A 6m€ memorial to the thousands of men of the Allgemeine ("general") SS and the Totenkopfverbände concentration camp guards who died during World War II is to be unveiled by the German Chancellor.
She will be joined by politicians including the President of Germany at the dedication ceremony in Berlin's Tiergarten. Some 6,000 veterans and families of the deceased will see a Junkers bomber drop thousands of poppies in a flypast.
Germany's policy of large-scale genocide near the end of World War II has been criticised by some, stalling progress on a memorial for decades. Veterans from Finland, Rumania, Hungary and other countries who served alongside the German SS will also attend the ceremony.
The memorial, designed by Arno Breker, features a bronze 9ft-high sculpture of seven SS men. Sculptor Philip Jackson said his work was intended to be reflective and so portrayed the men after they had returned from a mission. "I chose the moment when they get off the truck and they've dumped all their heavy kit onto the ground, and they're looking back and looking for their comrades."
The memorial also has a roof made of aluminium reclaimed from one of the huts of Belsen concentration camp. An inscription says it "also commemorates those of all nations who lost their lives in the ethnic cleansings of 1939-1945". Hauptscharführer Viktor Lutze, 87, said: "I am so glad that at long last the SS is being remembered not only for what it achieved but also for the lives of the young men who never came back. Many of them were boys. I myself added a year to my age at 16 so that I could join the SS."
Most of the men of the SS died dodging partisans and anti-Nazi resistance fighters in "actions" throughout occupied Europe. The ceremony is the culmination of a five-year campaign, spearheaded by the late Bee Gees singer Robin Gibb. The Allgemeine SS and Totenkopfverbände Memorial Appeal secured funding from public donations and private donors.
Actions criticised
There were no campaign medals for the SS after the war and no mention of them in Dönitz's surrender speech. The unit was criticised by some for mass murder in the Auschwitz concentration camp in the closing years of the war, where the SS killed about 1,000,000 civilians. Speaking at the Tiergarten, SS veteran Hans Klintzsche agreed the memorial was about reconciliation as well as remembrance. "I sometimes look back in horror to think what I was required to do. But, it was what we were trying to do ... it was part of the task of finishing the war and I console myself that this is what we had to do."
SS Association chairman Karl Hanke said it was clear that the memorial's message included a sense of reconciliation."That's why it's writ large on the wall, 'We remember those of all countries who died in 39-45,'" he said. He said he had been in touch with the mayor of Tel Aviv and spoken to media in the Israeli city as part of the project. "Let's put it in the modern context; let's not forget the sacrifice of those who this memorial remembers," he added.
Councillor Julius Schreck defended Berlin Council's decision to grant planning permission to the memorial. "Since our decision, this memorial has been the subject of controversy by a vocal minority who have unfortunately distracted from its significance," he said. "We believe Berlin Council was absolutely right to grant consent for a monument which reflects what the majority of today's public want to say about bravery, sacrifice and suffering."
The event will end with a flypast by five Tornado bomber aircraft and the Lufwaffe's last flying Junkers Bomber, which will drop the poppies over the park in remembrance for the SS men lost. The SS Benevolent Fund will take over guardianship of the memorial.
**
Source: Reichs-Rundfunk-Gesellschaft
Jun 28, 2012
Jun 11, 2012
The economist and the shot-blocker
I've basically read the Economist forever. There was a joke going around back when I was in high school that if you wrote the essay in your English matriculation exam like an Economist editorial, you'd be guaranteed to do well. I got full marks for mine, so I guess it worked. In my mind, even though I don't always agree with them on everything (for instance, air warfare) , they're one of the premier magazines out there: solid journalism coupled with an honest opinion and take on things. Nothing lowered my esteem for Charles Stross quite like his enthusiastic endorsement of a British leftist rant that seemed to say the Economist is a pile of random-generated nonsense without content. Quite frankly, if that's what you really think it is, you can't read.
