wshaffer

Overall, MetalGate looks like it's a non-starter, in that it's just failing to generate the sheer volume of social media ugliness that GamerGate inspired. However, there have been some interesting developments:

1. A singer for a couple of minor but critically well-respected black metal* bands decided to seize the occasion to send harassing and threatening social media messages to a feminist music journalist and some members of some other bands.

2. The singer's bandmate in one of the bands responds by firing him.

3. A bunch of metal blogs write about the story, in some cases using the journalist's name and/or posting screencaps of protected social media posts.

4. Journalist tweets to these bloggers, pointing out that screencapping protected social media posts is uncool, and that using her name in these stories will drive further harassment her way.

5. Bloggers apologize, remove her name and protected content from the posts.

People facing professional consequences for harassing people on the internet? Male allies apologizing and trying to fix the situation when a woman tells them, "Hey, guys, you are not helping"? What strange internet have I stumbled into?

*For those unfamiliar with the metal scene, "black metal" does not equal "metal performed by black people". Indeed, owing to the peculiar history of the subgenre, it is probably the whitest subgenre in a very white genre.

You've really got to check out this this blog post on the Miss Universe pageant national dress costumes.

I got about 3 pictures in before I very carefully put down my coffee cup to avoid a beverage-on-screen incident. The photos and the accompanying commentary are priceless.

I mean, there's USA with, "Subtlety? We threw that in Boston Harbor along with the tea!" And the Netherlands with a BOAT HAT! And I don't even understand what the hell Ireland is wearing...and...and...No, just go look. Trust me.

Torture Team: Rumsfeld's Memo and the Betrayal of American Values by Philippe Sands

My rating: 4 of 5 stars


This is not an easy book to read. It's a very detailed account of how aggressive new interrogation techniques came to be used on prisoners at Guantanamo and the chain of legal advice that led to those new interrogation techniques being deemed not to be torture. It shifts repeatedly from technical legal reasoning to presenting excerpts from interrogation law, with occasional digressions through the bureaucratic doublespeak of Bush administration officials trying to cover their asses. It's a fascinating look at how organizations that are supposed to have safeguards in place against the use of torture can be subverted, but bits of it will do your head in. (I didn't know whether to laugh or cry when Sands confirmed that, yes, the TV series 24 seems to have had a non-trivial influence on the interrogation techniques adopted.)



Being a lawyer who specializes in international law, Sands spends a lot of careful analysis on whether the interrogation techniques adopted by the Bush administration constituted torture or were in violation of the Geneva convention. While the ins and outs of legal reasoning are interesting, I might have preferred a book that focused more on the evidence of the complete lack of efficacy of these techniques. Because, sadly, I think that many Americans who need to be convinced that this kind of stuff is Not Okay wouldn't be terribly persuaded by technical arguments based on international law, but might be persuaded by the notion that it doesn't work.





View all my reviews

Stumbled across this rather fascinating Radio 4 documentary about an incident that occurred in Glasgow in 1954: hundreds of children aged 4 to 14 swarmed one of Glasgow's cemeteries, armed with stakes and knives, hunting a vampire that they claimed had eaten two local boys. (No local boys were in fact missing.) American horror comics were blamed, and Britain instituted new censorship laws.

And here I thought that flash mobs and fast-spreading false memes were a product of the internet era.

I did get a chuckle out of the fact that the blurb on the iPlayer site lists Astounding Stories (better known to modern readers as Analog) as an "American Horror comic". I'm fully willing to believe that Astounding was more lurid back in 1954, but I don't think it ever printed "horror", nor was it a comic.

I usually find Radio 4's Thinking Allowed pleasantly thought-provoking, but a good chunk of the most recent episode was mostly just provoking. It was devoted to the premise that men just aren't growing up any more. Three principal pieces of evidence were invoked for this thesis:
1. Men are living with their parents longer than they used to.
2. Men are getting married later in life than they used to.
3. It's now considered entirely socially acceptable for men to play video games.

( Let's take a look at these, shall we? )
Actually, that's what really boggles me about the "Thinking Allowed" episode. Everyone involved seems to be working from a shared definition of "grown-up" that no one ever actually bothers to articulate. I think that if I had to define grown up, I'd probably define it as, "Capable of independently fulfilling a reasonable number of one's obligations to one's family and society." Which I think you can still do while being single, living in your mom's basement, and owning a PlayStation.