Horrible, Offensive Geekery

[thoreau]

I got pointed to "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" by N. K. Jemisin, her answer to/variation on "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas".

I just read it. It's the first Jemisin thing I've ever read, and based on her contempt for her reader it will probably be the last.

I just want to note one item from the story:

They begin to perceive that ours is a world where the notion that some people are less important than others has been allowed to take root, and grow until it buckles and cracks the foundations of our humanity. “How could they?” the gleaners exclaim, of us.

I wonder what would happen if another writer tried to claim a status equal to hers.

[Eric the .5b]

I would sum them up as follows:
Le Guin: Here's this utopia; oh wait it's not really a utopia because it's built on suffering.
Jemisin: Here's this utopia, and it's utopia because they kill anybody who has wrongthink

I have more to add later when I'm in front of a keyboard, but I'd just point of that "Omelas" is supposed to be a utopia, too. The whole point of the forsaken child is "Oh, you can't believe in a perfect society? Fine, let's say they keep this one kid in misery, do you believe it now, asshole?". It's just a step in the mimed dialogue with the reader, along with the whole business of Omelas having whatever qualities the reader needs to consider it perfect.

(Really, "Omelas" isn't a conventional story, it's an essay. "Fight" actually manages to contain a parable.)

(Pohl still did the best story with mimed reader dialogue way back with "Day Million".)

[Eric the .5b]

I got pointed to "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" by N. K. Jemisin, her answer to/variation on "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas".

I just read it. It's the first Jemisin thing I've ever read, and based on her contempt for her reader it will probably be the last.

I'm just not clear who the fuck it's supposed to be trying to convince. The people she addresses who were fighting mad at the very idea of utopia? It seems like a pretense.

[thoreau]

I got pointed to "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" by N. K. Jemisin, her answer to/variation on "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas".

I just read it. It's the first Jemisin thing I've ever read, and based on her contempt for her reader it will probably be the last.

I'm just not clear who the fuck it's supposed to be trying to convince. The people she addresses who were fighting mad at the very idea of utopia? It seems like a pretense.

She wants to soothe people who agree with her by offering a tale of a world where wrong-thinkers are killed. Hey, I get the point of soothing anger. It's what Twitter and Facebook are for. I read fiction for other reasons. But if that's what her readers want, well, I'll call her NK Zuckerberg.

[Eric the .5b]

I got pointed to "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" by N. K. Jemisin, her answer to/variation on "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas".

I just read it. It's the first Jemisin thing I've ever read, and based on her contempt for her reader it will probably be the last.

I'm just not clear who the fuck it's supposed to be trying to convince. The people she addresses who were fighting mad at the very idea of utopia? It seems like a pretense.

She wants to soothe people who agree with her by offering a tale of a world where wrong-thinkers are killed. Hey, I get the point of soothing anger. It's what Twitter and Facebook are for. I read fiction for other reasons. But if that's what her readers want, well, I'll call her NK Zuckerberg.

It's not meant to soothe. It's a rallying-cry to fight for equality and against the very idea that people aren't equal or can be allowed to hold that idea. It's the dumbass "Paradox of Tolerance" argument writ large, complete with a mention of it.

[thoreau]

She's also summarizing all objections to fantasy utopia as "They don't believe in equality." Well, most people today believe in some notion of equality. They differ on some key aspects of it, but it's a very motte-and-bailey thing. "Do you believe in equality?" "Um, yeah." "Then you must agree with me on every single thing I say because I also believe in equality." "Um, I'm not..." "HERETIC! GET THE SPEAR!"

[JD]

I have more to add later when I'm in front of a keyboard, but I'd just point of that "Omelas" is supposed to be a utopia, too. The whole point of the forsaken child is "Oh, you can't believe in a perfect society? Fine, let's say they keep this one kid in misery, do you believe it now, asshole?". It's just a step in the mimed dialogue with the reader, along with the whole business of Omelas having whatever qualities the reader needs to consider it perfect.

(Really, "Omelas" isn't a conventional story, it's an essay. "Fight" actually manages to contain a parable.)

Firstly, I do agree with you about Omelas not being a conventional story; it's more like a fable or a thought experiment, and I think that in some ways, "questioning it" is like asking why the fox doesn't just talk to some other animals to help him get the grapes: that's not the point.

I also agree that the initial setup of Omelas is basically "Assume a spherical utopia of uniform density, with whatever arbitrary attributes you want a utopia to have." Is Omelas a utopia? Well, for the majority of the inhabitants, who are not troubled by moral qualms, yes. From the authorial or reader's point of view? I don't think it is.

