— Peter Seebach
You never actually thought you’d meet them, of course. I mean, who would expect to? I mean, really, we all like to think we’re important, but we know that we’re just not that important, that we will never rate the attention of the truly great ones. So at first, it just seemed like they were a little rude. Maybe a little dismissive of other people. Who would have guessed, though, that you’d actually met the one person in the world whose time is the most valuable?
Of course, they never actually tell you that. Their time is too valuable to waste explaining how valuable it is. So they just ignore questions he doesn’t have time to answer. When they ask questions, they’re quick to express their disappointment that other people are under the mistaken impression that they have more important things to do than answer those questions. And if the answers aren’t detailed enough, they don’t waste their ever-so-valuable time researching, or thinking, or even articulating specifically what they’re missing. A simple “?” will suffice; the experienced user will usually know what is wrong.
It’s easy to mistake them for a troll, frankly, because their complete disregard for social niceties, or the notion that other people might have more important tasks, seems outright irrational if you don’t know who they are. It can take a while to realize just how blessed you are by their presence. Sadly, some people may not ever really figure it out. And that’s why I’m making this post. Because you know them, and the next time you meet them, you’ll recognize them.
— Peter Seebach
So, it has come to my attention that I am sometimes a little weird. No, wait. A lot weird. And this isn’t just a matter of being autistic; even comparing my behavior to that of other autistics I know, I am somewhat further out there in some ways. So, as a result of this, I’ve spent a cheerful hour or so filling out the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI), this being the “restructured” version of the MMPI-2.
The MMPI is sort of magic. See, instead of trying to figure out what answers mean, they went with a radically different approach: Drop the theoretical basis, go with raw numbers. The test consists of a large series of true/false questions. Lots of people take the test. Many of them have known traits. Correlations are discovered between answers and traits. It does not matter why these correlations exist. Since there are a ton of questions, you can get a pretty good estimate of the likelihood that someone has a given trait without any actual understanding of the mechanism.
Which is, it turns out, useful.
One common complaint about the MMPI is that people may misunderstand the questions. The beauty of the mechanism is that, as long as other people with similar traits tend to misunderstand the questions the same way, it still works. But I found a few questions interesting, and felt like commenting on them, and on my responses to them.
9. I often feel guilty because I pretend to feel more sorry about something than I really do.
Answer: False. I sometimes pretend to feel more sorry about something than I really do, because if I don’t, people feel like I don’t care about them. Maybe I don’t. I don’t know; I am inclined to feel that “preferring that they not feel bad” is a kind of caring, but it’s not the same as the one where you automatically feel sorry about things, apparently. But why would I feel guilty about that? I think the assumption is that some people who do this feel like there is some way in which their not-feeling-sorry is a bad thing. I don’t get it. I am this; I am not something else. I can’t feel good or bad about that. I don’t really have a lot of experience of “guilt” in any recognizable form.
199. Peculiar odors come to me at times.
Answer: False. Actually, it’s obviously true, but I think the intent of the question is to imply that these odors are not adequately explained by things like “my spouse has a cat who has never quite come to terms with the notion of fully digesting food”. In short, I think they are looking for olfactory hallucinations, not people whose cats are perenially mildly unwell.
134. I am not easily angered.
155. I get mad easily then get over it soon.
Answers: True, and True. You might think these contradictory. The distinction I’m making is that “easily angered” implies (to my reading) that I am the passive object of some other actor’s angering behavior. So, say, taking offense at something someone says is “being angered”. But getting mad is different. And it is fairly hard for other people to anger me, but quite easy for me to get mad about things and then get over it.
279. Most men are unfaithful to their wives now and then.
Answer: False. I sort of suspect a lot of the questions that use qualifiers like “most” or “hardly ever” or whatever intend statements about representativeness, but I tend to interpret them as statistical claims. So I have been told that roughly 60% of people have at least one affair. But! “now and then” implies, to me, more than one event. And I am pretty sure that at least a fair number of people have one affair, but not two. So that would put us under the 50% mark. Thus, not “most”.