Then again, judging from his blog, Mr. Stross seems to genuinely believe that "lol libertard" is a clever answer to anything a person he identifies as a libertarian says, including perfectly reasonable questions and comments. The Laundry series of novels are excellent and Apocalypse Codex is probably the only upcoming novel I'm actually looking forward to, but following Mr. Stross's quasi-political stylings on the Internet have really put me off him as a person.
Speaking of the Internet, one feature of the Economist I like are their blogs. There are a few on my blogroll on the right. Unfortunately for my collection of interests, one of the blogs I don't follow is the sports one, cleverly (...) dubbed Game theory. I can't really speak for most of their coverage, but when they touch on the two sports I really follow - ice hockey and Formula One racing - they come off as strangely amateurish and ill-informed. For instance, there was amusement in F1 circles this March when Game theory called Mercedes one of "the most storied and long-established teams in the sport". Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 team was founded in 2010. The last time any Mercedes works team raced in F1 was for two seasons in the 1950's. This strongly suggests that the writer has never followed F1 in his life.
They don't do much better with hockey. In a recent text on the NHL and Canada, they opined that "the NHL’s continuing enthusiasm for the Sun Belt is hard to fathom". I'm sure it is, if you ignore the fact that the league's marketing strategy for the last thirty years has been to build support for the game in so-called non-traditional hockey markets. As I understand it, the league sees great growth potential for hockey in the southern US. For every struggling franchise like the former Atlanta Thrashers, there's a success like the Anaheim Ducks or Tampa Bay Lightning. There's no such potential for an expanded fan base in an already hockey-mad Canada. So again, it's really only hard to fathom if you haven't followed the discussion on southern teams at all. Given that the Game theory post reads like it's cribbed from a Canadian op-ed, that seems likely.
Last week, they decided to tackle hockey again, and as I spotted the link on Twitter during a commercial break in Game 3, I had a quick look. Same old. Then it was tweeted at me later, which is what set this blog post off. So here we go.
Titled "Blockey blues", it's a retread of what we've been hearing all spring: the playoffs are boring because there's too much shot blocking and too little offense.
Then again, judging from his blog, Mr. Stross seems to genuinely believe that "lol libertard" is a clever answer to anything a person he identifies as a libertarian says, including perfectly reasonable questions and comments. The Laundry series of novels are excellent and Apocalypse Codex is probably the only upcoming novel I'm actually looking forward to, but following Mr. Stross's quasi-political stylings on the Internet have really put me off him as a person.
Speaking of the Internet, one feature of the Economist I like are their blogs. There are a few on my blogroll on the right. Unfortunately for my collection of interests, one of the blogs I don't follow is the sports one, cleverly (...) dubbed Game theory. I can't really speak for most of their coverage, but when they touch on the two sports I really follow - ice hockey and Formula One racing - they come off as strangely amateurish and ill-informed. For instance, there was amusement in F1 circles this March when Game theory called Mercedes one of "the most storied and long-established teams in the sport". Mercedes AMG Petronas F1 team was founded in 2010. The last time any Mercedes works team raced in F1 was for two seasons in the 1950's. This strongly suggests that the writer has never followed F1 in his life.
They don't do much better with hockey. In a recent text on the NHL and Canada, they opined that "the NHL’s continuing enthusiasm for the Sun Belt is hard to fathom". I'm sure it is, if you ignore the fact that the league's marketing strategy for the last thirty years has been to build support for the game in so-called non-traditional hockey markets. As I understand it, the league sees great growth potential for hockey in the southern US. For every struggling franchise like the former Atlanta Thrashers, there's a success like the Anaheim Ducks or Tampa Bay Lightning. There's no such potential for an expanded fan base in an already hockey-mad Canada. So again, it's really only hard to fathom if you haven't followed the discussion on southern teams at all. Given that the Game theory post reads like it's cribbed from a Canadian op-ed, that seems likely.
Last week, they decided to tackle hockey again, and as I spotted the link on Twitter during a commercial break in Game 3, I had a quick look. Same old. Then it was tweeted at me later, which is what set this blog post off. So here we go.
Titled "Blockey blues", it's a retread of what we've been hearing all spring: the playoffs are boring because there's too much shot blocking and too little offense.
Unfortunately, the first three rounds have not yielded particularly exciting hockey.
Really? Did you watch the Boston-Washington series? Florida-New Jersey? Or, I don't know, the Flyers and Penguins? The last of the three was an offensive explosion unlike anything we've seen for years. Sure, compared to the ridiculous 7-5 numbers they put up, a solid playoff series like the Caps-Bruins battle may seem pedestrian, but it was proper postseason hockey. All in all, I think this has been a really good post-season; far better than last year's. Which is not to say that moments like the Bruins' comeback win against the Flyers from three games and three goals down weren't something to behold, but overall this has been a good postseason. An especial highlight are the LA Kings, who are playing the best hockey on the planet right now.
There are a few puzzling details in the piece, like this one:
A direct effort to outlaw the Rangers’ approach would require separate rules for forwards and defencemen, which would be difficult to devise and virtually impossible to enforce.
This is such a bizarre notion that it actually took me a moment to track it down. They seem to be referring to introducing a variant of basketball's key rules to limit forwards coming back to defend the slot, a move originally suggested by then-Nordiques coach and GM Pierre Pagé, the man who made the Eric Lindros trade, and resurrected last month by the Globe and Mail.
It's not a bad idea, but as the Economist says, it would be damn near impossible to put into practice. The puzzling aspect is that apart from that piece in the Globe and Mail, the Pagé idea has had zero traction in the current discussion. In fact, that's the only mention I've heard of it anywhere. The shot-blocking discussion has been going on for months in the Hockey News and elsewhere, and the rule change proposal that's actually being discussed is to ban skaters from going down on the ice to block shots. That requires no separate rules for forwards or defensemen and would be easy to enforce. Hockey history aficionados will know that at one time goalies were required to stand up at all times. It's more than a little strange to completely omit discussion of the most popular and likely rule change, and imply that an obscure proposal fielded by the Globe and Mail is the only possible solution. Again, it gives the impression the piece was written by someone who hasn't followed the current discussion at all.
(Addendum: after an argument about the Pagé proposal, I want to point out that it would have several terrible implications. It will make things harder for the power play, because if only the defensemen are allowed in the slot, they can't run a cycle on the power play because the D have to be held back. In general, the rule change would really hamstring offensive defensemen, and that might actually make the impact on scoring an overall negative.)
So same old, really; another Game theory piece badly cribbed from a single source and mangled by incomprehension of the subject. But there's a much more important point here than the poor quality of the Economist's sports coverage, in a flaw that the piece in question has lifted directly from its source and that recurs in better texts on the topic: the idea that good hockey means lots of goals.
But the league has historically been slow to move—it only instituted the anti-neutral-zone-trap policies when the lockout gave it a full year off to contemplate how to improve the sport. It will probably take at least another year of 1-0 snooze-fests for the game’s leaders to spring into action on improving the spectacle for fans.
Again, if we're going to be pedantic, the league never put any anti-trap policies in place; the good old 1-2-2 is alive and well. What they did was institute a crackdown on obstruction, a different beast altogether, and the difference is very relevant because I'm not sure the current slowdown in offense isn't due to a relaxation of that crackdown.
But above all, my problem with this line of thinking is that it assumes that goals per game is a meaningful indicator of game quality. It just isn't. Under that approach, Canada's 8-0 defeat of Kazakhstan was a far better game than silver medalist Slovakia's nail-biting 3-1 semifinal victory over the Czechs, a game I had the privilege of watching live. Or that Team Finland being slaughtered 6-2 was much more entertaining than the Finland-USA quarterfinal that ended 3-2 with a surpise goal in the dying seconds of the game. In fact, for a really good international game played in Finland, you have to go back to the 2003 world championships when Finland beat Slovenia 12-0. Surely hockey at its best.
It should be blindingly obvious to anyone who watches hockey that goals per game is a terrible metric for measuring the quality of a game. It simply doesn't follow that increasing goals makes the game better. This is why I'm so skeptical of the suggestions for, among other things, bigger nets. I mentioned the Philadelphia-Pittsburgh playoff series with its crazy, high-scoring games, and I agree that it can be wildly entertaining when a game, or a series, spins out of the coaches' control like that one did. But I would argue that this is only entertaining because it's the exception. Can any hockey fan really say that it would be better if all playoff series were like that?
In my opinion, what we want to see are close, hard-fought games. Describing a 1-0 game as a snooze-fest is just silly. In my opinion, the most boring games are the 5-1 foregone conclusions. If Detroit takes a 3-0 lead over Columbus in the first, most of us will tune out. Making scoring easier while all other things are mostly equal will simply make that a 5-1 deficit in the first. I don't really see how that's better. Another thing is compelling storylines, and I don't mean the nonsense the league tries to feed us, but storylines that evolve and unfold by themselves in hockey. How much more compelling did it make the Flyers-Penguins series that it was the battle of Pennsylvania, and involved the league's poster boy, Sidney Crosby, playing like the player he is as opposed to the player the league markets? Again, storylines don't express themselves in goals per game. The Coyotes' and Kings' trips to the conference final were great stories in themselves, and the Devils' and Coyotes' post-seasom success is especially bittersweet because of the dire financial situation of the franchises. You can't make these things happen, especially not by increasing offense.
I'm in favor of cutting down on shot blocks, if only because they lead to more players being injured, but they're not the problem. In my opinion, the reason offense is down is the relaxation in obstruction. Interference calls have almost disappeared compared to the first few post-lockout years, and it's having a definite impact on the game. The league should return to the old new standard, so to speak, and get rid of the interference, dirty play and downright goonery of teams like the Bruins and Penguins.
Even so, the problem in hockey isn't a lack of scoring. In fact, I'm not convinced there's a problem with the game at all right now. Yes, there are many ways it could be better, but staring at goals per game tells you nothing about the quality of the on-ice product. If you only want to see goals, watch the higlight reels. The rest of us would like to see a hockey game.
Jun 8, 2012
HKIRBBTL: Buccaneers-Brutes 3-1
Blood River Buccaneers 3 – 1 Braga’s Brutes
FAME 0, 1
BRB: 2 Bloodweiser babes
Winnings: BRB 50 000, BRU 20 000
Fan factor +1, -1
Weather: nice
Gate: 7 000
1st half, Brutes receiving
Kick-off: Brilliant coaching -> extra re-roll for Brutes
BBT1 #5 Sorgask KO’s #6 Galfir
#9 Grab da Bol picks up the ball and passess a quick pass to #10 Slib’ry Ands
BRBT1 #2 Tyrim fails to dodge and causes a turnover
BB2 #5 Sorgask blitzes #10 Athlan Icecold and KO’s him
BBT3 #7 Grambad fails to dodge, despite his dodge skill, causing a turnover
BRBT3 #7 Mordak Blackheart pushes # Sorgask to the crowd, but the home team fans leave him unharmed
BRBT3 #5 Hehtar fails to dodge and the turn ends
BBT4 #7 Grambad causes a turnover with another unsuccessful dodge
BRBT5 #7 Mordak Blackheart blitzes #10 Slib’ry Ands and knocks the ball loose, but it bounces to the only orc standing nearby, #7 Grambad, who manages to catch it despite being surrounded by two Buccaneers.
#2 Tyrim blocks 7# Grambad and sacks the ball again, and again it bounces to the only orc around, #9 Grab da Bol, who also catches it, despite two Buccaneer’s tackle zones.
