#sidenote I’m not in any legal trouble as many people have asked | Explore Tumblr posts and blogs

truthbeetoldmedia · 6 years ago

Text

Shameless 9x13 “Lost” Review

Next week, the ninth season of Shameless will come to a close, and Emmy Rossum who plays Fiona will make her final exit (as far as we know). The seasons to come must be carried on the backs of the remaining Gallaghers we’ve come to know and love. But what does the future look like for those whose lives will continue to play out offscreen?

In the second to last episode of the season and Fiona’s onscreen story, we begin to get a glimpse at what her life may become, and how she might get out of the Southside in a more positive way than her brother Ian, who may show up again next season as teased by Cameron Monaghan, who plays him.

After being given an ultimatum by Lip, Fiona seems to wake up having done a complete 180. After helping an injured Frank get to the hospital, she meets with a public defender who tells her if she gets a job and attends AA, a jury may believe she’s contributing to society and overlook her previous felony when deciding how to rule. This is, of course, in relation to her punching a woman while drunk a few episodes back. Fiona follows the woman’s instructions, attending a meeting and getting a job at a gas station doing the overnight shift.

Kevin and Veronica get into their own legal trouble when the daycare they’ve sent twin daughters Gemma and Amy to discovers that they aren’t the same person. The nuns give them two options: Either they can pay a hefty fee, or Kevin can play Jesus in an upcoming pageant. He’ll need to drag an extremely heavy cross the 150 feet from the school to the church, but Kev agrees, thinly avoiding being charged with fraud.

Meanwhile, Lip chases a closed-off Tammi around town after discovering she’s going to see a doctor without him. Lip wants to support her and his unborn child, especially after her father showed up at his house questioning his motives, but Tammi doesn’t want any help making decisions regarding her and the baby. Eventually, she confides in Lip that she got tested for the BRCA gene, which will determine if she’s at high risk for developing breast cancer and if so, whether or not having children will decrease her risk. This is essentially where the conversation ends, as Lip can’t get much more out of Tammi.

Across town, Frank undergoes surgery after stumbling out of Fiona’s old building just as demolition starts. The hospital staff attempts to figure out how they can get him out as quickly as possible, as Frank has a reputation for stealing pills and not paying any of his bills.

At work, Carl faces an armed robber and wins by using his pent up anger from Kelly dumping him and beating him with various objects on the counter. When he gets back to the house, the bad blood between him and Debbie continues as she hangs out with Kelly. The two girls bond while shopping for military gear, as Kelly is about to head back to school. Feeling closer than ever to her, Debbie attempts to kiss Kelly as they’re cuddling on the couch. Unfortunately, her feelings are not reciprocated and she’s left feeling sad and a bit naive when Kelly decides to leave.

Though Debbie is heartbroken, Carl manages to cheer her up, and the two bond over their hatred for the girl who hurt both of them. It’s a nice moment between siblings especially after the strain that’s been on their relationship lately. Carl also tells his sister that he didn’t get into Westpoint, to which she offers a simple but sincere “Sorry.”

And all the while, Liam is at his friend’s house playing video games, watching movies, and eating homemade biscuits. Though his siblings have been texting and calling him all day, Liam is bitter that it’s taken them two days to notice he’s gone (I don’t blame you, Liam). So, he doesn’t answer any of them and continues to live lavishly with his buddy — which definitely beats staying in the Gallagher house.

While Fiona is working her first shift, Max comes into the store. He tells Fiona that the building she invested $100,000 in actually is going to be turned into a nursing home at some point in the next year, and that he wants to buy out her share. Stunned, Fiona can’t do much except agree to figure out logistics in the morning. It looks like this might be her first and last shift at the gas station.

So, it looks like Fiona isn’t going to leave Shameless in a cop car or a body bag after all. Throughout her emotional decline, it’s seemed like the eldest Gallagher sibling might not be able to pull herself together. Her siblings weren’t helping her, her friends weren’t helping her, and she certainly wasn’t helping herself. Now, though, Fiona has a chance that the audience thought would be handed to Frank through the Hobo Loco games — a surplus of money. And with the family just not the same as it once was, I won’t be surprised if Fiona decides to abandon the home she’s spent most of her life building.

In this episode, Fiona and Lip did finally have a conversation about getting back up and trying again. This particular conversation is extremely satisfying, but again, seems long overdue. Having been through an alcohol addiction and the recovery process from that addiction, there’s no reason Lip couldn’t have encouraged his sister to get up and try again when she got fired from her job for being drunk all the time on the clock.