In general, there’s a certain amount of ambiguity, and I suspect that the MMPI may produce less useful results when taken by autistics, because some questions may be persistently misunderstood in ways that differ from the normal ways you’d expect for whatever other madnesses they may have.
I have filled out the entire form except the “gender” item. I’m aware that I have very little measurable gender identity. I suspect that I am more inclined to identify as female than as male, except that in the lack of any significant dysphoria, it’s a lot simpler to just present as male. But for purposes of norming answers to tests? Suddenly that seems like it might be worth getting “right”, except of course that I have no idea what the right answer is.
— Peter Seebach
But you don’t have to assume her anymore. I have her.
I mean, strictly speaking, she’s not spherical. But she’s certainly a little on the pudgy side, and is the most unreasonably happy cat I have ever seen. Things that make her purr:
- Petting her.
- Being near her without petting.
- Feeding her.
- Not having fed her yet, but having the ability to provide food in the future.
- Looking at her.
- Walking past her without looking at her.
- Pulling her tail.
- No, really. Pulling her tail. She starts purring.
- Lifting her back end by her tail until her back feet are completely off the ground, while she is eating.
- Providing cat treats.
- Making a string move.
- Writing blog posts while ignoring her.
- Moving heavy boxes past her.
- Pushing her face away from something she should not be chewing on.
The tail thing actually had me a bit worried that maybe she had nerve damage, but I once managed to pinch her tail hardenough that she made a questioning mew of “perhaps that is not quite as pleasant as I previously thought”. So she has nerve function there, she just likes all experiences rather than preferring some to others.
— Peter Seebach
Used to be, people were pretty shy about being gay, because it could get you in lots of trouble. Crazy, crazy, trouble. Not just being beaten or killed, but stuff like attempts to use mandatory hormone therapy to “treat” it. And this was a horrible situation. Thing is, this didn’t mean gay people didn’t want relationships, it just meant they had to find subtle ways to indicate that they might be interested in such things. (People who read a lot of Pratchett may recognize a similarity to his dwarves, who do not distinguish between male and female in most contexts, considering it a rather personal thing, making their courtships rather more complicated.)
That’s not as true as it used to be. Sure, there’s still people who are not “out”. There’s still people whose parents do horrible things upon finding out that they have a gay kid. But it’s gotten a lot rarer. And the thing is, while “general acceptance” may be a fairly long way out, overt hostility has become something which is unambiguously shameful in the eyes of mainstream Western culture. And that part is sufficiently widespread that it’s not just true among “supporters” or “allies”, but just in general among the population.
Which results in a curious parallel situation. People who want to express contempt for gays can’t just come out and say it or they’ll be shamed and ostracized. So they have to try to sort of subtly hint that they would be receptive to such things, without actually saying them. They have to speak in euphemisms. They want to produce signals that other homphobes will recognize, but other people won’t. And of course, there’s always the risk that someone is just sounding them out to raise the alarm.
So when I ran into a guild which advertised “family values” in an MMO recently, and asked what they felt about LGBT families, the person I talked to had to try really hard to avoid giving any information. The fact that he didn’t feel comfortable giving a concrete answer tells you what the answer is, but preserves him a little bit of plausible deniability. But even though he presumably felt strongly that the policy he was advocating was a good one, it was nonetheless clear that he felt ashamed of it in some way. Which is, from my perspective, a good thing.
There is one key difference. Sexual orientation is, so far as anyone can tell, largely innate. No amount of suppression makes it go away. But bigotry is in general a learned trait. If people are uncomfortable asserting it clearly enough to teach it, a lot less of it will get picked up. The things the bigots say are things also said by people who really mean them. That makes it great camouflage, but it also means that they are not able to effectively promote their views.
And, as the nice folks say, it gets better. See, it’s not just that very few people are promoting anti-gay bigotry now, as compared to twenty or thirty years ago. It’s that the ones who are left are the ones who used to be the lunatic fringe. So when they talk, they really do come across as jerks. They are hostile, they are mean, and they are usually fundamentally ignorant of things that basically everyone else knows. And that means that even people who might otherwise agree with them don’t want to be seen to be associated with them.