A couple more thoughts on "Fight": In general I think it is a very well-crafted story - I wouldn't give it so much attention if I didn't - but I thought there were a couple real clangers. The tone of the paragraphs with "We hesitate to admit that some people are just fucking evil and need to be stopped" and "not that barbaric America" are so wildly out of character with the tone of the rest of the story that it must be intentional, but that doesn't make it work any better, because it drags us out of the story; suddenly we're not listening to the narrator, we're listening to the author. And this really bugged me:

She’s curly-haired, plump, blind, brown, tall for her age. Normally a boisterous child, she weeps now over her father’s death, and her tears run hot with the injustice of it all. She heard him say, “I’m sorry.” She saw the social workers show the only mercy possible.

She saw it? You literally just said she was blind three sentences ago! Maybe it's intended in a more general, metaphoric sense of "saw", but it's still really jarring.

And the fact that "her father knew those consequences and accepted them" and his last words to his killers are "I'm sorry" also puts me in mind of something else.

The first thing for you to understand is that in this place there are no martyrdoms. You have read of the religious persecutions of the past. In the Middle Ages there was the Inquisitlon. It was a failure. It set out to eradicate heresy, and ended by perpetuating it. For every heretic it burned at the stake, thousands of others rose up. Why was that? Because the Inquisition killed its enemies in the open, and killed them while they were still unrepentant: in fact, it killed them because they were unrepentant.
...
When finally you surrender to us, it must be of your own free will. We do not destroy the heretic because he resists us: so long as he resists us we never destroy him. We convert him, we capture his inner mind, we reshape him. We burn all evil and all illusion out of him; we bring him over to our side, not in appearance, but genuinely, heart and soul. We make him one of ourselves before we kill him.

[JD]

It's not meant to soothe. It's a rallying-cry to fight for equality and against the very idea that people aren't equal or can be allowed to hold that idea. It's the dumbass "Paradox of Tolerance" argument writ large, complete with a mention of it.

I think it's part of a long Progressive stance that "a better world is possible", and a counterpoint against the idea that certain things are "human nature" or are always going to be the case, and as someone whose heart is fundamentally with the left I have some sympathy to that. The counterpoint is somewhat along the lines of counterarguments to "The Cold Equations" (just as TCE was a counter to heroic pulp in which there was always a happy ending because human ingenuity and guts have unlimited power.) That said, there is also the really irritating Progressive belief that you could have anything you really wanted if you just wanted it badly enough, and since you don't have it, that must mean you don't really want it.

[Eric the .5b]

I also agree that the initial setup of Omelas is basically "Assume a spherical utopia of uniform density, with whatever arbitrary attributes you want a utopia to have." Is Omelas a utopia? Well, for the majority of the inhabitants, who are not troubled by moral qualms, yes. From the authorial or reader's point of view? I don't think it is.

I think it's pointedly going after readers for being unwilling to believe in utopia, for expecting some hidden flaw. Then the writer gives it a flaw in order to go, "I've shat on perfect contentment, are you able to believe in this version, where there's literally pointless cruelty?"

A couple more thoughts on "Fight": In general I think it is a very well-crafted story - I wouldn't give it so much attention if I didn't - but I thought there were a couple real clangers.

Yeah, those jarred me, too, and I had the same reaction. Much like the "Attack Helicopter" story a little while back, it needed another editing pass, but even the deliberate choice there seems poor.

At a larger level than blind girls seeing (OFFS)—or people having to still be blind or unable to walk when they have floating skyscrapers—why exactly was the contaminated blind girl potentially salvageable, but the contaminated old man absolutely had to die? Why do those "consequences" have to be death instead of rehabilitation or isolation from society? How exactly is it considering every life to be equal to summarily kill that guy, and why, precisely, is the girl's rage at the killing thus reprehensible in comparison? There's not a convincing argument there, just assertion.

(Especially given that in our real, fallen world, the supposedly-proper reaction of "Why?" is how many people respond to violent death. People call it "senseless" out of just that reaction.)

On the plus side, it's a utopia as insanely fragile as the dystopia in Equilibrium, so there's that.

And the fact that "her father knew those consequences and accepted them" and his last words to his killers are "I'm sorry" also puts me in mind of something else.

He "accepted" that consequence, except his death was "unwilling". My reaction was more that it feels like a conventional, our-world, bit of stern moralizing thrown in ("accepting a consequence" by breaking a rule and an apology as an attempt to duck punishment) to describe something in a society that doesn't sound remotely like it works that way. One more of those jarring WTFs.

I'd take the pike over the Room 101 -> Confession -> Execution routine, mind. I'll give the story that.