And, sidenote, how is it that Fiona was spending her entire last paycheck on alcohol just last episode, but now seems to be having no trouble refraining from drinking? Even just one shot of Fiona looking at a bottle longingly for a few seconds could’ve made her crawl out of alcohol dependency more believable. Even if she isn’t actually an alcoholic, it’s hard for me to follow that she’s suddenly fine, going to an AA meeting and getting a job all within one episode.

This brings me back to my issue with the show’s pacing this season. There were so many episodes of Fiona walking around town drunk, interacting with a few people, going home and going to bed. All of this filler could’ve been replaced with actual plot points, like Fiona getting arrested and fired, a lot earlier. Then, she would’ve had this motivation to get better and we would’ve watched her struggle to do so. Unfortunately, we now have one more episode for a grand total of two in which Fiona is attempting to recover and get her life back together, and it’s being fast-tracked by a large sum of money. Can somebody say “rushed”?

Ignoring the pacing, this season has all around been fairly uneventful, sans Fiona and Lip’s storylines. Lip says he might get to see Xan in a few days, and Tammi might be keeping the baby. There’s a lot of what ifs right now, and a lot that I’m hoping the finale will resolve or at least raise the stakes of. I’m having trouble caring about Xan when there’s also the pregnant Tammi storyline, though even that is hard to care about when she’s so standoffish and argumentative. I feel like she and Lip are just going in circles about what’s going on with the baby, and I for one don’t know how much longer I can stay on this ride — I’m getting dizzy.

This episode felt like a lot more filler, Frank being given a completely new storyline that can’t go much of anywhere with just one episode left in the season, and Debbie and Carl resolving a petty fight over a girl. And then there’s Kev and V, picking up a long-abandoned storyline after Kev’s vasectomy provided a couple episodes of laughs and not much else. Even Liam, who’s been absent for a while now, spent the episode playing video games with his friend.

The highlight of 9x13 was Fiona being offered her $100,000 back. Though it’s out of nowhere, I guess we just have to accept that this is how Fiona is going to better her life — unless of course she gives it to Frank to help pay off his medical bills, but I somehow doubt that’ll happen.

In the preview for the finale, we see Fiona visiting Ian in prison and also sitting down with Lip, asking him to take care of Liam, presumably, for her. I’m glad that we’ll finally get some loose ends tied up and even see a familiar face before the season ends. I’m just having trouble figuring out what questions we’re going to be left with going into Season 10, besides maybe Tammi’s decision regarding her pregnancy.

Going into the season finale, I’m hoping and praying for a huge plot twist. With the relatively slow and uneventful nature of this season, it only makes sense that the finale would be totally unexpected and jaw-dropping. As a lot of people probably are, I’m hoping deep down that Jimmy/Steve will make his return to whisk Fiona away and start a new life with her. I’ve always been on the fence about them as a couple, but I think Fiona has shown us that she needs her life to be exciting. I’d love to see Jimmy/Steve come back as a better person, but still with that dash of recklessness that Fiona needs. Regardless of if this happens or not, I just hope Fiona finds adventure somewhere. All will be revealed next week, I suppose.

Shameless airs Sundays on Showtime at 9/8c.

Jessica’s episode rating: 🐝🐝.5

#Shameless #Lost

4 notes · View notes

gygax-blog · 7 years ago

Text

Callout post: Kenneth David Beasley or “Kenichi Toriyama”

Tumblr user morelikeodindank (Previous URLs: gygax, magitekskald) https://www.linkedin.com/in/ken-beasley-08437a4b/ Holds administrative positions within Nexus Gaming Alliance and A&G Con [Admin Note: This was typed mostly up by another party involved. Here and there, I will add my side of things, as some of his lies were specially crafted to suit one person or small group of people. All of my comments will be formatted like this one.]

If you take nothing else away from this, please remember the following: WHEN DEALING PROFESSIONALLY WITH KENNETH DAVID BEASLEY, GET EVERYTHING IN WRITING, SIGNED AND NOTARIZED BEFORE DOING ANYTHING ELSE. He will not pay his debts, and his word is essentially worthless.

Ken lived with my wife and I for a little over a year. He did not pay his share of the bills at all for the first 7 months, and for the following 7 months he underpaid. When he moved out, he skipped out on the last months’ rent entirely. On several occasions he offered us payment in exchange for transport several hours away - a payment that was never received. Between rent he didn’t pay, money borrowed, furniture he took with him when he moved, and a small collection of miscellaneous debts, he owed us well over $16,000.00 when he left.

When he moved in, we had a verbal contract that he would pay these things. During the process of accruing these debts, he made frequent promises to pay these things. When he left, he made a point to ask my wife to total his debts so he could continue to pay them off slowly.

The above is one of the last conversations between us - my wife was UNDERSTANDABLY nervous that once Ken got into his new apartment, he would immediately blow us off. (Sidenote, I really ought to listen to my wife more often.) Ken did not, in fact, pay us the $900.00 mentioned in this message - his portion of rent and utilities for the month of September - nor sign any paperwork pertaining to his debts to us.

I’ve waited over a year to write this post, and I’m still a little reluctant to do it. I want to make it very clear that my intent in writing this is not vengeance, I’m not doing this to publicly shame him or get some sort of revenge for the shit he’s put me through. This is purely so that other people who may be dealing with him in the future can have a certain measure of warning about the kind of person they’re dealing with and what they can expect. I’m writing the post that I needed to have read when I met him - the stuff I wish I had known. For brevity, I’m putting the rest of it under a cut:

First and foremost, Ken is a chronic liar. Who he is, what he has done, who he knows and where he has lived all vary each time he tells a story about his past. I’m going to document what he has told me and what I have found out. SOME OF THIS IS BOUND TO BE TRUE - a broken clock is still correct twice a day, and I am certain at least some of the ‘facts’ about himself he has told me are true - but none of it adds up to a whole picture.

False past - Where he went to highschool and where he grew up seem to change with the breeze. He has told me he went to highschool at no less than six different highschools, both in the US and in Japan. I’m going to relate some stories he has told us that seem to have passable internal consistency, but contradict each other.

Story: He grew up in Japan, at the center of a cult. He was told he was some sort of angel of the apocalypse, and a large group of people worshipped him, and he claims he’s still dealing with the emotional ramifications of this. He claims his uncle is Akira Toriyama, and speaks often about his frustration with his uncle only wanting to talk about his work - claims he is sick of DBZ because “Goku stole his childhood”. Apparently his father, a Japanese man, committed suicide, and he feels guilt about this.

Story: He grew up in the “Ghetto”, somewhere either in Ohio or in California, depending on the telling. He grew up with a black stepfather in a black community. His mother worked long hours and had a revolving set of boyfriends who were in and out (one of whom he claims sexually abused him as a child), and Ken claims he was the primary caregiver of his three younger sisters from age eight onward. He also claims he had a large “wolfpack” of very loyal friends who would kill for him, and claims he had a lot of legal trouble as a kid/young adult because he acted as a vigilante for his community. Academically gifted, went to many special-format educational facilities. Claims to have moved around a lot, but also claims to have many loyal/local friends who go back years and years.

Story: His mother was 14 when she had him, and was in such dire straights financially that she decided to volunteer for government experimentation on her unborn child for the money. Ken was genetically modified in-utero with animal DNA, which caused a lot of the medical issues he claims to experience - (more on that later.) Was diagnosed with ALS and/or testicular cancer as a child, survived the cancer. Experienced a traumatic brain injury as an adult, has retrograde amnesia. Was trained as a military operative with a large group of other children who were experimented on - claims to be one of the only survivors from this project.

[Admin Note: His step father is a black man, but I find it interesting that he is only ever brought up when Ken is using him as an excuse to spout of racial slurs. His mother is a very kind woman, but when you ask her about the things that Ken has told you, she gets confused because, according to Ken, she has an illness that is taking her memory away from her. As someone who has serious issues with memory, she seemed fine.]

False identities - Ken will frequently “Sock-Puppet” and make fake accounts on social media. Each account will have a purpose, something he gets from it, and will only show activity while he himself is online. They also show a theme of sexually praising Ken. I don’t want to link to the accounts in question in case one or two of them are actually real people, but here are some of the personas we’re fairly sure he’s taken on:

FB account - a close personal friend of his who has no activity on his feed beyond occasionally commenting on Ken’s posts or events. Longtime old friend of Ken, desperately wants to fuck him. Messages my wife, most conversations revolve around praising Ken’s attractiveness or sexual prowess, or attempting to peer-pressure or wingman my wife into having sex with him.

Multiple Gmail accounts - Big-name celebrities. Ken claims to have multiple big name celebrity friends from his convention connections. He’ll claim he’s been telling them about how cool you are and they want to say hi to you. Most conversations these accounts want to hold revolve around Ken - whether it’s talking about how he’s a good person, praising you for the positive things you do for him, or just these accounts talking about how much they really, really love Ken and are glad good things are happening for him. Sometimes these accounts will ask for nudes. All personal information is easily google-able.

Tumblr account - (now deactivated,) Abusive ex girlfriend. Ken claims to have an exceptionally abusive ex girlfriend, who sprang into existence shortly after my wife opened up about her own personal abuse experience. This account existed solely to send inflammatory, triggering messages to Ken, lazer-focused on whatever he was feeling insecure about. This account also attacked my wife, and told her that all of the “great sex” she’s having with Ken is because she taught him how to be good at sex first.

[Admin Note: I was told that she had committed suicide. She got better, though! (According to Ken, it was all due to some he-said-she-said.)]

Created a fake gmail account for an established costume designer, offered a cheap ‘friends’ discount for a costume I wanted very badly - CONVENIENTLY, this person’s actual work paypal wasn’t functioning and he had me send the money to an ‘alternate’ paypal account - I have a feeling I just funneled $300 to some shitty friend of his. Never received the costume.

[Admin Note: There were a few times during the time I knew him that he would have money. Which was strange because he didn’t have a paying job at the time and/or his money was supposed to be going towards bills. This type of scheming would explain where he was getting cash.]

Sexual coercion

Ken identifies as asexual - HOWEVER, he also claims that he has some sort of spiritual need for sex. He legitimately claims that he actually HAS to have sex a certain amount or he will get very sick. He uses his claimed spiritual need for sex along with the multiple sock puppet accounts to pressure people into having sex with him.

I don’t PARTICULARLY want to go into details, but he has also “invited himself in” to sex before. You know how some people just… invite themselves along to parties? He does that with sex.

Race - I want to preface this bit by saying I AM WHITE, and recognize that there is a certain amount of overstepping my bounds by bringing some of this up. HOWEVER, this is important information.

Ken doesn’t believe cultural appropriation exists at all, and actively encourages those around him to appropriate cultures they don’t have rights to.

For all intents and purposes, Ken passes as white, and has never once relayed an experience where he personally experienced racism or even frustration at erasure of his heritage.

Ken claims to be biracial - half japanese on his late father’s side, but sometimes it’s his mother’s side, depending on the day - and claims he is bilingual, frequently obviously faking ‘forgetting’ English and ‘slipping into’ Japanese. My wife, who actually has a passable understanding of Japanese, says his Japanese is BAD - poor accent, he can’t speak it and can’t understand or respond appropriately.

Ken claims to have been ‘spiritually adopted’ by ‘the native americans’ - to my knowledge he never claimed a specific tribe. He says he was given a ‘native name’ or something akin to it, “Stormtalker” or “stormbringer” or something along those lines. He uses this as grounds to speak out AGAINST the concept of cultural appropriation of native spirituality and culture.

Ken claims he was raised in a black neighborhood, and on occasion claims he has some african-american relative. He uses this as an excuse to use the N word in everyday speech, and frequently hands out “permission” to nonblack friends to use the N word as well.

Gender Identity + sexuality - Preface to this, I AM TRANSGENDER. I do not make these claims lightly.

Ken publicly identifies as Agender. He’s AMAB, uses he/him pronouns, and has no desire nor plans to physically transition in any way. He does not wear any clothing that does not strictly align to cis-masculine standards. THIS IS A PERFECTLY FINE WAY TO IDENTIFY, however, in confidence among other Nonbinary/Trans identified individuals, he readily professes that he only IDs as Agender as a way to get around his male privilege - both to relieve himself of the feelings of guilt that his male privilege gives him, and as a ‘gotcha’ to SJWs who may try to call him out on this. He is viscerally upset any time male privilege is brought up in any fashion, and needs frequent placation that we’re not talking about him specifically whenever anyone around him discusses dissatisfaction with privileged men. He also frequently expects his fellow trans people to agree with him or feel the same about their gender identities - IE he wants reassurances that we too are ID-ing as Trans/Nonbinary entirely to shirk social responsibility for what cis binary people do as a group.

Ken identifies as asexual in a way that seems focused on convincing those around him that he does not particularly care for or want sex, however he claims he has a very specific spiritual need for sex, and frequently coerces people into sex with him using this and other methods listed above. He also brags often about his sexual prowess and sexual history - claiming to have sexually satisfied numerous big name celebrities.

He claims to be a victim of rape or CSA, but only ever seems to bring this up as a method of redirecting attention back to himself when someone ELSE is speaking about their own sexual assault history. Myself and my wife - both of us sexual assault survivors - find the way he speaks about his supposed assault to be HIGHLY SUSPECT, as he is particularly insensitive to others’ traumas, and participates in sexual coercion and rape culture.

