Josh’s Comments (group member since Jun 17, 2010)

Josh’s comments from the Q&A with Josh Lanyon group.

Watched the Season Finale of Poker Face last night. I've really come to enjoy that show. I hope it's coming back!

Tonight the SO and I are going to watch Marlowe. I'm preparing by reassuring myself this is just a detective movie and has nothing to do with Chandler's Marlowe.

I'm also preparing the soothe the SO when his head explodes.

Jordan wrote: "Are you planning to throw them across the room when you’re done with them? Lol"

LOL

Lillian wrote: "Lillian wrote: "Apparently I have decided to do a complete read threw of DC comics New 52. That’s a lot of comics. It may take me some time."

Damn autocorrect. Why would it change through to threw?"

:-D I'd have to say that 3/4 of every text I send requires me correcting some baffling change made by autocorrect!

Got back on Monday from my desperately needed vacation: https://joshlanyon.blogspot.com/2023/...

It was exactly the break I needed. In fact, I don't think I realized how much in need of time away I was, until about three days in when I finally, finally let go of that mental list of Things to Do When I Get Home.

Jordan wrote: "😔 I’m not surprised. We have too many clueless republicans in power right now who think anything that isn’t like them is to be feared. Sigh. Our country is going backwards in time."

At a disturbingly fast clip.

Antonella wrote: "Some 70 dead migrants already found, probably some 30-40 more bodies still in the Mediterranean sea. This is not a tragedy, it is a State massacre. The Italian government considers these people fro..."

I struggle to understand what fuels the ability to stop thinking of other humans as humans.

Well, really, to Jordan's point about the racing dogs, I don't understand--in fact, it's even harder to understand--deliberate cruelty to animals. Let alone humans. Let alone human children.

I guess it gets down to having the power to channel your thoughts away from things that would--should--stop you in your tracks.

If you can be knowingly, deliberately cruel to an animal, that pretty much says everything there is to say about you.

Antonella wrote: "I've just found this fantastic quote by Ursula K. Le Guin:

“We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted an..."

Yes. Whatever we grow up with, be it democracy or capitalism or communism or whatever, it feels as though that's how it will always be. But really nothing in life is static.

Teal wrote: "Josh wrote: "I guess that's what you call "spoiled for choice."

Same. And I used to post every sale book I ran across, no matter how awful it looked to me, since just because I wouldn't read it my..."

That's the truth. We're spoiled for choice. We now have access to almost everything published from the beginning of time (okay, maybe not) to fan fiction, to current fiction, to audio, to...it's glorious and frankly overwhelming.

Marge wrote: "Yes, I've got SO many books I've bought and WANT to read on my e-reader that I'm getting more and more picky about all the freebies. I've tried SO many new-to-me authors lately. A few have been gre..."

My kindle is jammed with probably a lifetime of reading--and these are books I'm genuinely interested in, would love to have the time to read!

"Like a bar of chocolate, the form of an artwork is path-dependent. Melt it down and let it resolidify, and you will not reproduce the same shape or texture. "

This is such an interesting point.

I've been experimenting with AI for the purpose of social media materials, and one of the most fascinating things about AI is the wild and crazy images that are generated by a particular prompt or image. It all begins with the same prompt but the ultimate creation--compiled by an artificial intelligence--is always fantastically different.

The AI is pulling from and attempting to synthesize billions of images created by humans working from who knows what prompt or impulse.

I'm not even sure what I'm trying to say there. :-D

Karen wrote: "A friend we originally met in person in Buenos Aires (we "knew" her from a tango blog she wrote), has some interesting thoughts re the Roald Dahl rewrites.
https://quillette.com/2023/02/21/roal......"

So interesting.

This comment in particular:

"This idea has led some critics to view artistic works, especially literary works, primarily as bids for power on the part of their creators—expressions of, say, white supremacy or cisheteronormativity."

So true. And such a critical misunderstanding of what most art and artists are actually about.

Jordan wrote: "I don’t know a single Karen who fits that description! It’s so stupid, really. Blanket statements hurt more than anything else for sure."

And why on earth do the very people who are rightfully angered by calling a Hispanic person "Pedro," or a African-American person "Rastus," feel it's perfectly legit to call a white woman "Karen"?

Talk about wearing blinders.

Jordan wrote: "I don’t normally share petitions but I’m sharing this one. Spain just put into law that hunting dogs (Galgos, the cousins to the greyhound) don’t require protections against abuse and maltreatment...."

How the hell can anyone think that's okay?

Antonella wrote: "Josh wrote: "Antonella wrote: "Are you following the Roald Dahl discussion? What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202..."

..."

I mis-swallowed my tea when I read that last line.

But yes. Once you start down that slope, where--and how--do you stop?

Karen wrote: "It's kind of hurtful when your name (Karen, Hassan, etc.) is appropriated to convey a derogatory stereotype. I've known a lot of Karens and none of them were either the "talk to your manager" type ..."

Exactly. And, as you point out, I've never known a single person named Karen who fit that stereotype.

Jordan wrote: "I have not been following along, so I only know the basics. But my thinking is that we read the books as they are and let that spark a conversation about them!

One of my favorite authors as a kid..."

You all know my love of vintage mystery. But vintage mystery can definitely be problematical, even when it's obvious no harm was meant. There are plenty of beloved texts that make me wince now. But I feel pretty sure that the authors, were they writing today, would not have made those mistakes.

Antonella wrote: "Are you following the Roald Dahl discussion? What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202..."

I lied. One more thought.

Dahl's anti-semitism is appalling.

But we have a terrible tendency to judge people by their worst moments and their worst acts. I think we have take the full sum of the person in order to know how we feel about them.

Hate the sin not the sinner. That sort of thing.

AND NOW I REALLY AM TAKING MYSELF OFF THE AIR. ;-D

Josh wrote: "Antonella wrote: "Are you following the Roald Dahl discussion? What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202..."

I know it's n..."

And one further thought before I shut up.

I don't actually say "Karen" because I have several friends named Karen and the whole idea that only women of one race can be entitled twits is offensive. I was just making a point for dramatic effect. The truth is WE CAN ALL BE ENTITLED TWITS AND WE ALL ARE AT VARIOUS TIMES IN OUR LIVES.

But I do tend to rage about elderly white men particularly when they are making decisions for women's health care and autonomy. It is not that I really think all elderly white men are evil. It has become my code and code for many of us to describe certain members of the GOP who believe that women should never have got the right to vote, etc.

But that's a conversation for another day.

Josh wrote: "Antonella wrote: "Are you following the Roald Dahl discussion? What do you think?

https://www.theguardian.com/books/202..."

I know it's n..."


Actually, I got off track there--Antonella's parable reminded me of my original point.

The thing about Dahl's work is that Charlie and Chocolate Factory is itself a parable. The children are not bad because they're fat or sloppy or snooty. The physical appearance is symbolic. Gluttony is the actual problem. Sloth is the actual problem. Arrogance and lack of compassion is the actual problem.

But how do you demonstrate these things for children in a way that will capture their attention and amuse them long enough to get the message through?

Not to mention the silliness of changing "enormously fat" to "enormous." What's the message there? That being tall or big boned or simply larger than other children is bad?

When you're making changes to appease one group, you're inevitably displeasing another group. With the end result often being you've pleased no one--and usually destroyed the artwork.

Antonella wrote: "Parable by Wisława Szymborska

Some fishermen pulled a bottle from the deep.

It held a piece of paper, with these words:

“Somebody save me! I’m here.
The ocean cast me on this deser..."

LOL. That's so good!