[Eric the .5b]

And I'll say it. If bigotry isn't natural, why have we been doing it and outright inventing new reasons for it all of human history? We've gone from calling our own tribes words that mean "actual proper people" and gleefully killing or abducting and raping members of the neighboring tribes to inventing slavery, scientific racism, mass genocide, etc.

There isn't some point in history where we fucked up and started being shitty that way. There's just been some effort to avoid it, recently.

[Eric the .5b]

It's not meant to soothe. It's a rallying-cry to fight for equality and against the very idea that people aren't equal or can be allowed to hold that idea. It's the dumbass "Paradox of Tolerance" argument writ large, complete with a mention of it.

I think it's part of a long Progressive stance that "a better world is possible", and a counterpoint against the idea that certain things are "human nature" or are always going to be the case, and as someone whose heart is fundamentally with the left I have some sympathy to that. The counterpoint is somewhat along the lines of counterarguments to "The Cold Equations" (just as TCE was a counter to heroic pulp in which there was always a happy ending because human ingenuity and guts have unlimited power.) That said, there is also the really irritating Progressive belief that you could have anything you really wanted if you just wanted it badly enough, and since you don't have it, that must mean you don't really want it.

Well, yes (see my post about bigotry), and that's all "Omelas" was about.

"Fight" just tires me a bit because it spurns "diversity" and "tolerance" as weasel-words and demands Rightthink and Seriousness about the problems even outside the framework of the parable, but ultimately it goes, "Hey, it's OK for there still to be racial disparity in jobs and whatever so long as society really tried." In that sense, it's just a tedious assertion of moral superiority, even if we get to the same destination.

(And I'm forced to contrast my belief that if you just get rid of the coercive forces preserving inequality and discourage bigotry, you don't have to use real measures, whatever they are, to ameliorate the problem somewhat, the problem will eventually be solved and boardrooms and construction sites will look like the rest of society. Maybe I'm wrong, but I apparently think better than utopia is possible.)

[JD]

I also agree that the initial setup of Omelas is basically "Assume a spherical utopia of uniform density, with whatever arbitrary attributes you want a utopia to have." Is Omelas a utopia? Well, for the majority of the inhabitants, who are not troubled by moral qualms, yes. From the authorial or reader's point of view? I don't think it is.

I think it's pointedly going after readers for being unwilling to believe in utopia, for expecting some hidden flaw. Then the writer gives it a flaw in order to go, "I've shat on perfect contentment, are you able to believe in this version, where there's literally pointless cruelty?"

I think we may disagree about the intent of "Omelas", but that's partly because it's ambiguous and poetic and leaves itself open to a lot of interpretation. Yes, Le Guin explicitly asks, "Do you believe in this place?" but we're also invited to fill in most of the details ourselves. Compare and contrast to Jemisin not inviting us to fill in details, and telling us "You don't believe in this place"!

I honestly find the questions to the reader a weak part in "Omelas", because we're basically told "assume a spherical utopia of uniform density" and then asked if we believe in it. Believe in it? I thought we were assuming it for the purpose of the story, because that's how fiction works. If she just means "is it believable", again, the lack of details renders it if not more believable at least more acceptable. Ditto for "do you believe it now?" - as a thought experiment, it just is; we don't know why or how the child's misery enables everyone else's happiness, because the hows and whys are not the point, and further details would weaken the story, not strengthen it. I mean, "is it believable that people put aside their moral qualms" - yeah, unfortunately it's totally believable. I don't know whether Le Guin actually thought utopia was achievable, but I am pretty sure she wasn't presenting Omelas a worthy goal of society, and I think that the ending may imply that if there is a utopia, it's created by those who walked away.

As for believing in utopias in general or not, I don't know if it's about believability as such or it's just a Dead Unicorn thing as you say - certainly these days when I start reading about a utopia, I immediately sigh and go, "OK, OK, what dark secret are they concealing that enables the whole thing? Human sacrifice? The Festival? Just good old lying about their dark and violent history?"

[Kolohe]

I got pointed to "The Ones Who Stay and Fight" by N. K. Jemisin, her answer to/variation on "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas".

I just read it. It's the first Jemisin thing I've ever read, and based on her contempt for her reader it will probably be the last

I read her broken earth stuff this spring and summer (Fifth Season etc) and I liked it.

[JD]

At home, we were discussing the much-hyped "rise of geek culture" with a friend the other day, and I was saying that despite all of the hype, I don't think that merely going to see Star Wars or MCU movies makes one a geek; there are different levels and ways of appreciating things. For example, everybody has seen Star Wars, but that doesn't make you a geek; knowing why the opening crawl begins "A long time ago" is geeky.