Education/Military history

Ken claims to have received military training, but have been pulled from service shortly before being deployed. He claims to be eligible for VA benefits and other veteran specific programs, and also claims that most of his medical record is “classified”, (see below.)

Claims to have spent some nebulous unspecified portion of his childhood in an active military zone, complete with comically faked “PTSD trigger responses” to airplanes flying overhead. This was clearly a performance, and his trigger was forgotten and never brought up again after that, despite living relatively near an airport.

Claims he was trained in military “enhanced interrogation” techniques, and then proceeds to spout a bunch of hollywood BS about torture techniques to show off what he knows. He’s grumpy with the Obama administration for ‘making his job illegal’.

Claims to have a sizeable academic record, be academically gifted, possibly have entered grad school, and this would be unremarkable except that it conflicts with so many of his spur of the moment “I’ve been everywhere/done everything cool!” stories he likes to tell.

Medical records / Disability - I do not make these accusations lightly. I am significantly disabled myself, and accusations of faking disability USUALLY do nothing good - however these specific instances come with manipulations - shit he will try to convince you to do to accommodate him that are excessive and unnecessary. Most of them are demonstrably false as well.

Claims to have ALS despite showing zero symptoms, and in fact does not seem particularly versed on what the symptoms even ARE - claims he was diagnosed via genetic testing about ten years before science identified what genes are associated with ALS - uses his ALS ‘diagnosis’ to get out of most physical labor and chores. Claims his ALS is what makes him ‘bad at videogames’ now, as he was once supposedly a ranked pro-gamer. However, I’ve gamed with him - his reflexes aren’t the problem, he simply makes poor decisions.

Claims to be colorblind - never consistent on which kind of colorblindness he experiences, perfectly capable of playing video games that rely on color identification for a gameplay mechanic.

Claims to have an unspecified ‘skin disease’ that conveniently makes him smell of urine - says he ‘sweats blood’, explains patchy skin color as vitiligo. In truth, he simply does not bathe frequently and does not use soap when he bathes. (He also does not wash his clothes, and substitutes air-effects febreze for both baths and clean clothes.)

PTSD - with inconsistent and easily forgotten triggers, most of which seemed to revolve around an aversion to being held responsible for his own actions. Only seemed comfortable discussing his traumas in an effort to belittle any traumas you’ve experienced - plays ‘trauma olympics’ - anything you’ve experienced he’s suddenly experienced something ten times worse. It really feels more like a ploy to request emotional support and not feel required to give emotional support in return, since he’s had it worse and you aren’t allowed to be the center stage because of it.

Extensive, inconsistent allergies - he’s allergic to the food he doesn’t want to eat, (never mind if said allergen is present in something he DOES want to eat later,) he’s allergic to ‘cut grass’ during mowing season, he’s allergic to quartz, silver, (uncooked) ketchup, mayonnaise, mustard but NOT bbq sauce, and whatever else is convenient for him to be allergic to. These allergies only ever exist when he is trying to avoid something he independently does not want, and never impede him otherwise.

Claims to be a cancer survivor and have a testicular implant, only having one biological testicle - claims he is infertile to avoid most forms of birth control. Claims he has a testicular implant that is simultaneously blue, glittery, and glow in the dark - claims the doctors let him pick out his cool-looking testicle from a box before the surgery, has no scar and never speaks about the treatments for his supposed cancer nor the medical bill.

Unnamed ‘blood disease’ that causes all of the blood in his body to die. Needs to vanish for a day or so every three months to get all of the blood drained from his body and replaced with fresh blood, because it’s all coagulating in his veins. Never even seems to have needle marks afterwards.

Claims to qualify for social security disability money - somewhere around $140,000 of “back-pay” money, that’ll come in any day now he swears. Uses this to avoid getting a job or paying his part of the bills - makes promises to use the money to buy your house for you or pay off car/medical bills. This magical payday is of course eternally delayed, but he swears it is coming soon, and that getting a job might negatively impact what he stands to receive.

Fake Deaths

Ken is perpetually and dramatically in mourning for someone or another, and uses it to demand emotional support and attention at all times. Every national tragedy that strikes - he knew someone involved, who just conveniently doesn’t show up on the victim’s list. (Claimed a good friend of his was a victim of the Pulse shooting, for example.) Some random old woman dies in New Orleans and he claims she practically raised him, despite never having mentioned living in New Orleans prior. Some minor celebrity dies and he idolized them and is personally devastated by their loss. Sometimes it’s a random army buddy. If someone isn’t freshly dead, he claims it’s the anniversary of someone dying.

He’s very dramatic and disrespectful about this - Ken claims his very presence brings terrible things into people’s lives, and demands constant reassurance otherwise.

Secretive binge eating

Normally, I wouldn’t air out someone’s personal demons like this, but if you happen to have an eating disorder yourself and you intend to live with him for any period of time, this is VITAL INFORMATION. Ken binge-eats a truly remarkable amount of food. Alone, he accounts for about a $700 a month food bill. If it’s not hidden or locked away, he will mass consume everything in the house - and he will lie to your face about it, blame other roommates, start fights, and when he is caught he will dramatically offer to let you destroy his things in vengeance - which is SUPER INSULTING because I am not a violent person at all? I have a feeling the over the top reaction to being caught was a way to divert attention away from what he did wrong and instead gain positive attention as we try to reassure him we’re not going to hurt him for overeating.

Theft - Ken has stolen or “borrowed without permission” the following:

My wife’s Nintendo DS - found in his room, he was never given permission to use it.

A folio book of my entire DS/3DS game collection - missing and never recovered

My nintendo 3ds

My laptop - ‘borrowed’ it without waiting for me to clear the data, did not return it when he moved out, refused to pay for it.

Fallout 4 strategy guide

Ken had a seemingly endless supply of Gamestop store credit, and we highly suspect he was getting it by pawning off some of our old/less played games.

Gaslighting

My wife and I both have some minor memory issues pertaining to our collective trauma history. Mentioning this around Ken was a mistake - he used this knowledge to gaslight us at every turn. He would lie to each of us individually about what the other one was saying or doing, causing numerous petty arguments over things that were ultimately found out to be his doing. He would blame the missing food or missing video games on us, and would frequently bring up our terrible memories as to why things that were happening didn’t make sense. Since he has left our lives, the world now seems to operate with standard logical physics. Things stay where we left them.

Animal abuse and neglect

While living with us, Ken was responsible for multiple animal husbandry chores - feeding, cleaning litter boxes, etc. Not once in our care did he actually do these chores - this involved starving our elderly cat, layering fresh litter over an already filthy catbox and claiming it was clean, failing to provide water for animals on his side of the house, and feeding/handling our reptiles without permission.

One of his friends who I believe he is now living with also seriously harassed our animals when he visited, going so far as to make concerning comments about the animal’s consent to be held not mattering to him. Ken seemed to take no issue to this and actively defended him.

Privacy - Ken did not and does not have respect for my or my wife’s privacy

On multiple occasions Ken brought uninvited and unannounced guests into the house without telling us anyone new was here. This involved multiple friends getting a view of myself or my wife without clothes.

I saw Ken’s dick so many times. He did not wear boxers that covered himself and I saw things I did not wish to see.

Frequently disclosed personal business of ours to coworkers even when we had EXPLICITLY asked him not to do so - also modified this information to make himself appear good.

Petty thing - bad gift giver

This is the pettiest fucking shit, and the single place where I will deviate from my express goal of this post, but considering literally everything I have listed above, I believe I am allowed one (1) petty stupid thing. He’s a shitty gift giver. He signs his name on the card of gifts other people give, (claims it’s from him AND the actual gift giver, b/c he ‘helped with the idea’), and never once actually bought a gift for either myself nor my wife - despite the fact that we went above and beyond to get him gifts while he was with us, and despite the fact that he DID have income. When he does give gifts, they’re regifted throwaway chachkies with some fake-deep meaning behind them. He’ll give you a used notebook or some thriftstore ‘home sweet home’ thing and make up a story about it. Once he went to a con and generously brought me all the free paperwork he got from the sony and nintendo booths. He gives gifts more to receive praise than to actually do a nice thing for you, and I think that’s telling about a person.

[Admin Note: This is most definitely one of his former urls. I snagged it a while back while I was feeling petty and it seemed the most appropriate to use for this purpose. None of this has anything to do with Gygax, Gary or others.]

2 notes · View notes

bythemotorway · 7 years ago

Text

On bear traps and whether to put up or shut up

Here's a simple analogy exploring the ethics of designing for safety in the public realm. It is about bear traps and reciprocity.

But let's get there via a digression on "put up or shut up".

When I critically approach designers of public space, whether they are city engineers, their managers, even private consultants or fellow advocates, I'm often challenged with the question, "what would you do?"

That question, posed verbally with a hint of seething, partly implies a kind of hostility: put up! or shut up!

It is also meant as a gatekeeping exercise, as often the questioner means to highlight their own vast record of experiences or accomplishments—which is a problematic response for many obvious reasons, including shaming, and perhaps worse, that they are not genuinely interested in an answer.

But let's focus on the "put up" part charitably, as if it is meant to elicit meaningful action out of criticism. Then we might catch some bears.

Sidenote: Sometimes they call it "constructive criticism", but constructiveness is an arbitrary quality (unsteady goalposts). Still, being charitable: let’s say they mean to compare what I and my community have done, are doing, or will do in some tangible way to resolve the transport design problems across the city.

So why is it troubling to be asked to "put up", to take some necessary action such as community organizing, building a petition, or even doing tactical urbanism? Here:

One problem is that it is a special kind of victim blaming. It reframes the situation, not as that of powerful system designers (engineers in the main) who are causing their users to suffer, but rather as a failure of vulnerable people to organize themselves in self-defence.

It suggests thats communities are getting the terrible public realm they deserve—that a root cause is their own inability to get organized.

This is especially vicious because in many respects, community organization only becomes harder as a direct result of the deficient public realm and its regulation and operation (and consequently private developments). The system designers have collectively created it, bearing the most influence over time. Severance, poor connectivity, hollow streets, low density, etc. have all made it difficult to build a variety of community bonds in the first place.

(A cynical observer might not think this a coincidence.)

Another problem is that the act of individually or communally organizing, resisting, and fomenting change, costs money and time and work. The same people who demand that the vulnerable ones should pick up the slack in developing participatory community engagement, will be the ones saying the government agency cannot itself do it because it is too costly (for their million-dollar budgets, in which context it may actually be relatively cheap).

Not only is that a barrier in general, but it is insidiously discriminatory, considering social and economic diversity. Who can afford to overcome the resource barriers to organize themselves and their community? Only those sufficiently endowed with privilege, particularly capital and existing networks. Think about those too poor, too sick, too disabled, too busy raising children, too pre-occupied with other struggles, too homeless or transitory, too foreign, too non-white, too old, too young, too queer, too uneducated, too intimidated to rock the boat, too frightened to expose themselves for good reason (e.g. escaping abusers)…

Will a diversity of people be able to do what is being asked to organize their efforts or their neighbours’? Do they not deserve public safety just because they cannot afford to pay this special “get organized” tax? Which neighbourhoods and suburbs are likely to win or lose in this framework?

(I often call for a basic minimum standard of quality and care that ought to be universal when designing transport infrastructure. The point is to serve just such a diversity of people unconditionally, without demanding that they jump through arbitrary and unreasonable hoops.)

But suppose one were to overcome these circumstantial hurdles of time, money, stress and other resources. Suppose one did organize themselves and their local community. Would they meet with success? Will their shared goals be realized? Probably not.

In such a scenario, the local authority is only transferring the burden and costs of getting co-ordinated upon the community, without any assistance. That may even be a good thing to do, if you are politically inclined to devolve responsibilities and remain free from undue influence. But that is not all they might provide—there is a missing half.

The local authority does not generally ship any kind of authority or ability to execute on plans to locals or local groups. In New Zealand particularly, there is a statutory designation of a "road-controlling authority": a license granted to organizations to… well, control roads. Even the best-organized but hyper-localized communities and individuals do not get such a grant of power. The most they can do is petition the road-controlling authority in the hopes of influencing their eventual plans and programmes. They have no teeth.

Of course, grassroots activists can still act via tactical urbanism, intervening illegally. But direct action only raises the barrier further: what kind of people can tolerate the legal risk? Who is sufficiently well-connected to the road-controlling authorities to be able to attract a blind eye?

So the original question of "what would you do?" is clearly a trap [for humans, not bears yet]. It is a way of relieving the governing authority of the difficult and costly burden of community co-ordination and organization, without extending or delegating any power to build infrastructure with grassroots initiative.

It comes as no surprise that the people usually posing the question have a hand on the handlebars. Typically being government staff or contractors of the road-controlling authority (including some advocates and their proxies), they do have the ability—individually limited as it may be—to influence the physical design of places, legally. Being within that exclusive professional order also means they can fraternize and horse-trade to leverage a little more influence. These are not the dynamics readily available to the general public, however organized.

Now, the usual retort would be that there are many ways to contribute to the development of the public realm, including ways that do not directly depend on having that road-controlling authority. This is true, but incomplete.