The people who worked on the anti-gay constitutional amendment proposed in Minnesota a couple of years back (which got smacked down at the ballots last November) did a really amazing job of being visibly mean. I think that, if they’d simply shut up and not said anything, they might well have won; Minnesota as a whole has a lot of fairly religiously conservative folks who are not ready for change. But they didn’t shut up. They talked, and talked. And the venom and vitriol escalated as it looked less and less likely that they’d win. And it came to pass that they lost, badly, and that in less than a year past that, the legislature and governor totally removed gender qualifications from Minnesota’s marriage laws, because now Minnesotans are clearly aware that being opposed to this makes you a jerk. And we don’t like being jerks, ok?
There’s an in-game Pride parade in Rift tomorrow. We’ll get hecklers, and I am super happy about that, because every time they write their mean little chat messages, they will be reminding everyone else on the server that this is what anti-gay people are like; they are assholes. They are the folks who have to rain on someone else’s parade. They are not fun, they are not cool. They are not even “edgy”. They are just annoying. And they are a source of shame to the people who used to agree with them, but are being gradually driven away by the realization of just what it is that they’ve been allied with.
— Peter Seebach
Penny Arcade’s Gabe is doing the “poke the trans people” thing again (too lazy to link, its on the twitters). Gabe, dude. Claiming that anyone with a vagina is necessarily a woman is sort of a dick move (sorry, couldn’t pass on that straight line). It’s not cool or edgy. It’s also not usefully true. And the thing is, I totally get the idea that it would be nice if the world were nice and simple and everything fit into easy categories. But the world isn’t all that simple, not everything fits into easy categories, and dismissing people as not existing is an oversimplification with a significant body count.
Thing is, there’s a motive in here which isn’t all bad. There’s this ideal that gamers should get along and respect each other just because they’re gamers, and that subdividing the community will undermine this. So people identifying as “trans gamers” are undermining this ideal. And you know, that’s not an awful ideal. I’ll totally concede: It would be great if this were not a distinction anyone bothered to make.
The thing is, though, Gabe’s attacking the wrong people. He’s attacking the people who are pointing out that there’s trans gamers, and that they are a part of the community, and that they might have slightly different requirements from their games than other people. For instance, one of the reasons a lot of people I know don’t play WoW is that Blizzard won’t let you change your name without some kind of legal paperwork, which is no big deal for a lot of people, but a huge deal if your name is in fact likely to change. That’s an issue which nearly all trans gamers run into at some point, and which most other gamers don’t. And those distinctions exist, and they affect things. Same way that gamers who are married and raising kids might have different feelings about raid scheduling than gamers who don’t have either of those time commitments happening. It’s not inherently a huge deal.
But it’s a huge deal for LGBT gamers, because there are so many people who react with outright hostility and ostracization whenever they find out another gamer is gay, or trans, or whatever. And that’s a big problem. Maybe Gabe’s never had people kick him out of a guild he’d been in for three years because he mentioned a boyfriend. Some people have. You will occasionally see commentary on how shitty the video game industry is to women. And it is, indeed, spectacularly shitty to women. But you won’t see much if anything on the question of how the video game industry treats LGBT people, because for the most part it doesn’t. Xbox Live’s general use of “fag” as the gold standard insult is the state of the art. And the reason that still happens, and still gets tolerated, is that people habitually assume that all gamers are straight males.
So the solution is: Get people used to this. Get people past that first “hey this is really weird” thing and to the “oh, them again” phase. And that’s why you see all these people going out of their way to say “yeah, I’m a trans gamer” or “I’m a gay gamer”. Because they are doing the same thing in gaming that they do everywhere else; be visible enough for long enough that people get over their initial freak-outs.
So fussing at the people for coming out and saying “yeah, we exist, we play games, deal” is missing the point badly. If you really wanna get away from the subdivisions and special cases, you can actually help bring that about. You can stop poking fun at the freaks and start remembering that ideal of thinking that gamers are just gamers, and maybe promote that awareness a bit. What with having a huge and influential following. And that could, you know, actually help bring about a state where no one cares so much, and people stop making a big deal of it.