Wife: Wait, why does it begin that way?
Me: It's because that text is all that remains of the original framing story, in which the events are being recounted in something called The Journal of the Whills, and -
Wife: You're right, I already don't care.

[Jennifer]

Random thought: how different would human biology be, had we, our close primate cousins and our pre-homo sapien ancestors evolved in the southeastern US rather than the African savannas? Humans (theoretically) cool down via perspiration -- IIRC horses are the only other non-primate animals to sweat, rather than cool down via panting, having blood flow through thinner body parts to let body heat radiate out (as do those elephant species with very large, thin ears), or similar things. And this cooldown method is definitely supposed to be better than panting, because it gives us a lot more stamina: so long as we still have water to keep hydrated, we can keep going FAR longer than a pant-to-cooldown animal can. I recently read about "pursuit predation," which our savanna ancestors are believed to have practiced: though animals such as cheetahs, gazelles and other creatures we presumably used to hunt can definitely outrun us in the short term, in the long term we actually overtake them: not by running, but simply by following and tracking them at an easy walking pace. They'd beat us in any hundred-yard dash, but we'd beat them in a marathon. Hours later, when the prey animal has to stop and pant to cool down, those sweaty human hunters would still be chugging along after them. From the animals' perspective it would've been like us being chased by zombies: they're slow and sluggish and you can outrun them easily in the short term, but sooner or later you're going to get tired, and meanwhile that slow sluggish monster chasing after you still keeps on going.

Anyway, the process "perspire, then the sweat evaporates and draws heat away as it does" presumably works very well in the arid savanna (provided you drink enough to replace the water you lose -- even if that water is as warm as the surrounding air). But it completely backfires in humid Georgia summertime, where sweat won't evaporate until you step indoors where it's air-conditioned. Pursuit predation would NOT work here. Even ordinary "sweating to cool down" doesn't work in the natural environment here: when I'm outside, the only thing that cools me down is sips from the ice water bottle I always carry, and ice water on 90-degree days does not exist naturally in Georgia: THAT requires technology barely a century old. But just "sweating" on its own doesn't cool you off on a typical hot-n-humid day; at best it just makes you feel gross and at worst it could actually make you hotter, as you end up simmering in your own juices.

So had primates and our ancestors evolved in a humid-hot rather than dry-hot environment, we would not have evolved perspiration. Maybe we'd pant to cool down, or maybe we'd have enormous-n-thin elephant ears, or our ancestors would only have been able to live in places where they could submerge themselves in water (or cover themselves with mud as pigs do) several times per day. They couldn't have done pursuit predation, which would've limited what animals they could've hunted, unless they/we evolved some other method of hunting: the ability to run very fast for short bursts of time, perhaps? But with more energy directed toward things like stronger leg and heart muscles -- whatever actual biological changes would be necessary, for the average person to be able to short-term run as fast as the average "fast" animal -- that would leave less energy available to nurture the growth and development of our super-big, super-smart brains....

Reviving this after reading about another interesting evolutionary advantage: despite us humans using water-intensive perspiration as our biological cooldown method, we are actually more efficient at water use (per pound of body mass) than our nearest primate competitors.

https://phys.org/news/2021-03-humans-ev ... tives.html

When you think about what separates humans from chimpanzees and other apes, you might think of our big brains, or the fact that we get around on two legs rather than four. But we have another distinguishing feature: water efficiency.

That's the take-home of a new study that, for the first time, measures precisely how much water humans lose and replace each day compared with our closest living animal relatives.

Our bodies are constantly losing water: when we sweat, go to the bathroom, even when we breathe. That water needs to be replenished to keep blood volume and other body fluids within normal ranges.

And yet, research published March 5 in the journal Current Biology shows that the human body uses 30% to 50% less water per day than our closest animal cousins. In other words, among primates, humans evolved to be the low-flow model.

An ancient shift in our body's ability to conserve water may have enabled our hunter-gatherer ancestors to venture farther from streams and watering holes in search of food, said lead author Herman Pontzer, associate professor of evolutionary anthropology at Duke University.

"Even just being able to go a little bit longer without water would have been a big advantage as early humans started making a living in dry, savannah landscapes," Pontzer said.

[Eric the .5b]

[D.A. Ridgely]

No, now it's a YA novel.

[Kolohe]

Short version - Person builds a physical computer that avoids binary mathematics as much as possible.

[lunchstealer]

Short version - Person builds a physical computer that avoids binary mathematics as much as possible.

"Now 3D printing is the perfect match for the NANDy 1000 because it's super slow and it just barely works."