Without the powers described above—either to exercise the road-controlling authority, or to professionally "network" (horse-trade)—any outsider from the general public is at a disadvantage when rubber eventually meets road. There is no worthwhile leverage in discussions or negotiations. The road-controlling authority always has the veto power, the ability to pull the plug at any time. Grassroots organizations and particularly individuals are entertained solely at the pleasure of the official officer (and do they like to remind you of it or what…). Advocates may even be prone to being co-opted for low-yield wins in such trying circumstances.

Collectivizing as a neighbourhood or locality is to some extent an illusion of power—it's not all that it's made out to be. Consider the fact that inadequate and inhumane public realm designs, street designs, and transport infrastructure already mistreat a large number of people collectively. And there already exist channels for co-ordination and expression of collective will. We're already getting a raw deal, but we're already voting and talking to apparently enlightened local boards and a council (who nominally have oversight of the transport organization and some limited but more substantive powers than individuals). With no other grant or license of authority, a self-organized community would be largely redundant and lack any leverage to force change beyond the so-far ineffective political machinery that exists.

So long as the road-controlling monopoly is held by one body, it falls on just that one body to wield it safely and decently. If local communities are expected to form grassroots organizations as if they had road-controlling powers then they should be granted those actual powers to some commensurate degree, and probably become subject to regulations ensuring a measure of democracy within the community group etc. Technically in Auckland, it may just boil down to better, more fine-grained and well-defined power-sharing with local boards. Or not—this post isn’t about cans of worms, it’s about bear traps…

What about the bear traps?!

Here's the thing. Underlying the "what would you do?" question is a false sort of meritocracy. For just a moment, it is as if the insider, the engineer, the advocate or whomever, is at the same level as you. You, the little person from the general public. They want to know your ideas as if it could be as good as any of theirs—it may even rise on its own merit!

(Of course, they don't really mean it. You can test that by actually providing a "constructive" alternative—ticking their boxes for tone and style, at least. It typically immediately generates a negative, almost-allergic reaction, and ultimately a rejection of the idea.)

Suppose there is such a momentary equality between the expert and the general user. There should then be an equal reciprocal ethic between them. If the golden rule should apply, then neither party ought to try to, say, kill the other.

So how does it shake out in reality, between the engineer and me?

Well, I don't go around setting deadly bear traps about the town, then sit back and await only objections in the form of petitions from well-organized anti-bear trap communities and sufficiently glad-handing advocates.

Even if, by chance, I got drunk and did something like it on an ill-judged night out, I wouldn't the next morning wake up with a hangover and a compulsion to deny all objections to the traps by saying I won't take them away because I'm too busy setting even more of the damn things.

And I’m not saying I would avoid such an act because it is illegal. (I don't know the law around bear traps, but I can guess based only on fundamental human decency.) I would not do it simply because they are fucking bear traps that could harm others. Even if I had some magical license to do it, I would not.

Now, I can anticipate the rebuttal: what about the nuances and edge cases? What if the town really had a bear problem? What if the townspeople could learn to navigate around bear traps safely?

Yeah, maybe. But the bear trap isn't necessary. There isn't a bear problem. Let's see why, back in reality:

When engineers and other professionals design public spaces and infrastructure in Auckland, they build-in bear traps.

Typically (but not always) there is a legitimate need for some piece of infrastructure or other. Say, a pedestrian crossing.

There are many ways to design pedestrian crossings. There are standards (devised by engineers, but that's another matter), which limit the range of possibilities. But there are usually multiple ways to solve the problem depending on the constraints.

The question is whether the constraints include having a bear trap or not.

The bear trap is usually excess traffic speed, or removable path conflicts, or some dangerous feature that the design could address.

We know the design could address the danger because in a vast set of cases, there exist better designs that are not afflicted with such risk, found elsewhere in the world, and built by other humans inexplicably very much like us. (See: Amsterdam, etc). We know from those precedents that the benefit of a bear trap isn't necessary; there isn't a bear problem; Amsterdam etc survive without that excess speed or removable path conflict or whatever.

One can design a pedestrian crossing without a bear trap, or one can design it with a bear trap. Both are pedestrian crossings. One version is ethically acceptable, one is not. But this is a choice that the system designers make.

So we know there are ways to live without bear traps in our infrastructure and public spaces. And we know that we have them. All over the place. In old and new designs. In designs yet to be built, still being developed. There are engineers and other professionals littering the town with deadly bear traps, and there isn't a bear problem.

That is a failure of reciprocity. I don't go around setting bear traps, so neither should the engineer (or related person). Especially if they are posing the question of "what would you do?"

But they do set bear traps.

Now what would I do about that? [Insert cliffhanger text…]

1 note · View note