Re: Amanda Palmer, Neil Gaiman; also, a look at Azz's brain's "trust" feature.

[azurelunatic]

Why use demeaningly sexist language like "attention whore" in response to deliberately shocking/grating, attention-seeking antics (and also, if someone is a professional entertainer? Attention-seeking is sort of their professional life. Just sayin'.) when there exists the simple and evocative "troll"?

If someone positively associates with a known troll, I judge them. I may not say anything to anyone about what I think (obviously, since I'm making commentary here this time, I'm saying something this time, even though in this case it's largely metacontextual and also an example sufficiently detached from my day-to-day life that I can use it as an example), and I may not decide that I must sever my own associations (if any) with them, or make any declaration that they've lost my goodwill (with the linked implication that people who retain them in their goodwill may also be judged), but I think about how much I value them, and my esteem of them will probably drop a fraction if (again in my own estimation) their association with that troll seems to continue in an approval of the troll's trollish tactics, or despite trolling that would be a dealbreaker for me.

Specifics:
I don't know half enough about the Amanda Palmer/Neil Gaiman dynamic to even begin to think about whether under the same interpersonal circumstances I would jump ship entirely or make some sort of public statement of disagreement on the problematic fronts.

Prior to Evelyn-Evelyn, I had started to vaguely think that Amanda Palmer was a person I ought to investigate when I was on a musical-discovery kick the next time. Now, given that it looks as if caring about her music might involve caring about her public face, I don't want to get emotionally invested in an entertainer who will break my heart as she seems to be breaking hearts across my friends/reading pages. I want to maintain that distance, now, so if she says or does something wildly problematic again, as I imagine she inevitably will now that she's under a magnifying glass in addition to the spotlight, that I can look at it from not just the detachment of my privilege, but the detachment of not-being-a-fan, and say "Oh dear, that was problematic, and I should probably continue to avoid that."

Neil Gaiman has been on my radar for a while, because, migod, he's Neil Gaiman, and I'm vaguely fannish about him despite not having sought out very much of his stuff, because most of the geek culture I inhabit is vaguely to immensely fannish of him. Also, Good Omens. Prior to this, I hadn't heard anything about him that persistently lowered him in my estimation. This has placed a tick in the wrong column: there's now an entry under "Disadvantage: Associates with at least one person of problematical public face (troll)". It's not enough to put me off his work, or to make me stop reading him entirely (for some calibration on what makes me unable to read someone, see Piers Anthony for content, Card for public conduct) but it's a tick in the wrong column.

And here's where I jump from commentary on that situation to commentary on how my brain works; if you were just here for the celebrity schadenfreude, you can depart the ride now unless you actually want to hear about how my brain works.

My trust in other people works like that. I have a default trust level for other human beings upon first meeting, with points up and down for general appearance and presentation. (Breathing booze fumes on me in BART and telling me I'm a sexy lady doesn't quite bottom you out on the scale, because there's much worse than that, but it drops you plain out of the default generally-untrusted-except-for-conversation level.)

It's not a straight points scale, because some things "weigh" more than others: having been my friend of 20 years generally overrides a chance tactless comment. And it's not quite as if long-term friendship is worth 100 points, and each tactless comment is worth 1 point, so after 100 tactless comments, this overrides the history of friendship, and there's an upset. Generally, once a pattern gets discerned, things get re-arranged to better account for reality. Advantage: friend of 20 years, 95 points. Disadvantage: Makes tactless comments: 10 points. Advantage: can generally make me laugh: 30 points. Disadvantage: Bit my sister once: 1 point.

There are things that can override other things. Disadvantage: Tasteless: Likes Twilight: 10 points. Advantage: Can explain why and it's reasons that I can find agreeable if not agree with entirely myself: nullifies associated disadvantage.
Advantage: likes painting: 2 points. Advantage: vegetarian: 5 points. Disadvantage: is Hitler: nullifies all possible advantages.
There aren't very many of those that are absolutes. More of them are "retains this advantage in the face of even otherwise-nullifying disadvantages" and "this disadvantage means that this person will never gain minimum trust threshold".
Advantage: is related to me: advantage is retained but weight varies depending on circumstances. (Advantage: is sister sometimes had negative points.)
Disadvantage: enjoys nonconsensually causing the pain of innocents: disadvantage cannot be nullified.

Not everything is an advantage or disadvantage. Some things are just null-value attributes.
The same general attribute isn't always on the same side depending on the situation.
Advantage: loud voice (is actor): 5 points.
Disadvantage: loud voice (is 5-year-old): 15 points.
Advantage: holds my hand a lot (and I like it): 15 points
Disadvantage: holds my hand a lot (and I don't like it): 15 points; Disadvantage: bodily integrity (mine), disrespecting: 50 points.

Some things get more points based on intensity/severity of the particular situation.
Advantage: makes me laugh (occasional snickers): 2 points.
Advantage: makes me laugh (regularly, difficulty breathing): 20 points.
Disadvantage: non-technical (little to no impact on my life): 1 point, sometimes mitigated by Advantage: enjoyable bonding moments teaching technology: 2 points.
Disadvantage: non-technical (makes me scream): 50 points.

Some of them expire as I forget them, leaving only a vague memory of unspecified reputation behind, and adding to the collected reputation of my having known a person for however long. Some of them, and sometimes there's no telling which it will be, linger long after one would otherwise expect the memory to have faded.
Advantage: I think there was this one hilarious conversation?: 5 points.
Advantage: That time in the 6th grade with the "un-scrunch": 5 points.
Disadvantage: You were a jackass in elementary school; I don't imagine I'll like you any better now: 50 points.
Disadvantage: That song glorifying torture, even torture of a terrorist, that you shared with me in 2001? Still not funny. 5 points. (Mitigated to 1 net point disadvantage due to never sharing anything in that general class of "humor" at me again after the ensuing hanging-the-hell-up and the Discussion ensuing from *that*.)

I don't generally enumerate all these advantages and disadvantages; I don't tend to have an actual spreadsheet with these, and would have to actually work pretty hard to come up with the full list of everything that any given person has. If I were a robot, I'd have to have that. If I were an azi, I could probably recall pretty well. I'm not. I just make a habit of attempting to remember the things that could affect my trust level for a person, particularly things that could influence me to adjust it in a downward direction.

I was not raised around very many humans, and my early exposure to large groups of them for extended periods of time when I was expected to interact with them was preschool and first grade. I was unimpressed. (More accurately, I was overwhelmed, the culture clash was pretty bad, and I thought most of the lot of them were morons. However, the alternative was my mother as a teacher, so I put up with the morons.) I learned that trusting your peers without reason to do so was the worst of all bad plans, and trusting anyone with a history of untrustworthy acts was just stupid. It was far better to be aloof and safer than very, very sorry.

Comments

[jumpuphigh]

Disadvantage: Bit my sister once: 1 point.

I laughed til my dog got concerned and got all up in my face.

Plus, learned a new word. \o/ schadenfreude
I was not here for that as I have no idea who Amanda Palmer or Neil Gaiman are. I'm here for the brain works bits...and the laughing til I cry.

[rydra_wong]

Advantage: likes painting: 2 points. Advantage: vegetarian: 5 points. Disadvantage: is Hitler: nullifies all possible advantages.

Is this a common problem for you? It's just that it makes it sound as if you run into it rather frequently:

"So I was talking to this guy and he seemed pretty cool, and then suddenly I found out that he was Hitler. Again. I can't believe this keeps happening to me ..."

[azurelunatic]

Heee! Not a common problem, no, but all of the other "there are no redeeming features that can even touch this level of absolute WRONG" examples I could think of offhand were far too much personal drama and private-information-of-other-people.

Thinking about it this morning, maybe AK-47 Guy? But then I'd have to explain him, and really, the way my brain works, even "Disadvantage: pointed an AK-47 at my baby brother, roommates, and me at Anime Night" isn't a "nullifies all possible advantages", but a "retains this disadvantage in the face of any advantages and will never again retain minimum trust". AK-47 Guy retains the advantage of being a live human being; I'd be unsurprised but vaguely sorry if some wacknut shot him, despite him being a wacknut himself.

[azurelunatic]

Oh! jd just commented on the LJ mirror, and mentioned that Gaiman has possible Scientology connections. Confirmed wacknuts Scientology is almost nullifies-any-advantages. (I have problems with Scientology.)

[sporky_rat]

Oh dear. I would hate for Mr Gaiman to experience the true wrath of the Internets. Scientology is one of those 'dealbreakers' for me too.

[emceeaich]

Gaiman's father was involved in El Ron's cult, but Gaiman is not.

[redbird]

A meta note: I also seem to have that "I remember that I had a problem with this person, but not what it was."

Sometimes that continues to be a factor in my dealing with them--if I remember that I distrusted someone, they'll need to do quite a bit more to gain my trust than someone starting from scratch. Other times, things fade: a couple of years ago, someone I ran into at a convention wanted to try to smooth things over from a long time ago, but since I couldn't remember what, if anything, I had been angry at her about, I said so, and that there wasn't any need. Thinking about it later, and talking to my best friend, I guessed that it might have been about someone she was involved with--and the person in question has been dead for several years, so "don't want to hang out with someone who might invite him along" is no longer a factor. (She doesn't have, as far as I can tell, generally bad taste in partners, there was just this one guy.)

[finch]

"I remember that I had a problem with this person, but not what it was."

I do this all the time, especially since I've been on the internet for ages. Every once in a while I'll run into someone and slowly realize that they used to troll a usenet comm I was on or something.

[azurelunatic]

This is among the reasons I hope DW gets the user note feature that LJ has, because I've been leaving notes on problematic users I run into where I want to be sure that I remember what kind of problem they are. (Nice people, I'm happy to just feel a general good feeling when I see their default userpic and name.)

[redbird]

With me, it's not just online: there are people disliking or distrusting because of in-person interactions, but not what they were. (Along with the ones for whom I know why, but for one reason or another it's not mine to share or talk about, but that's a whole different kettle of fish.)

[azurelunatic]

Oh yes. Once someone's earned distrust, they have to actually prove basic trustworthiness, and someone who's been just-met in a positive sort of scenario doesn't have to demonstrate that they're not likely to actually be an axe-murderer before I'll give them the time of day.

[dmj618.livejournal.com]

(and also, if someone is a professional entertainer? Attention-seeking is sort of their professional life. Just sayin'.)

This is just a tad disingenuous, certainly if someone is an artist, singer, poet, etc that person wants attention for what they do, but not necessarily any kind of attention, like Amanda Palmer. Otherwise why hasn't there been more actresses and actors who disrobe on the red carpet, change their middle name to "Fucking", make up stories belittling disabled people AND people who have been molested as children, or make idiotic jokes about the irony of the KKK? These are the types of things AP is being called a troll...or "attention whore" about. (I don't like that sexist language either.)

[jd]

Well, "troll" is very specific Geek Slang, so I'm entirely unsurprised that it's not used as widely as other phrases such as "attention whore", especially since that one is established usage. (Incidentally, in my idiolect, whore isn't a gendered/sexist word, but I know that's very much not the case for many people.)

Another possible disadvantage to Gaiman is his possible Scientology connections. It's too bad, because I really do like his books (and actually, between Ryan and me we have a few that we can lend you if you want.)

[azurelunatic]

Oh dear, "possible Scientology connections" is at least a three-point disadvantage; I'm really rather more knee-jerk on that than I generally like, but that is not something that I am prepared to tolerate or cope with the side effects surrounding.

But I doubt any of that would have gotten on his books. I'll let you know. I actually have Stardust somewhere.

[amberfox.livejournal.com]

"Study in Emerald". I'm on the iPhone, so linking would take effort, but give it a look. Twisted Sherlock Holmes-Lovecraft thing-of-beauty.

[azurelunatic]

Oh! I do believe I have read that! I have a collection of Holmes pro-fic.

[amberfox.livejournal.com]

The version on his website is quite nice, as it's a PDF in the style of an old newspaper, ads and all. I wish the book version was printed from that.

[icecreamempress.livejournal.com]

His parents were, and sisters are, big wheels in UK Scientology circles. (See this obituary of his dad (http://www.johnalexwood.com/2009/03/much-loved-humanitarian-scientologist.html).)

I think that anyone growing up in a controversial, insular group that has formal shunning/exclusion processes develops really good skills at separating the troubling things said by the people they love from the way they feel about the people they love.

After hearing the parents talk about "suppressive persons" and seeing them Xenu-bothering children with radiation sickness, I imagine that having the fiancee say stupid racist shit on Twitter is a dawdle.

[triadruid.livejournal.com]

I don't know what "possible Scientology connections" means, but that's one area where I'm certainly not inclined to visit the sins of the father upon the son.

[arkeiryn.livejournal.com]

... Do I even want to know what Amanda Palmer's done? (I used to be a fan, but I don't know how much of that was me liking her stuff and how much was my then-girlfriend liking her stuff...)

[azurelunatic]

First there was the Evelyn-Evelyn thing, which sounded really incredibly tacky; it was something about a pair of fictional conjoined twins with a horrid background, sufficient to set large chunks of the internet including people who'd up to that point liked her saying "Dude, using disability and rape to make your scene more edgy is just not cool."

Then there was something that may have been on Twitter, mentioning ironic donations to the KKK, which, the more I think about it, sounds like a very tactless sarcastic comment of the sort where you put your foot in your mouth after, and for her sake I hope it was something of the sort.

[beckyzoole.livejournal.com]

The whole Evelyn-Evelyn thing didn't bother me. It was too over-the top, I thought, to merit criticism as "ablist"; if anything, it seemed to me to be a critique of the sort of old-fashioned ablism that would call conjoined twins "freaks".

But. Amanda Palmer's general public persona is incredibly trollish. She acts like a 16-year-old who thinks a supercilious attitude is Cool. This latest KKK "joke" is nasty, and, I think, a decisive moment. If she apologizes, I'll give her + points. If not, well, I'll feel sorry for Neil Gaiman.

[cissa.livejournal.com]

I won't feel sorry for Gaiman. He's a grown-up, and has accepted this.

I WILL lose even more respect for him (and thus be less likely to buy his work); I do not tend to enjoy the work of those who suffer trolls gladly.