five and twice today so far.

Granted, it's not like I don't understand why I'm getting the words. I'm being critical of things in the sense that I'm pointing out what is going on, and in the specific instances I'm mentioning, it's being interpreted that I'm generalizing to everyone, hence when I make a bitter comment about someone complaining about people not paying attention to them, it's interpreted as though I expect everyone to act in this way. Hence, cynical.

Still, it amuses me.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Of course, I expect at least someone to throw a fit at me for this, but I don't expect that I've done wrong, and that I've done more good than not by this. And for those of you with an understanding of how this works, I hope you'll appreciate this.

I got a self-diagnosed (read: someone who claims to have it but never received professional diagnosis) Aspie to consider and eventually acknowledge that he didn't have Asperger's. In the middle of an argument with someone else who was trying to abuse it out of him, which, as my understanding goes, is a bit like trying to convince Rush Limbaugh that socialism is good while he's ranting about the glories of capitalism. (Well, perhaps not that bad, but to give an idea.)

I dissected his argument, displayed understanding, provided context for what he thought was Aspergers, gave him information as to what Asperger's is, and provided him an alternative to his situation which fell more in line with what he was trying to get across as to what his issue with dealing with other people was. (In this case, namely that he had insufficient experience to build a sufficiently real probabilistic model of other people's behavior-- he could posit reasons and understand why they might act the way they were, but he didn't have sufficient social experience outside of furry circles in order to put together a working model of social norms. The proofs demonstrated by me were that he could function and readily understand other furries' behavior because he was cognizant of their norms, having been exposed to them. This was reinforced in my opinion by his comment of his continually being a shut-in, coming out only in the furry fandom.)

So yes. I'm a little proud of this, perhaps inordinately so.

The disclaimer: Yes, I do know that Asperger's is real and that it can be severely crippling to those that have it. I don't make the assumption that just because someone claims to have it that he's making it up. In this case, I could read this guy like a book, and he displayed none of the signs that I've come to associate with Asperger's. Besides, I maintain that, if he were genuinely Asperger's, he wouldn't have changed his mind in light of my comments. In my opinion, he was only looking for a reason as to why he didn't get along, and lacking a broad enough body of knowledge to be able to reference, took the first thing that came up as a means of explaining why he didn't get along well in public. On providing a more complete framework, he adopted the new one in favor of the old, considering that it fit better with his own experiences, and hopefully will give him sufficient consideration that he can build a working model of dealing with others, instead of being locked in the belief that he can't.

And this has been my good deed for the day. Cheers!
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Working on a novel idea that's bouncing around in my head. Or rather, I'm working on the form of it; I've got the general idea of what needs to happen and how, but the specifics are all kind of fuzzy at this point. This document is mostly for my own reference for themes, meanings, and intent, though if anyone wants to have a go and give some kind of feedback to point out things I might have missed, feel free.

Read more... )

yay heat~

Aug. 17th, 2010 05:53 pm
digital_snowflake: (Default)
Pushing 90 again today. Sitting around half naked (again) because of this, trying to keep cool. There are days when I wish I could stand to do the whole nudist thing! (And we pause now as people claw their eyes from their sockets at that particular mental image! <3)

I got out today for the first time in a while, just to wander downtown for a bit. Didn't get anything, but that's okay. I got to people-see. Someone with a day's stubble in PINK- a pink pullover blouse, a pink skirt, and pink dangly jewelry everywhere. There was also, on the same bus, someone in a shirt that could have doubled as a negligee. I just didn't want to see his nipples through that shirt. I probably could've seen an appendectomy scar, if I'd decided to actually *look* for it.

I mean, it sounds like I'm complaining, but I'm not. Seeing people like that remind me that the world is weird and strange, and there's sufficient weirdness about to keep things at least interesting. Or, in another way, that deviance is alive and well in Seattle still.
digital_snowflake: (Default)
"Why does the Enlightened Man not stand and explain himself?"
digital_snowflake: (Default)
So I finally got to play my first Shadowrun game ever. I've been GMing it for two months, but today I got to whip my cybernetic hacking machine out, and ended up with gigglefits over what I'd done. Invading and raping computer systems, shutting down IC through nuking it to death, and driving the Magic School Bus From Hell via VR remote control was fun. Oh, and I got to use Blackout on some poor soul who didn't even see me. So Very Fun.

I'm looking forward to actually GMing again in two weeks, though. Just so many things going on in the world with the PCs that they're not entirely geared up for, as they have a cyberzombie from Aztechnology on their asses (along with a significant amount of resources dedicated to ending their existences), as well as a smaller Mitsuhama contingent (a guy who's looking to cover his ass from selling them out to the aforementioned Aztechnology, and is currently on the face's death list). I've more or less left it to them in order to figure out what they'll be doing in order to get these monkeys off of their backs--if they succeed, they'll be famous in the shadows for surviving in the face of overwhelming odds. If they fail... well, they'll be dead. It's SR! \o/

The worst part about today is that it's currently 91 degrees. While not as nasty-hot as the rest of the country, this is the hottest it's been all year, and for once in my life I've had to get partly naked just to deal with it. (Though I'm indoors, but even so.)

Anyways. More later, after I've had some time to think about stuff.
Page generated Sep. 19th, 2026 03:20 pm
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios