tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
I request that you read my comment policy before commenting, especially if you don't know me offline.

n.b. 2017-08-12: The below is pretty out-of-date and OpenID has fallen out of favor. The easiest way to comment is to just create a Dreamwidth account.

If you have a LiveJournal account and want to leave comments on my journal, you can do that without giving Dreamwidth a password or any personal information except an email address. You can follow these instructions (with slight modifications) if you have an account on a site that provides OpenID credentials, too. (For example, any Google or Google+ account should work this way.) Here's how:

  1. Go to the main Dreamwidth page
  2. Follow the "Log In with OpenID" link
  3. In the "Your OpenID URL" box, put yourusername.livejournal.com. For example, if I wanted to log in with my LiveJournal account, I would type "catamorphism.livejournal.com".
  4. Click Login.
  5. Click "Yes, just this time" or "Yes, always" when LiveJournal asks if you want to validate your identity.
  6. The first time you log in, you'll see a message "Please set and confirm your email address". Click the "set" link and follow the instructions.
  7. You'll get an email from Dreamwidth containing a link. Follow the link to confirm your email address.
  8. Follow the instructions. You should now be able to leave comments.

Edited to add as of February 26, 2013: There have been intermittent problems with using OpenID to log in to Dreamwidth. The most reliable way to comment is to create a Dreamwidth account, which is free.

PSA

Nov. 9th, 2021 11:00 am
tim: A person with multicolored hair holding a sign that says "Binaries Are For Computers" with rainbow-colored letters (binaries)
For those who are interested, I'm starting a technical blog at https://blogs.igalia.com/tjc. The blog will be dedicated to boring daily updates about my work on JavaScript compilation, in the spirit of the research posts I used to write when I worked on Rust.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
This is my voter guide for the November 3, 2020 election in Alameda County, California. Some measures/candidates are statewide, some not. If you're not eligible to vote in California, you can probably stop reading here, unless you're really nerdy.

Eligible to vote in California but not registered to vote? You can register to vote, and vote early, on the same day, at your county elections office, right up until the election. In Alameda County, that's the basement of the courthouse at 1225 Fallon St. in downtown Oakland. This is called conditional voter registration and means you will vote on a provisional ballot. As of today, this is your only option if you want to vote but are not registered at your current residential address.

State and federal offices

President/VP: Biden/Harris

Look, I get it. Biden is a rapist. Harris is a cop. Biden said I should be arrested and imprisoned because I'm an anarchist, which is a pretty fascist thing to say. If you want to sit this one out, I won't judge you. However, even if you can't stomach voting for one of the two viable presidential candidates, please vote in state and local elections, no matter where you live. State legislatures are where increasingly authoritarian Republicans gain legitimacy, and where you can stop them.
Read more... )
tim: "System Status: Degraded" (degraded)

"...Being good will never solve the problem because the problem is not that I am bad." -- Clementine Morrigan

"With the destruction of property, violence can turn from an aspect of self-defense to a useful offensive tactic. Nothing gets the attention of the elite like taking away or destroying what they value above all else: property." -- Raven Rakia, "Black Riot"

"Dear White People,

Please stop explaining that you sympathize with protest but don't condone property damage, loss or lawbreaking.

Firstly. You're not SUPPOSED to like it. That's the point.

Secondly. If you don't get why the rest is necessary, you don't understand the protest." -- [twitter.com profile] absurdistwords (source)


I've been collecting links about the unhelpful dichotomy between "good" or "peaceful" protests and "bad" or "violent" protests, and in particular, the fallacy that by obeying the law (principally: not destroying property), we can persuade a fascist regime to stop terrorizing us. The converse of that is that police violence is a reasonable punishment for being bad (again: principally, destroying property.) I place "peaceful" and "violent" in quotation marks since inevitably, these words are used in a way that obscures power dynamics and the reality that violence is committed principally by the police and other agencies granted a monopoly on violence by the state -- and through delegation, by the state itself.


"Violence is not breaking windows, or pulling down fences, or punching/wrestling/shooting the cops pointing shotguns and tear gas canisters at your face.

Violence is anything, literally *ANYTHING*, that makes the bourgeoisie feel at all threatened." -- Lynnaea Amélia Machuca-Baker


"Optics"



"All disruptive social movements are met with stern warnings from people who think they know better." -- Kevin A. Young, "History Shows That Sustained, Disruptive Protests Work"


Concern about "optics" -- "if you break things, you're giving the Trump regime a reason to crack down further" -- betrays a belief that what the Trump regime does is motivated by principle or justice. They never needed an excuse, but what you're saying is that what's happening is happening for any reason other than that the cruelty is the point.

It's a form of concern trolling: by saying "other people won't support your cause if you [do anything that's disruptive, i.e. effective]", you're really saying you won't support the cause if it threatens your own ill-gotten property and wealth.

"It is easy to dismiss the rock thrower; Attucks himself was accused of throwing sticks. But those who rebuke violent responses to injustice should ask themselves: How should the oppressed respond to their oppressors? How should the nation respond to political dissent? How do the oppressed procure power? Throughout history, black people have employed violence, nonviolence, marches, and boycotts. Only one thing is clear—there is no form of black protest that white supremacy will sanction." -- Kellie Carter Jackson, "The Double Standard of the American Riot" (Emphasis added)


To insist that the form (property destruction) of the protests is responsible for the reaction by the power elite is to fundamentally misunderstand the reason for the protests. Any threat to white wealth will be dealt with violently, because white wealth uses violence to protect itself, and always has, as long as the concept of whiteness has existed.

During the 1950s and the 1960s, civil rights activists used nonviolent resistance as a means for provoking guilt and shame in white viewers. They reasoned that if TV footage showed peaceful protestors being attacked violently, the white majority would side with protestors. That tactic doesn't work anymore, due to decreased trust in the media, the rise of disinformation, and the intensity of racism and white identity politics during the 2010s. Nonviolence was always a tactic for accomplishing a larger goal, not the goal in and of itself.

"Many people are asking if violence is a valid means of producing social change. The hard and historical answer is yes. Riots have a way of magnifying not merely the flaws in the system, but also the strength of those in power. The American Revolution was won with violence. The French Revolution was won with violence. The Haitian Revolution was won with violence. The Civil War was won with violence. A revolution in today’s terms would mean that these nationwide rebellions lead to black people being able to access and exercise the fullness of their freedom and humanity." -- Kellie Carter Jackson, ibid


Property destruction and human lives



Resist the “looter” v “peaceful protesters” narrative.

The power establishment pretends that they’re waiting to see a particular form of protest so that they can understand what racism is.

They already know. That’s why they allow the police to be violent everyday. -- Bree Newsome Bass


And that's the thing. Is there a "correct" form of protest that will not cause the regime and police to escalate their violence? Can an abused child behave in a way that stops their parent from abusing?

2) “Rioting just gives people a reason not to support your cause.”

Only if you equate property damage to human lives, and in that case, were you really supporting our cause anyway? If all it takes is people stealing from Target for you to say “well…now I don’t care about dead Black people” then why are we even speaking? -- Rafi D'Angelo, "How to respond to 'riots never solve anything!'"


And there's the rub: prioritizing the protection of property over human lives, which is what it would mean to decline to use property destruction as the effective protest tactic that it is in order to stop the destruction of human lives, means siding with oppressors. You can't protest the valuing of property over people by valuing property over people.

Where are your priorities?

"A message for anyone on the fence now:
- You don't have to throw a brick.
- You don't have to cheer on the brick-throwing.
- But if you spend your energy condemning that act instead of the police violence that sparked it, you've already chosen a side, and it's not the right one." -- [twitter.com profile] Antifagator (source)

"Come on. You don’t care about Target or looting. You just want to say “both sides” so you can dismiss the protests without having to think about a system overtly designed to provide you with vast comfort through the murder of others" -- Mike Drucker


Strategy



"John Oliver pointed out last night a 'recurring theme' on his show: should you find yourself in a system which repeatedly demonstrates it values protecting property far more than it values protecting human lives, your only effective bargaining chip is the destruction of property." -- Justin Martin


The condescending idea that protestors somehow don't know what the effects of their actions are is an example of white paternalism.

The struggle is fundamentally about resisting efforts of the white owners to force Black people into serving as a perpetual slave class for the white capitalist economy. Disrupting the economy and damaging property are informed political actions. 1/

I wish the Black bourgeois and professionals would engage with this analysis more instead of so quickly adopting the narrative of the white owner class that property damage accomplishes nothing. -- Bree Newsome Bass

"But if violent unrest isn’t the answer then what is? How exactly do you go about ending police brutality and systemic racism in America? Should protesters go home and write sternly worded letters to their representative? Should they emulate Madonna and post videos of their kids dancing in protest? Should they peacefully take a knee? Should Americans simply vote Trump out and vote Joe Biden in instead? You know, the guy whose 1994 crime bill significantly contributed to mass incarceration in America? Should people patiently wait for incremental change?" -- Arwa Mahdawi, "If violence isn't the way to end racism in America, then what is?"


The folks out here getting angrier about a Starbucks getting busted up than about white supremacy never seem to have an alternative to offer, or at least not an effective one.


"In working to correct the white-supremacist media narrative we can end up reproducing police tactics of isolating the individuals who attack property at protests. Despite the fact that if it were not for those individuals the media might pay no attention at all. If protesters hadn’t looted and burnt down that QuikTrip on the second day of protests, would Ferguson be a point of worldwide attention? It’s impossible to know, but all the non-violent protests against police killings across the country that go unreported seem to indicate the answer is no." -- Vicky Osterweil, "In Defense of Looting (emphasis author's)

"I Support the Right to Protest, So Long as It is Ineffective" -- Dima Kronfeld, Reductress "White Woman Speaks:" headline


The "white anarchists" diversionary tactic




"Erasing black/nonblack indigenous anarchists living their anarchy by crediting outside agitating white anarchists is bullshit. Stop blaming white anarchists for choices we make. Stop trying to control our expressions of anger & joy." -- [twitter.com profile] anarchogoth (source)

"The 'outside agitator' trope simultaneously denies the authenticity of discontent and the possibility of solidarity" -- [twitter.com profile] triofrancos (source)

"To be blunt, blaming 'white anarchists' for violence right now is just a polite way of saying that you’re taking the side of the cops." -- [twitter.com profile] ARPWEL ((source))


These lines aren't new:


"People are really out here parroting white supremacist talking points about 'anarchists,' 'radicals,' and 'outside agitators.' These narratives have been repeatedly regurgitated by the state and the police and many are shamelessly endorsing it. [image: a KKK flyer from the 1930s]

...Black history is filled with violent uprisings, riots, and rebellions that got us where we are today. People either don't know that or they hope to erase it in efforts to quell the anger. Anyone trying to say all Black people must protest one way are misinformed or manipulative."
" -- William C. Anderson


And cross-racial coalitions are essential to effecting change; one of the effects this rhetoric has is to make white people afraid to act in conjunction with Black leadership for fear of being viewed as a counterproductive "white anarchist".


"This 'outside agitator'/'white anarchist' shit from the liberals and the right-wingers is not only meant to discredit the protests but to tell white people, implicitly, that they don’t have a common enemy in capital, in the police, in the state, with black people." -- Samantha Pritchard

"This reflexive tic to associate anarchism with thoughtless discord betrays a profound ignorance of leftist ideology. The problem is that no one seems to understand what anarchism is or what its adherents are seeking to accomplish — and that lack of understanding is going to end up endangering a lot of people. We’re rapidly approaching a point in which dissent is further criminalized, the justified rage and pain fueling these protests is further delegitimized, and anyone who engages in any form of protest outside the preapproved liberal template becomes a target for surveillance, or worse." -- Kim Kelly, "Stop blaming everything bad on anarchists"


Conclusion



If you're white, think twice before you proclaim yourself the expert on how Black and Brown people should liberate themselves from oppression that you benefit from. Interrogate your motivations carefully and ask what you're afraid of: is it really "counterproductive" protest, or are you worried about your property getting destroyed? Asking yourself that question might provoke shame, but it's worth sitting with that feeling rather than reacting unreflectively. Educate yourself about history so you don't make ignorant statements like "violence just gives the police an excuse to crack down harder". But don't stop with just educating yourself. You don't have to throw a brick or get arrested, but doing nothing is not an acceptable option either. There are lots of ways to help that involve varying levels of risk to yourself. But also be aware of your fear and continually ask yourself whether it's based in your physical safety, or your fear of losing your material possessions and/or your dominant place in society.

Further reading



"How to Talk to Relatives Who Care More About Looting Than Black Lives", Rachel Miller

"A History of Violent Protest", Slate "What Next" podcast episode

"A white man waving an AR-15 around in front of his mansion says much more about America than you’d think", Patrick Blanchfield
tim: text: "I'm not offended, I'm defiant" (defiant)
I usually post a bunch of subversive MLK quotes on Martin Luther King, Jr. Day, but tomorrow is the first day of school so I'll leave it at this: During his life, King was despised by at least a plurality of white Americans and hounded by the US government; the FBI tried to manipulate him into committing suicide.

King believed that racism in the US was inextricably tied to capitalism. He wrote that racism would never end unless capitalism and imperialism ended as well. Before he died, he was starting to organize people based on both race and class, without reducing racism to classism. Towards the end of his life, he was also developing a more nuanced perspective on violence; for him, nonviolence was a tactic, not a moral precept. And that's why white people killed him.

Or in the words of Boots Riley of The Coup: "MLK took half a pill, procrastinated / Once he took a whole pill, they assassinated him" (from "Ass-Breath Killers")

PS: while it predates a lot of King's most radical views, Letter from Birmingham Jail clearly shows the path for getting there, and today is a good day to re-read it.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)


Since the beginning of this year, I've been volunteering at the Berkeley Free Clinic doing HIV and Hepatitis C testing and counseling. The section of the clinic I'm in has recently changed its name to Street Medicine Team, towards the goal of doing more expanded medical care particularly for houseless people. There's also an exciting new project at BFC focused on providing trans health care by and for trans people.

BFC is a rad organization that's based on the principle that health care is a human right. Please help me get to my goal of raising $739 $1039 (since I'm turning 39, get it) by donating! I've upped the goal twice due to people's generosity.

You can donate either through Facebook or on the clinic's web site! If you do the latter, please tell me in a comment on this post how much you donated (comments on that post are screened) so I can keep track of progress towards my goal. You can also comment on this post if you don't want your comment to be screened.

Thanks to [personal profile] graydon2, [personal profile] hitchhiker, [personal profile] alexr_rwx, [personal profile] techstep, [personal profile] substitute, [personal profile] etb, [personal profile] muse, [personal profile] chrisamaphone, and others who aren't on Dreamwidth for donating so far!
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
three people standing in front of a red van with the Berkeley Free Clinic logo; a taller person with dark skin and a beard in the middle, two shorter people with lighter skin on either side, all are holding up condoms

Since the beginning of this year, I've been volunteering at the Berkeley Free Clinic doing HIV and Hepatitis C testing and counseling. The section of the clinic I'm in has recently changed its name to Street Medicine Team, towards the goal of doing more expanded medical care particularly for houseless people. BFC is a rad organization that's based on the principle that health care is a human right. Please help me get to my goal of raising $739 (since I'm turning 39, get it) by donating, either through Facebook or on the clinic's web site! If you do the latter, please tell me how much you donated (comments on this post are screened) so I can keep track of progress towards my goal.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
Here are some cats:

(source)

Now that I've got your attention: With 9 days left to my 38th birthday, I'm trying to get 31 more people to make a donation to ACCESS Women's Health Justice, the Bay Area's abortion fund. Here's how to give, and once you do, let me know so I can update my tally!
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
(Text adapted from my 35th birthday fundraiser.)

I'll be turning 38 on December 18. If you would like to celebrate with me, please make a donation to ACCESS Women's Health Justice and let me know. Since I'm turning 38, I suggest a $38 donation if you can afford it, but any amount matters, even $1. I recommend that you donate directly, because that way, ACCESS gets the money faster. You can also use the Facebook fundraiser that I created, which might be faster for you (though not for them) if you use Facebook already. My goal is to get 50 people to donate to ACCESS.

While Medi-Cal covers the cost of abortion in California, there are many expenses that people who need second-trimester abortions incur; only a small number of clinics in the state perform these procedures, so many people, especially those traveling from the Central Valley to the Bay Area, face transportation and lodging costs that can be challenging for many people. ACCESS operates a help line and helps callers by giving them money for gas or bus tickets, as well as setting them up with practical support volunteers -- I'm one of them -- who can house them overnight and/or give them rides.

Since I volunteer with ACCESS, this group is important to me. However, I'll also count you towards the total of 50 if you donate to your local abortion fund.

My goal for this year is for 50 people to donate, so, if you donate, please let me know. (Unless you use the Facebook link -- then I'll know automatically.) If you don't let me know, I won't be able to know if I reached my goal, and I'll be sad. You can let me know by commenting on this post, tweeting at me or commenting on my Facebook wall, or -- if you prefer to be private -- emailing me (catamorphism at gmail.com) or sending me a private message on any of the services I use. You don't have to tell me the amount that you donated, and I'm not going to do public thank-yous this year unless you ask for one. (In other words, it was opt-out in the past, but now it's opt-in.)

By donating you'll make me happy, piss off the people who are dangerously close to turning the US into a theocracy that denies bodily autonomy to everyone who's not a cis man, but most importantly, help make sure nobody in California has to go through a pregnancy and give birth because they're short $100 for gas money. So do it now! ACCESS WHJ is a nonprofit 501c3 organization, so if your US employer matches funds, please request a matching donation from them so that your money goes even further.
tim: protest sign: "Down With This Sort of Thing" (politics)
This is my voter guide for the November 6, 2018 election in Alameda County, California. Some measures/candidates are statewide, some not. If you're not eligible to vote in California, you can probably stop reading here, unless you're really nerdy. Eligible to vote in California but not registered to vote? You can register to vote, and vote early, on the same day, at your county elections office, right up until the election. In Alameda County, that's the basement of the courthouse at 1225 Fallon St. in downtown Oakland. This is called conditional voter registration and means you will vote on a provisional ballot. If you want to guarantee your vote will be processed without delay, today is your last day to register to vote! (Do it in person so you can be sure.)

State and federal offices



Governor: Gavin Newsom (*loud sighing*). He's an awful neoliberal, but we have a Republican who might as well be a Trump clone running against him, and there are enough conservatives in interior and southern California that we can't assume this election is safe. Vote to reduce harm.

Lieutenant: Eleni Kounalakis; both candidates seem like reasonable choices, but I'm voting for Kounalakis because she'll prioritize housing and homelessness and because, unlike her opponent, has endorsements from LGBTQ organizations.
Read more... )
tim: text: "I'm not offended, I'm defiant" (defiant)
How long is it appropriate to wait after the death of a child before licking the boots of the man who killed them?

John McCain died; he was a 21st-century Republican politician, and he was a racist warmonger. What I want to say here has less to do with the details his life than it does with the meaning of some of the things that some white liberals and white moderates have been saying about his death. It is hard to avoid getting sidetracked into the details of his life, especially when you see self-described progressives holding up a man who called his wife a "cunt" in public as a model of human decency. I'll try, though.

In response to factual accountings, like the one linked to above, of what McCain did during his life, I've seen comments like: "we could, for a period of time, maybe a week, simply mourn their passing, or let those who loved them mourn their passing, without immediately seeking to judge, defend, and critique their lives and legacies." I've seen comments like "the guy hasn’t even been dead 24 hours!" And these are comments from the people who say they oppose McCain's racism, his misogyny, his warmongering. Still, they say, he deserves respect or critical distance, right now, at least.

When you write these words, you aren't writing them for McCain's family. They're not reading what you write. And if you criticize McCain, it does nothing to stop his family from mourning his passing. I could write all day about his moral bankruptcy, and even if his family did happen to read it, they wouldn't listen anyway. You cannot influence what a rich and powerful family does, for better or for worse, and you know that.

You know that you are judging and criticizing us, those of us who cannot join in the white pundits' choir of positivity. You are judging us when you tell us that we ought not to speak, or insinuate that we are less moral, less considerate, or less spiritual if we do speak.

You know that you are writing for your family and friends when you write on your Facebook profile or your blog; you know your own audience. If you wanted to express your condolences to McCain's family, you could send them a card. You know that your words have a different purpose.

When you talk about how McCain deserves 24 hours (or a week, or let's be real about what you mean, the rest of your and my life) without criticism - that is, without anybody telling the truth about what he did during his lifetime - you aren't saying that to protect John McCain, or his family or loved ones. None of these people are reading your Facebook posts. Even if they were, why does that family deserve 24 hours when others don't?

When you talk about respecting the dead, you know that your show of respect for McCain is no such thing, because none of the people you say your message is for is on the other end of the line.

The people who are reading your Facebook posts are your friends who are Asian, or Muslim, or Black, or disabled, or chronically ill, or queer, or have a uterus and want to decide what goes on in it. Your show of "respect" helps no one, but it does show your contempt for us. You're telling us, "Don't talk about the effect his actions had on your life. A dead white man's feelings are more important than your material reality. I'm not in solidarity with you." It doesn't matter what you intend -- this is what we hear. You may even be Asian, or Muslim, or Black, or disabled, or chronically ill, or queer yourself -- if you are, that does nothing to buffer the harm of your words. Everybody chooses whether to side with the more privileged parts of themselves or the less privileged parts of themselves, and in the moment when you write words of faux respect, you're choosing to side with the oppressor within you and against the oppressed.

Who is ever granted protection from an honest inventory of the work they chose to dedicate their life to, besides the rich, white and powerful? Are the loved ones of the rich, white and powerful - usually if not always rich, white and powerful themselves - so fragile that recounting such facts pierces them even if they will never hear it? Are they more deserving of silence about the wrongs done by their dead loved one than the mother of any Black child murdered by police or the mother of any Iraqi child killed by American bombs?

It's always an option to say nothing at all. It's also an option to say only that judging the man is for God to do and not for you, or the secular equivalent. You do not need to talk about Vietnam, Iraq, or the ACA if you don't want to. If you're truly not comfortable with talking of these things so soon after McCain's death, you don't need to say anything at all.

It would take you no effort to say nothing. So when you do say something, you're telling us something: that you won't have our backs when there's a cost to you, or when you might offend other white people with a suburban mindset, or when the faces of the oppressor are the same color as yours.

When you choose instead to police and patrol the grief and anger of the oppressed, to wag your finger at those of us who are rejoicing that at least this particular person can't hurt us anymore, to dissemble your true emotions in smarm, you're not showing respect for the dead. You are pledging allegiance to power. You are acknowledging that you believe fealty to power will protect you. Your actions are those of a person anxious about offending the powerful. We know that anxiety about offending the powerful is what leads our self-proclaimed allies to decline to put their bodies between them and us.

Some of us have been grieving for our entire lives, and will be grieving for the rest of our lives, what we lost, what our friends have lost, to white supremacy, capitalist violence, and endless war. When you say you don't want to disrupt the grieving process for his family, you're saying our grief isn't as serious as theirs. Those grieving loved ones can't hear what you're saying. But your friends who live every day in grief and anger at what conservatives have been doing to us for our entire lives, at least those of us my age and younger - We're your audience. We're who's listening. And when you tell us you don't think we matter, we believe you.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
[CW: discussion of suicide, major depression, child abuse, and trauma]

I've been hearing the trope "Depressed people's brains lie to them" a lot in light of a couple well-known people having recently killed themselves. It's comforting, mostly to people who don't experience major depression. It's also mostly wrong, in my opinion.

Against exorcism

The demonic-possession model of depression, for lack of better words, says that depression is a foreign presence, an invader in an otherwise healthy body. That there is some pure version of you that is not depressed, and depression is unnatural, disordered, a disease process. Like bacteria or a virus that shouldn't be present in your body. You are not depressed, you "have depression", not in the sense that depression is a condition you live with whether or not you're currently having a depressive episode -- but rather, in the sense that depression isn't a fundamental part of who you are.

If depression is a demon and all you need to do to get your real, true, normal, neurotypical self back is to exorcise the demon, then if you seek medication and/or therapy, you're going to have some pretty unrealistic expectations for what it can do for you. Medication and therapy are useful for a lot of people, but they don't turn a depressed person into a non-depressed person the way that antibiotics kill bacteria. (Again, I'm talking about the kind of depression that recurs and doesn't have a clear and immediate situational trigger, not the kind that a person might experience after the death of someone close to them.) I don't know of any evidence to suggest a treatment like that will ever be possible.

We are often told to give others the benefit of the doubt, to not assume the worst possible interpretation of others' actions without more information. Why not apply that principle to yourself? Instead of an unwelcome invader to fight off, can you treat your depression as a friend, albeit one who it's difficult to relate to or communicate with?

Read more... )
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
This is my voter guide for the June 5, 2018 primary election in Alameda County, California. Some measures/candidates are statewide, some not. If you're not eligible to vote in California, you can probably stop reading here, unless you're really nerdy. Eligible to vote in California but not registered to vote? You can register to vote, and vote early, on the same day, at your county elections office, right up until the election. (I haven't verified this is true for counties other than Alameda, but I assume so.) In Alameda County, that's the basement of the courthouse at 1225 Fallon St. in downtown Oakland.

I wasn't going to post this publicly, because it's lower-information than my usual standard I impose on myself for sharing endorsements, but some friends encouraged me to do it. Do your own research if you can, or if you don't, don't complain to me when the candidate I recommended turns out to eat baby seals. If you're curious why I picked somebody, feel free to ask and I'll try to remember my reason for picking that candidate.

Some other voter guides:
My friend Yar's voter guide for Oakland/Alameda County (mostly agrees with mine, but with more explanation in some cases)
Voter's Edge -- nonpartisan guide to California elections, shows all the major financial contributors to each candidate, which is very useful
Alameda Green Party voters' guide -- I appreciate their analyses despite not agreeing with all of their conclusions.
San Francisco League of Pissed Off Voters
Friends Committee on Legislation of California voter guide
Frustrated Socialists' Voter Guide (East Bay)

Read more... )
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
[CW: ableism]

The Donor Sibling Registry is an organization that helps people like me, who were conceived using anonymous donor sperm, find people genetically related to us. I joined a few years ago out of curiosity, and also joined the Facebook group for the registry, both of which are run by Wendy Kramer.

Today, Wendy reposted a letter from a parent that implied that action should be taken to prevent sperm banks from distributing sperm belonging to autistic donors. I asked whether she intended to make the group unsafe for disabled people by starting a debate about whether we exist, and it became clear that she did:

It doesn't matter what your opinion about the letter is; to pass it along is an act that contributes to a climate of violence against disabled people. If you believe that it's no less desirable to have an autistic child than a neurotypical one, you can tell the letter-writer that their concern is misdirected and decline to spread it to a bigger audience. Making the choice to pass it along tells people that the group isn't safe for disabled people.

It's too bad that what might otherwise be a useful resource is run by a person who (at best) doesn't understand how giving people the option to not conceive an autistic child is eugenics, and gets defensive and abusive in response to disabled people calling them out.

Details (CW: ableism) )
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
I'm quoted in this article by Kate Conger about the covert war on underrepresented minorities at Google:

'“Google has to grow a backbone and say, ‘We are going to stand up for this thing that we’ve said for the past ten years or so. We believe in organizing the world’s information and making it accessible.’ That’s political,” Chevalier says. “I don’t think it’s possible for them to be neutral. There’s no neutral path.”'

You can also listen to a 22-minute interview with me on KPFA's "Up Front" with Brian Edwards-Tiekert.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
This is a lightly edited version of some Facebook posts I wrote in July 2017.

In response to the current regime's attempts to purge trans people from the military, "I think everyone should be banned from serving in the military" is a terrible take. If you're cis, and you're saying this, your rhetoric is de-centering trans people and we're going to assume that's not an accident. If you want to criticize US imperialism and militarism, you can do that without hijacking discussion of how the current regime is purging trans people from the public sphere.

Don't be the kind of "ally" who is so uncomfortable centering the needs of the people you claim to support that you derail every trans-centered conversation with "okay, but what if we talked about something that also affects cis people"? This is very similar to when men say "but men get sexually assaulted too" to derail discussions about sexual assault against women. It's not that the statement is false. It's just that the context in which It's used does the word of silencing certain types of conversations.

I think it's fine to choose not to serve in the military because you are anti-imperialism. I have made the same choice for myself. When trans people are banned, we don't really get to make that choice the way cis people do. We deserve to be able to make genuine moral choices and face the consequences, as autonomous moral agents.

In American culture, military service confers a sense of belonging and social integration for many people and denying trans people access to that is an abusive isolation tactic. Again, it's not a form of belonging I choose to affiliate with, but that's because I have the privilege of formal education, a professional job, and other ways to show I'm part of society.

I don't have to support anything about the military to think it's unfair to ask trans people to go first when it comes to foreswearing it. Keeping out trans people does literally nothing to weaken the military-industrial complex: the military would be over if all cis people refused to serve. At the same time that it has no practical effect when it comes to stopping imperialism, it does have a genuine practical effect when it comes to denigrating trans people and encouraging abuse of trans people.

We don't get to choose whether the military exists, in the short term. We do get to choose between addressing the concrete negative effects that the military ban has on all trans people's lives, versus embracing purity and the symbolic value of disavowing involvement with the military.
It matters whether trans people are excluded from public life. When you say that the military ban is a "distraction" from some mythical "real issue", you tell us that you don't think our lives matter and that you think we're disposable. You can be an ally by saying, "I don't think this is a distraction. I think it matters that the regime is targeting an incredibly vulnerable group of people for more harm, which appears to be a first step towards exterminating that group. Trans people are important to me and I don't want to listen to you tell me that they don't matter."
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
The following is a press release from my attorney. Media inquiries can be directed to the address below. I'm not able to comment beyond this on my blog at this time.

You can read the full text of the complaint we filed, as well as media coverage:

"Ex-Google Employee Claims Wrongful Firing for Criticizing James Damore's Memo", Nitasha Tiku (Wired)
"Google Fired and Disciplined Employees for Speaking Out About Diversity", Kate Conger (Gizmodo)
"Google engineer says he was fired for fighting racism, sexism", Jessica Guynn (USA Today)
"Ex-Google engineer: I was fired for being too liberal", Cyrus Farivar (Ars Technica)
"Former Google employee files lawsuit alleging the company fired him over pro-diversity posts", Shannon Liao (The Verge)
"Google fired disabled, transgender man for opposing his co-workers’ bigotry and white supremacy, lawsuit alleges", Ethan Baron (San Jose Mercury News)

(Original press release, copied below)

February 21, 2018 FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
LAWSUIT CLAIMS GOOGLE’S NETWORKING FORUMS ARE A “CESSPOOL” OF HARASSMENT

San Francisco. A lawsuit filed today claims that Google, Inc.’s internal social networking forums have become a tool for widespread bullying and harassment of women, people of color and other underrepresented groups at the tech giant. The lawsuit also accuses Google of firing an employee for pushing back on the pervasive harassment.

Tim Chevalier, the software developer and computer scientist who filed the case, claims that Google fired him when he responded forcefully to posts attacking women and people of color and expressing white supremacist views. Chevalier, who is disabled and transgender, responded directly to the workplace bullies by posting comments challenging the hostile work environment and refuting assertions that women and people of color are biologically unsuited for software engineering, and that Google should not actively recruit them.

According to the lawsuit, Chevalier’s posts also championed transgender and disabled rights, and raised awareness about how Google’s culture excludes and discriminates against minorities. The lawsuit alleges that Google chose to fire Chevalier for his comments instead of addressing the rampant harassment and discrimination he was protesting.

Chevalier stated, “It is a cruel irony that Google attempted to justify firing me by claiming that my social networking posts showed bias against my harassers. The anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect marginalized and underrepresented groups- not those who attack them.”

Chevalier’s attorneys regularly represent tech employees in high profile discrimination and retaliation cases. According to David Lowe, one of Chevalier’s attorneys at Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP, “Company social networking forums can be incredibly useful, but employers have an obligation to prevent them from becoming a cesspool of bullying and harassment. Firing the employee who pushed back against the bullies was exactly the wrong step to take.”

The lawsuit, filed in San Francisco County Superior Court, seeks damages for lost wages, emotional distress, punitive damages, injunctive relief, and attorneys’ fees and costs.

PRESS CONTACT: David A. Lowe
Rudy, Exelrod, Zieff & Lowe, LLP
[email protected]
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
"The Ridiculous Straight Panic Over Dating a Transgender Person", Samantha Allen for The Daily Beast (2017-11-04). What it says on the tin.

"How to Change Your Life in One Second Flat", Katherine Schafler for Thrive Global (2017-11-07). Some judgy "be in the present moment"-ism here, but I still like the formulation (from Maya Angelou) of the four questions we're all asking each other all the time.

"The Psychological Link Between Trauma And Work Addiction", Drake Baer for Thrive Global (2017-11-09). I don't see how "work addiction" can be anything but metaphorical, but it's a good article nonetheless:

Like any problematic repetitive behavior, being addicted to work, validation, or success is an issue with lots of factors and possible treatments. In Hungry Ghosts, Maté distinguishes between contingent and genuine self esteem. The bigger the void that people feel, the greater the urge to get themselves noticed, and the greater the compulsion to acquire status. Genuine self-esteem, on the other hand, “needs nothing from the outside”—it’s a sense of feeling worthwhile, regardless of your accomplishments.


A thread on the second adolescence of queer adulthood from [twitter.com profile] IamGMJohnson (2017-11-10):
Many of us who are LGBTQ go through a second adolescence because our first (5-18 yo) is about suppressing identity.

So when we do get into our 20's we make A LOT of mistakes that most attribute to younger people because we never got to be younger people in our true identity.

Suffice to say, If you are LGBTQ don't be so hard on yourself if your life doesn't mirror the heterosexual timeline of love, marriage, career, and kids because many of your years were stolen from you. So take time to live them.


"When Your Childhood Gender Transition Is in Google Searches Forever", Katelyn Burns for Splinter (2017-11-15). Also what it says on the tin.

"Hit by 'Trans-Friendly' Fire", gendermom (2017-11-21). Two journalists interviewed a mom of a trans kid, and you won't believe what happened next.
tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
"How to be an ally to women in tech", Sarah Adams (2017-06-24)


"You now understand that this is true of every woman you work with. Every woman you work with is there, at the table, despite being told hundreds of times:

  • you are no good
  • you do not belong
  • get out.

Another thing you need to understand before I tell this story:
After being beaten down so many hundreds of times, I cannot tell the difference between a sexist comment made:

  • with mal intent
  • due to subconscious bias
  • or because the person just misspoke

There is no difference in how it affects me. At this point, it is just one long drone of you are no good.

(Every bit of this is true for me as a trans man, too, and there's not really any place for me to go to talk about it -- but, that will have to be another blog post.)


"The Myth of Psychological Safety", Liz Fong-Jones (2017-11-01). On "If you're used to privilege, equality feels like oppression" and privileged people's self-reporting about psychological safety.

"A Clash of Cultures, by bunnie (2017-11-08):

  • "Any engineer who observes a bias in a system and chooses not to pro-actively correct for it is either a bad engineer or they stand to benefit from the bias.”
  • "When a man harnesses the efforts of a team, they call him a CEO and give him a bonus. But when a woman harnesses the efforts of a team, she gets accused of being a persona and a front.



Twitter thread from [twitter.com profile] jaythenerdkid (2017-11-13)
“the world is full of stem grads who have no idea how to think critically about the world in which they live or the media to which they're exposed, but who somehow consider themselves analytical thinkers because they know how to do calculus”


"Your company's Slack is probably sexist", by Leah Fessler for Quartz (2017-11-14) - there's some eyebrow-raisey casual cissexism (the stuff about "female socialization" and "male socialization") and the conclusions are kind of underwhelming, but there's lots of great content in this article about gendered conversation dynamics and how men use them to hamper women's economic success, not just specific to Slack:

  • “Does gender influence our office’s electronic communications? When I began asking my colleagues, nearly every woman said yes. Overwhelmingly, men said no."
  • '‘Both the men and women she surveyed agreed that the debate was contentious, but they reacted to that contentiousness differently. Men would say things like, “Well, it was kind of aggressive, but as long as the slings and arrows weren’t aimed at me, it was fine,” or “This is just the way online conversation goes.” Some men said it was “kind of fun to go at each other’s throats,” or they brushed it off: “This is nothing; you should see the philosophy list.”

    Nearly all the women, however, showed an aversion to the tenor of the debate. Common responses included things like: “The contentiousness made me not want to participate in discussion,” or “It made me want to drop off list all together.” Some went so far as, “People who speak like this are not good people,” and “This debate made me want to not be linguist.”'
  • “Already as toddlers, the idea that girls should take others’ feelings and desires into consideration before speaking or acting has formed,” says Herring. “And for boys, conflict isn’t just okay, it’s encouraged.” 
  • ‘What’s more, Herring found, men posted messages that were sometimes 20 screens long, never apologizing for consuming others’ time—while women always apologized for long messages.’
  • ‘…language and discourse conventions are created and enforced by men, for men’s advantage; so when women participate in public discourse, it’s almost as if they’re learning or adapting to a foreign language.’
  • ‘Men also tend to dominate public channels, she says, often responding to others’ posts with declarative statements and dropping in links with no context.’
  • ‘With microaggressions, there rarely is a smoking gun. But over time, these aggregate power displays can wear down women and minorities, leading us to question whether it’s worth sharing our thoughts at all.’



  • "The Tech Industry's Gender Discrimination Problem", by Sheelah Kolhatkar for the New Yorker (2017-11-20):

    “It’s the imbalance of pay and power that puts men in a position to harass, that gives them unchecked control over the economic lives of women and, as a result, influence over their physical lives. These subtler forms of discrimination, familiar to almost any woman who has held a job, can in fact be especially insidious, since they are easier for companies, and even victims, to dismiss.”

    Profile

    tim: Tim with short hair, smiling, wearing a black jacket over a white T-shirt (Default)
    Tim Chevalier

    November 2021

    S M T W T F S
     123456
    78 910111213
    14151617181920
    21222324252627
    282930    

    Syndicate

    RSS Atom

    Most Popular Tags

    Style Credit

    Expand Cut Tags

    No cut tags