You could probably, if you hadn’t just made it clear that you were a hostile and uninterested audience, even get some of the hundreds of people who read your comic and know something about the issue to explain stuff to you since you’re apparently unable to do the research on your own. It’s okay! We can use little words.
— Peter Seebach
Was reading the Pathfinder (a tabletop RPG) book on game mastery, browsing their world-building stuff, came up with spare ideas.
I tend to have lots more ideas than time to do anything with, so, here’s a batch of spare ideas in case anyone needs them.
- They pointed out that nomadic people tend to be lower-tech than non-nomadic people. What if it were the other way around? So there are wandering nomads who come to cities, where the people of the cities trade them high quality simple goods for fancy things like clocks that are too hard for the city people to make. (Why? I dunno. Magic maybe. Maybe mana is a limited resource which regenerates slowly, and running things like clocks uses it up, and you need more than that to make them, so you can’t do this in cities. Maybe it’s secret technology that the nomads jealously guard. I have no idea.)
- They pointed out that the usual structure of feudal societies had nobility tending to be knights and such, with serfs being non-combatants. What if you had one feudal society in which swords were nobility, and mages were serfs, and one the other way around, and they were neighbors?
- Moon-based magic. This presumes something similar to the D&D “spells are used up and then you get more”. So magic is based on the moon; you don’t get new spells for the day when you sleep, you get new spells for the day when the moon rises. But wait! There’s three moons. Different casters are aligned with different moons. Key war strategy: Attack at a time when your heavy-hitters will be able to unload most of their magic right before moonrise.
- A technological revolution could make a really interesting fantasy RPG, although it’d be pretty far from the usual range of D&D.
— Peter Seebach
So, last night, there was hilarity. There was this guy, in Rift, who was… well. First off, I believe he was about 14. So he was being generically homophobic, as a lot of young teens are, and people were teasing him about it. And he responded, as 14-year-old boys often do, by trying to be abusive and sexually harass people with female names. Whereupon he asked Katrinka (aka me) to “show me your milkshake”.
What followed was probably the most hilarious three hours of my MMO gaming career. I persistently refused on the grounds that I am not interested in felony charges. He explained that this meant that Katrinka was:
- A lesbian.
- Actually a guy.
Ooookay. So he continues to assert these simultaneously, and then it starts getting weird. For one thing, while I admit I don’t spend enough time hitting on lesbians to really have a strong feel for the strategy, my initial impression is that an obsessive focus on how disgusting you think gays are isn’t gonna be a winning strategy.
But it has not yet gotten weird. At one point, I observed that I had been married longer than he’d been alive. His response, “pregnant bitches need lovin too”, manages to somehow encapsulate the essence of the conversation; it’s pretty much incompatible with both of his other claims.
Furthermore, he put a great deal of effort into establishing that he was not actually a teenager. He never asserted a specific age, but he did tell the story of the time he and some friends did “oxycotteen” and had sex in a hot tub. Later, he referrered back to it, asking us how many 12-year-olds said they’d done that. (Note: I don’t think anyone else had mentioned 12; I was sticking with 14.)
The whole thing was just sort of surreal. At one point, when I’d been off actually slaying dragons and stuff and not bothering to chat, he said “where did katrina go?”, a question to which at least two people responded with variants of “New Orleans”. He didn’t get it. (This sort of suggestts to me that 14 is on the old end of likely guesses; I would expect a 16-year old to remember a massive natural disaster from 8 years ago.)
And really, “he didn’t get it” was the night’s theme. In response to his misspelling of oxycontin, I told a story about people who had tried to steal painkillers from a veterinarian’s office, and ended up with a large amount of oxytocin. I think I got that from This is True, where the tag the writer gave it was “… suspects are middle-aged males with sensitive, enlarged, nipples.” He didn’t get it, and pursued for some time the question of how the hell you’d use that in a line-up or something.
