I think there's an xkcd, with the same thing.
I really enjoy sharing a planet with Ms. Evans. She seems to be a genuinely decent person, and we could always use more of those.
I really enjoy sharing a planet with Ms. Evans. She seems to be a genuinely decent person, and we could always use more of those.
[1] https://jvns.ca/blog/2023/10/06/new-talk--making-hard-things...
That said, her bluesky or mastodon profile leads with “I have DMs muted from people I don’t follow”, which just rubs me in such a wrong way. The vibe is “don’t be confused: communication is for me to give and you to receive, and NOT the other way around”.
I’m sure she has her reasons (presumably weird/angry onliners), but this - and in particular its digital real estate indicating it’s one of two facts you need to know about her - feels like the digital equivalent to checking out at the grocery store with headphones on: “I don’t know you and I don’t want to know you.”
Just makes me feel sad seeing things like that, and I don’t know that I resonate with being happy to share a planet with people with such world views. They certainly don’t seem happy to share it with me.
It had a promotional spot that went "What if you could have sex with anyone you want? What if anyone that wants, can have sex with you?".
Every relationship has at least two parts.
I can't hold it against her - it isn't the 1990s anymore, the entire web has become an aggressively toxic space and one has to curate everything nowadays.
One thing about living a life, where you share a lot of personal information, is that people tend to create close relationships that are entirely one-way.
In many ways, this benefits the celebrity, because they get rich/famous from it, but it can also lead to some fairly serious consequences. I was just reading yesterday, about some young lady that had to get a really toothy restraining order against a nutter that keeps trying to break into her house.
Many of these folks are really "people people," and the need to restrict access truly bothers them, but it's basically a requirement for their life.
One quite positive, and sharing an excellent link (thanks).
One neutral, and sharing the xkcd link I referenced (thanks).
A couple of anonymous downvotes. I assume because it says something positive about someone, and we'll have none of that, here, thank you very much.
It's entirely possible that people can be decent to each other. I know, I know, that's crazy talk, but I'm kind of relentlessly positive. I have had plenty of negative fuel, but I guess I'm just a Pollyanna.
[0] https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1qQDAuhGvBvBlZVH2zn_V...
This is nearly comical phrasing given the topic of the page.
I provided enough context about the specific kind of comment I found to be in bad faith that I don’t understand why you felt concerned that I took offense to any mentions of xkcd.
I tend to hang with a fairly ... unkempt ... crowd, IRL. Many of them have been through serious personal trauma, and have great difficulty seeing anything good in life, or in others.
They are a minority, in society, in general, but some communities tend to gather them in greater numbers (like the one in which I participate, which is about people trying to heal from trauma, amongst other things).
It's not unusual to encounter folks that sincerely believe that expressing optimism, open-mindedness, or kindness is an expression of weakness, to be treated with contempt. They sincerely believe that these expressions of positive energy are fake -often for good reason, as they have seen plenty of fake good faith.
I have learned not to allow myself to be drawn into their world, which often means that I am treated with contempt.
I shrug it off, and continue to be positive, anyway. I enjoy Julia Evans, because she remains relentlessly positive, in a community that is often ... unreceptive ... to that kind of energy.