sundries

[rm]

Right about now Patty's beginning her comps. It may be a long week coming up for me, but it's a longer one coming up for her.

The temperature is also rapidly approaching 97 in New York City today. Between that and the impending hurricane business, not a lot of fun. Also, it really has been this bad: 2010 was New York's hottest summer on record.

LJ has implemented a new feature that allows you to cross-post both entries and comments to Facebook and Twitter. Anyone who has this feature enabled may cross-post comments they make to friendslocked entries to these services. While the cross-posted item does not show the original locked post, it does indicate the existence of content some people are not able to see, which is a privacy concern for many in and of itself. Additionally, depending on what someone says in that cross-posted comment there are additional issues.

While I am perfectly aware (so don't start that argument with me) that privacy on the Internet and LJ is largely an illusion, people are entitled to that illusion. They are also entitled to being able to deactivate the use of such a tool that makes privacy violations seem easier and more appropriate in their own spaces.

I made a locked post about this last night for a bunch of people to test the feature. Yes, it really works as I've described. Other than using that post to test this feature, DO NOT cross-post comments you make in my locked entries to other services using this feature (you own your own words, and cutting and pasting from a comment you make to me in a lock post that doesn't reveal the source or information I'm handling delicately is fine, but as I've seen noted elsewhere comments sure can reveal a lot about what someone is saying privately).

If you want to complain to LJ about the lack of opt-out/opt-in in the implementation, use this handy post from news.

I don't, btw, really have the time to go to war with LJ about this this week, but you should be aware.

On a related note, I see a lot of reaction to this situation being framed as "I don't want people in my real life to know about my LJ." I totally get what you are saying; many of us have separate identities on and off-line or multiple different communities. However, LJ isn't fake. These are real interactions with real people that you are having. You may value them less, and that's fine. But we're not constructs for you to bounce your actual existence off of. We're real too. Even here, typing. "Real" is an easy construction, I know, but it's also a sloppy one. Please think twice before using it.

France is having an amazing scandal involving the L'Oreal heiress and shady cash payments to scads of politicians.

The Swedish rape case against the Wikileaks founder is one big mess. I don't know, and have no way of knowing, the merits of the actual case, but the way Sweden is handling it is not helping anyone else figure it out either.

When a promotion seems like a demotion: life in the corps de ballet.

Teens charged with harassment at mosque, specifically they've been accused of "harassing members of a mosque by yelling obscenities and insults during evening prayers for Ramadan, sideswiping a worshiper with a vehicle and firing a shotgun outside."

Last night on White Collar: This show is often best when it's doing the masters of the universe thing. This room, and the boiler room episode, are two of my favorites. Loved seeing Peter go undercover and not being too awkward to handle it. The coffee/espresso thing was hilarious and was sort of "here, Torchwood fans, I made this for you."

The stuff that felt like fan service last week felt organic and weirdly risky this week (Neal helping Peter with his cufflinks), but I'm still not sure what to do with a show that is clearly catering to audiences interested in queer plotlines while not really being willing to go there (yeah, yeah, Diana's a lesbian), because this is not a buddy relationship we're reading with slash goggles. The power differential sexualizes the equation even if these really are two straight guys, because that's the society we live in and sex is often used for dominance. Complex stuff, that frustrates me as a queer person and excites me as a critic and a kinky person.

Loved that Mozz was not over-used or too wacky to be plausible this week. Loved the Peter in peril thing (the look on Neal's face), and loved the ridiculously shouty metaphor with the music box and the key and Peter and Neal being all intense and in each others faces in that moment. Here, again, reading as fan service is just weak and doesn't work. Even taking off the slash goggles, I see two men who know that their interaction is about dominance struggles and therefore, sexuality, even if they are straight. We don't really talk about this in our culture. It's interesting to watch a show that's sort of fumbling around in the dark about, sometimes very, very intelligently.

Oh god, I want to do criticism on White Collar, don't I?

Last night on Covert Affairs: Oh right, it's the Annie show, not the Auggie show. I'm glad we're coming to a head about this Ben crap fast. I didn't want it to be a forever mystery.

I LOVE JOAN SO MUCH. She is so tough, and so ruthless, and wears pretty dresses (that don't contradict her hardness at all) and she an Annie have such a slashy vibe it's hilarious.

This episode had a lot of nice moments. Aside from all the Annie/Joan scenes (which Chris Gorham tweeted about, and I hope he knows what that slash means to fandom), I thought Auggie telling Annie to turn her speakers down was hilarious. Also, there was a gorgeous little moment between Jai and Auggie that I just loved.

Other great things about this episode?
- Annie's sister getting the smackdown re: exoticizing Jai.
- Now, whenever Auggie has an episode where he looks super rumpled, I'm like "Oh my god, you are having so much sex" and I start laughing. He was super rumpled this episode.

Things you should write for me:
- Joan/Annie
- Jai/Annie
- Auggie/Joan
- Annie/Auggie/Jai hate sex that sorta winds up an ongoing thing like that affair Gwen and Owen had, "I'm fucking you because no one else understands."

Yes. Yes please.

Comments

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

I do like the idea that Peter could have been "more", but as the person he is now, he'd know he'd be less because there would be no Elizabeth.

BTW, I think all that catering you mentioned is for the female audience rather than the queer one if only because of the type of husband Peter is. He's "enough". He's tough enough, smart enough and sensitive enough.

Also, my wife says I act like that about her. I have never spoken to her photograph...I just act like she's there anyway.

'Covert Affairs' bugged me this week because of the damned boyfriend. The characterizations were good, but the overarching plot annoyed me.

Is he or isn't he rogue?

Not really caring.

[rm.livejournal.com]

I only like that they are engaging the boyfriend because I hope the plot will resolve and go away.

Re: WC and audiences -- it's clearly for the female audience, but this is the sort of content queer people have to make do with -- stuff that's not even for us or about us, but it's better than the alternative.

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

I saw a commercial for the new series Undercovers and it made me think of some of the issues you've mentioned with White Collar because Undercovers is the first show of this type to have 2 action leads of color who are actually having a sexual relationship. Historically, especially with black men it's either issues of emasculation or stuff from the "blacksploitation" era where black men are sexual dynamos who want to take our white women.

And for the longest time "blacksploitation" movies were the only examples of black male power and sexuality even if it was a flawed lens. So while different, I grok what you mean about making do.

Did I make sense there?

[rm.livejournal.com]

Yes, totally. I like that we are often able to have this conversation about the bullshit we face without either of us feeling like we're doing oppression olympics or saying that the shit we face is the same, because in some ways it is and in some ways it isn't.

I'm curious about Undercovers, because it looks good and I love the lead actress in it, but I don't know if there's room for two spy shows on TV right now (and really not just two, there's Nikita and some other stuff coming down the pike right now too).

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

If there is room for 500 crime procedurals, I think we can have a few spy shows on the air. :D

And the key to having conversations of this type is listening first and reacting second, I think we both try to do that.

You know you mentioned because in some ways it is and in some ways it isn't. And I was just thinking, we both are or have been objects to fear.

You're somehow a threat to "values", whatever the hell that means this week and I'm just a threat.

But still both things to be feared with different reasons, rationales and impacts.

And just in that issue alone, it's the same, but different.

I've had white females indicate that they saw me as a threat for one reason or another and I can't tell you what personal impact that has on your humanity, except I can share that with you because while it's not the same, you've also had your basic humanity attacked.

It's a shared grokking.

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

I wonder are spy shows going to replace the forensics and profiler shows?

[rm.livejournal.com]

I wonder what the spy show thing is about. Are we suddenly nostalgic for the 80s? Oh wait, millions of people need to be told leggings are not pants, I suppose we are.

[popfiend.livejournal.com]

LMAO!!!

I was drinking when I read that.

Very difficult to keep from snarfing it all over.

I will have my revenge. :D