We made comments about his obsession with “queer assholes”. He didn’t get it. Puns were made; he didn’t get any of them. When he did something particularly offensive and entitled, it was observed that if the Massengil people found him, it’d cover their production needs for three years. He didn’t get it. And throughout it all, he persisted in trying to hit on Katrinka, while observing that she was a lesbian and also really a guy.
And it really did turn out to be sort of creepy, even so. Particularly creepy was the part where he started talking a whole lot about milkshakes, and then announced he had to go for “a smoke”, then stopped posting for a while, and when he came back he was suddenly less sex-obsessed for a while.
Couple of take-home lessons:
- This stuff really does still happen. Guys still hit on people they think might be girls, and call them “lesbians” if turned down.
- It’s really creepy.
- It’s also, at least in MMOs, now pretty much a target for open mockery because the vast majority of the player base knows better.
— Peter Seebach
I once encountered someone who asserted that all men, without exceptions, were rapists. Not as hyperbole, but as a flatly literal claim. And when I pointed out that this was pretty sexist, she explained that, according to “critical theory”, there was no such thing as sexism against men, because men are a privileged group.
I have run into this a few more times, and it appears that there’s a wonderful little game going here. You take a term — say, sexism. You assert that some of the things it refers to are more important than others, and then redefine the term to refer to only those cases, then assert that since the others don’t match this definition, they’re not sexism at all. And then do those things, gleefully, while asserting that this is in no way bad or harmful, because you have a definition saying it’s not sexism.
I’d like to propose that we extend this to environmentalism. As you are likely aware, pollution is a significant problem. But wait! The vast majority of this ecological harm is done by large industrial operations, which are run by corporations, so I’m going to propose a new definition: “Pollution” shall be understood to be “the introduction of harmful chemicals and materials into the environment by corporations.”
The rationale, see, is that now if we want to talk about social policies to reduce the harm done to the environment by corporations, we don’t have to use qualified terms, we can just talk about “reducing pollution”. See how useful that is? How vital it is to effective discourse?
So, what are the implications? Say I hate people who go fishing, and I want them to die. I can go dump mercury in the local fishing pond. This isn’t pollution, because I’m not a corporation. Therefore there’s nothing wrong with it, and it is not harmful to the environment, because we already know that stuff which harms the environment would be called pollution. Since we’ve improved “pollution” not to refer to things individual people do, this can’t be pollution, therefore it can’t be stuff which harms the environment.
Same deal. (Distressingly, I posted this example once, and got a helpful note from someone who insisted that any thought whatsoever about non-corporate activities was useless for environmentalism. This is why we can’t have nice things, people.)
— Peter Seebach
So, you know that thing where people say they’ll get back to you, but they don’t? I had one of those pending from a programming conversation. I finally went back and tracked it down and sent a followup message. It’s been 13 years.
Luckily, I still don’t understand the clever algorithm the guy was showing me, so it’s still topical.
— Peter Seebach
We are, by and large, made out of meat.
This has implications. For instance, we get sick. We die. Sometimes, we get something of a vote in the matter; we can, for instance, respond to getting sick in ways that make us less likely to die.
Angelina Jolie (an actress) is also human, and is also made out of meat. Edit: I thought she had cancer, but no, just an 87% chance of getting it due to genetics. She decided to go for the treatment most likely to result in living for a while, which is a double mastectomy. Thing is, she’s an actress. And because she’s an actress, her breasts are not really hers to dispose of if she’d rather live than have them. No, they belong to the millions of random strangers who are expressing horror and outrage that she would rather live than give them new masturbation material with lots of cleavage in it.
Y’all, this is sorta fucked up. Pretty sure that the married woman with the kid does not actually need to get your permission before she decides between your future fantasy life and how much time she’s likely to get with the husband and kid. Just… no. Seriously, this is not okay.
I’d try to draft some kind of “how to talk to your idiotic coworkers and friends about this” thing, with a list of talking points, except that fundamentally it’s so crazy I can’t even comprehend how someone could get to a position where they need this explained.