Meeting People (2 Viewers)

[7 - No tomorrow]

What's a missed connection ?

From memory

You: Girl with brown hair walking into Waitsfield Grocery
Me: Guy with longish hair and mustache beside a white van

You looked at me and smiled as you passed, it felt like we had a moment. Coffee?

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

This is from someone that tracks the ones mentioning books
Literary Missed Connections Roundup: November - PageViews


--------------------------------------------------------------------
Dark haired girl with glasses on bus 73 - m4w - 38 (Belmont)

You sat diagonal from me for the bus ride. I had a hat and dark hair and got off at Beech st (right after the dunkin donuts). You were reading a pretty thick paperback book and I didn't want to bother you. I thought you were cute and was curious if you wanted to go out sometime?

Theo

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Reading John McPhee (m4w) Green Line

You were wearing a maroon coat and reading "The Founding Fish" on the train around 5 this evening. Wish I had said something, because John McPhee is excellent.

Let's get coffee?

 

[washingcattle]

From memory

You: Girl with brown hair walking into Waitsfield Grocery
Me: Guy with longish hair and mustache beside a white van

You looked at me and smiled as you passed, it felt like we had a moment. Coffee?

Ha, I've always expected to see one that read

"You: beautiful jailbait ass

Me: bald man hanging out the passenger side of a subaru impreza shouting "show us yer tits" was it me or did we have something?"

I'm as yet to.

 

[nooleen]

From memory

You: Girl with brown hair walking into Waitsfield Grocery
Me: Guy with longish hair and mustache beside a white van

You looked at me and smiled as you passed, it felt like we had a moment. Coffee?

"coffee? i've got some in the back of my van"

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

Someone did a decent one after a pIxies show where it was

You: Girl playing bass on stage, I think the fat guy near you called you 'Kim'
Me: Guy in a black t-shirt. You smiled at me briefly

Drinks?

Generally they're just sad with a creepy hue.

 

[Lili Marlene]

I just picked the new yorker as an example of a left leaning magazine I don't really read it. See this is the problem for me to quote The Wire,

"once you call something a war, then everyone goes around calling themselves soldiers"
That brings up plenty of problems with regard to agenda's manifestos etc versus the idea of an unbiased media. And that's a problem too.

One of the first casualty of that, is art criticism, Like Emily Nussbaum and the likes where their agenda becomes the critique.

Everyone has an agenda, everyone has a bias, all critique displays this, all art displays this. Emily Nussbaum doesn't pretend she's not talking about feminism. Being part of a genre doesn't make you immune to agenda or bias and genre works are not formed in a vacuum. In addition they are not exempt from criticism that displays agenda or bias just because they are a genre.

Don't get me wrong the NY post article is fucked as well, but is this really where we are now ? I mean is this modern journalism ? Is it really just the comments section on youtube ? and Can you really expect to change anyones opinion with this standard of journalism ?

Just so I'm clear, what you're saying is.... it's not about feminism it's about standards in journalism?

 

[nooleen]

Just so I'm clear, what you're saying is.... it's not about feminism it's about standards in journalism?

jaysus, i'm sure i heard something like that somewhere else recently

now where was it..

 

[washingcattle]

Everyone has an agenda, everyone has a bias, all critique displays this, all art displays this. Emily Nussbaum doesn't pretend she's not talking about feminism. Being part of a genre doesn't make you immune to agenda or bias and genre works are not formed in a vacuum. In addition they are not exempt from criticism that displays agenda or bias just because they are a genre.

Yeah but the problem there is that biased critiques are meaningless. To drop Nausiatingbaum out of the conversation (forever) lets say that you have an openly nationalistic critic and a critic opposed to nationalism. I make work which challenges nationalism and it get's slated by one critic and hailed by the other neither are valid because they are only writing about themselves and not the work. That's the problem.

Just so I'm clear, what you're saying is.... it's not about feminism it's about standards in journalism?

Holy jesus fucking christ, do you even read anything I post on here ?

Just because I have issues with the messenger doesn't mean I have any issue with the message.

Maybe I'm just not used to what passes for content in newspapers now. This is another example of how the internet has changed the media. For me articles like this are akin to stand up comedy routines. Articles that deal with gender being one thing which is rather quickly turning from being about issues such as wage gap, violence and inequality and towards "aren't men creepy" it's not long before the Guardian will be running "Why are men so hairy?" and "Don't you hate it when guys smell ?" and that is a problem.

I posted this 3 fucking pages back. Fuck this There is no fucking talking to you. It's always the fucking same shit every fucking time.

I write "I don't like this type of article I don't like it's tone and I don't see how it reaches the audience it tries to engage with"

you read "I hate feminists"


It's completely fucking ridiculous.

 

[nooleen]

you flip your shit every time a feminist opinion is posted

it's not rocket science, bro

 

[Lili Marlene]

Yeah but the problem there is that biased critiques are meaningless. To drop Nausiatingbaum out of the conversation (forever) lets say that you have an openly nationalistic critic and a critic opposed to nationalism. I make work which challenges nationalism and it get's slated by one critic and hailed by the other neither are valid because they are only writing about themselves and not the work. That's the problem.

In your example there I think they're both equally valid and it's up to you, the reader, to decide what makes sense to you. No-one is 100% one thing or the other and there is no such thing as an unbiased critique, you'd be mad to think otherwise.

Holy jesus fucking christ, do you even read anything I post on here ?

Ah I was just having fun in the last bit really. The article wants to talk about feminism, you want to talk about the quality of the article, it's a bit like an Irish times comments section.

I posted this 3 fucking pages back. Fuck this There is no fucking talking to you. It's always the fucking same shit every fucking time.

right back at you friend.

I write "I don't like this type of article I don't like it's tone and I don't see how it reaches the audience it tries to engage with"

you read "I hate feminists"

No I don't. You keep telling me I think that but I've never said that about you.

We disagree on the ability of articles like this (and don't get me wrong, it's not exactly a life changing piece of writing) to have any kind of tangible affect on the world, I'm cool with that.

It's completely fucking ridiculous.

Oh god yes.

 

[washingcattle]

you flip your shit every time a feminist opinion is posted

it's not rocket science, bro

I criticise fucking everything. Everything is open to criticism. I'm not flipping my shit over anything. The True Detective thing pissed me off because it was an example of biasedagenda based art criticism. The "how are women represented at HWCH" pissed me off because it was a ridiculous use of statistics to misrepresent a true picture of a music scene that I was a fucking part of. I was the only fucking person in a thread about women's fucking sport that actually gave two shits about women's fucking sport.

It's you two that flip your shit every time anyone disagrees with you over anything pertaining to fucking feminism. I don't agree with you and you think that means I'm against you. It's not the same fucking thing the world is not that black and fucking white. Jesus fucking christ.

 

[Lili Marlene]

It's you two that flip your shit every time anyone disagrees with you over anything pertaining to fucking feminism. I don't agree with you and you think that means I'm against you. It's not the same fucking thing the world is not that black and fucking white. Jesus fucking christ.

I don't think any of this. Please stop telling me what it is that I think.

 

[nooleen]

alright, alright, you're fucking not fucking flipping your fucking shit

and you fucking don't fucking do it on every fucking discussion of fucking feminism

let's fucking all fucking calm fucking down

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I criticise fucking everything. Everything is open to criticism. I'm not flipping my shit over anything. The True Detective thing pissed me off because it was an example of biasedagenda based art criticism. The "how are women represented at HWCH" pissed me off because it was a ridiculous use of statistics to misrepresent a true picture of a music scene that I was a fucking part of. I was the only fucking person in a thread about women's fucking sport that actually gave two shits about women's fucking sport.

It's you two that flip your shit every time anyone disagrees with you over anything pertaining to fucking feminism. I don't agree with you and you think that means I'm against you. It's not the same fucking thing the world is not that black and fucking white. Jesus fucking christ.

Why do you hate The Guardian?

 

[washingcattle]

Why do you hate The Guardian?

It's not just the Guardian it's the glib, pompous, right on form of journalism that tries to make out it's a comment on subject when it's actually just a self centred piece about the persons own agenda. It's not news, it's not criticism it's basically a blog entry made to look like something else. It's almost always about the person writing it and almost never adds anything to the discussion of the topic it's supposed to be about. Pieces like that as I said before have this horrible totalising effect, where the authors experience comes to represent all experience.

For the record it's not just feminist articles that do this. There are plenty of other examples.

And I certainly do not not just flip my shit over feminist articles.

I "flipped my shit" over another article on the Guardian recently in which some journo was banging on about hipster culture because she didn't like a bar called job centre and attempted to speak for the working class who were "up in arms over the whole thing" in spite of the fact that she was obviously not one of "us" and in reality no one gave a shit.


I "flipped my shit" when that dose cunt food blogger described east wall as a fucking war zone. The difference there is that no one takes offence to me doing that and it doesn't go on for ten pages.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

that tries to make out it's a comment on subject when it's actually just a self centred piece about the persons own agenda.

Not having a go, but isn't that exactly what an opinion piece is?

No one expects columnists or the Op-ed page to be true balanced journalism, it's where people with a vested interest stake out a view.

It's not news, it's not even trying to be the news.

 

[washingcattle]

Not having a go, but isn't that exactly what an opinion piece is?

No one expects columnists or the Op-ed page to be true balanced journalism, it's where people with a vested interest stake out a view.

It's not news, it's not even trying to be the news.

There's a difference between writing a piece that says "speaking for myself" and "speaking for whatever group you want to name" That's the totalising effect I'm talking about. If I was to say "Speaking for the working class" you'd have every right to say "you do not speak for me" and that's what I object to.

 

[7 - No tomorrow]

I think that may be more in perception than being on the page.

 

[washingcattle]

I think that may be more in perception than being on the page.

Either way it irks me.

 

[hermie]

My brother met his girlfriend of 7 years in a very similar situation to the one laid out at the start of the Guardian piece. If his other half had read this article the day before and decided not to engage this creepy guy what a missed opportunity that might have been. I imagine millions of happy couples met in such a spontaneous way and recount the story with fondness. The writer is conspicuously vague on what she considers the boundaries to be. What is it specifically that was inappropriate about these men? That they were older than the women? That the conversation was inane? If they didn’t read the signs that the person was clearly unhappy to have been interrupted that is disrespectful. But social awkwardness is not limited to white males over a certain age as she implies. And it is utterly offensive to call out all men indiscriminately and say don’t pester women in coffee shops.

I guess I went on the defensive at the suggestion that I’m not sympathetic towards the more menacing type of scenario. A really good friend recently had to have a guy who sat beside her on a long commute and positively refused to leave her be thrown off the bus. I get that public transport is particularly unsettling as it comes with the very real sense of feeling trapped. That men who deliberately ignore the cues, prompts and expressions of disinterest are the lowest of the low. The suggestion, however, that somehow I’m insensitive to the situation my friend found herself in because I disagree with the sentiments expressed in a risible, provocative think-piece (which equates an awkward conversation with a "form of murder", which starts off with a coffee shop faux pas before quickly drawing parallels between the men in question and rapists) is quite frankly infuriating. I have every right to give out about her tone, it’s inflammatory. And I don’t think it a reasonable response to anything even the loathsome guy in the New York Post.