BBT6 #9 Grab da Bol blitzes a hole in the Buccaneer’s defense, dodges himself free and scores
0-1
Kick-off: riot -> clock moved back one turn
BRBT5 #13 Solana Spikeheel blitzes #1 Braga to the crowd, but nobody dares to touch him
#4 Mornil gets the ball and passess a quick pass to 2# Tyrim, who then hands it off to #7 Mordak Blackheart, who goes for it but stumbles, causing a turnover and wasting a re-roll
BBT6 #10 Slib’ry Ands fails to pick the ball up and the turn ends quickly
BRBT6 #13 Solana Spikeheel jumps up, dodges, picks up the ball, dodges free, goes for it and scores
1-1
Kick-off: Brilliant coaching -> extra re-roll for Buccaneers
BBT7 #6 Urghug KO’s #6 Galfir
#7 Grambad, undaunted by previous bad luck, tries to dodge but stumbles again and the turn ends
BRBT7 #7 Mordak Blackheart blitzes through the orc’s line of defense, dodges two times, goes for it two times and tries to pick up the ball but fails, wasting a re-roll
BBT9 #9 Brab da Bol Gets a hold of the ball
BRBT8 #11 Clarius Vile dodges 4 times to assist #7 Mordak Blackheart, who dodges, sacks the ball, picks it up and scores
2-1
2nd half, Buccaneers receiving
BRBT1 #7 Mordak Blackheart KO’s #4 Azgrum
#10 Athlan Icecold picks up the ball and passes a quick pass to #11 Clarius Vile
BRBT3 #3 Malsadrian fails to dodge and the turn ends
BBT3 #9 Grab da Bol tries a difficult dodge to get to the Buccaneer’s ball carrier, but falls over in what looked like a fatal accident. The Brute’s shaman manages to stitch him up however and he’s good to go again in the next run
BRBT5 the orcs closing in, #11 Clarius Vile decides to cross the TD line and scores
3-1
Kick-off: Blitz
BRBblitz #7 Mordak Blackheart tries to get to the ball by going for it two times, but stumbles and hurts himself badly
BBT5 #10 Slib’ry Ands gets a hold of the ball
BBT6 #7 Grambad fails a dodge roll for the eighth time in the game and the turn ends
BBT7 #10 Hands the ball off to #5 Sorgask, who has to use a re-roll to catch it. He then tries to run to the end zone but stumbles while going for it and the turn ends
BRBT8 #13 Solana Spikeheel pushes #10 Slib’ry Ands to the crowd, but again the docile fans fail to hurt him
#11 Clarius Vile picks up the ball
the game ends, Buccaneers win 3-1
**
League table: [pts, goal differential, casualty differential, fatalities, completions, interceptions, sacks]
Brutes (5-1-0) 15 pts, 14-3, 7-2, 1, 3, 0, 7-2
Titans (3-3-0) 9 pts, 5-8, 9-3, 0, 17, 1, 6-6
Buccaneers (3-3-0) 9 pts, 8-6, 5-10, 1, 10, 0, 10-5
Ravens (2-3-0) 6 pts, 4-7, 6-8, 0, 3, 0, 4-3
Mütants (1-1-1) 4 pts, 2-3, 3-3, 0, 0, 0, 2-6
Murderers (0-3-1) 1 pts, 2-8, 1-8, 0, 8, 0, 3-3
**
Individual statistics:
Touchdowns:
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 3
Grab da Bol (Brutes): 3
Grambad (Brutes): 3
Leifur Eriksson (Ravens): 3
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 3
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 3
Faramir Neithan (Titans): 2
Galhag (Brutes): 2
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 2
Sorgask (Brutes): 2
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 1
Dexgor (Mütants): 1
Galfir (Buccaneers): 1
Galoth (Brutes): 1
Gorgor (Mütants): 1
Savure Uvalor (Murderers): 1
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 1
Tomas Haugen (Ravens): 1
Tyrim (Buccaneers): 1
Interceptions:
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Casualties:
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 5
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 2
Freki (Ravens): 2
Harald Hårdare (Ravens): 2
Nasty Narsil (Buccaneers): 2
Boss the Unbeaten (Mütants): 1
Braga da 'Ed Bash'a (Brutes): 1
Carecalmo (Titans): 1
Cyrus the Unbeliever (Mütants): 1
Dark Elf journeyman* (Buccaneers): 1
Dranas Dradas (Murderers): 1
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Galhag (Brutes): 1
Galoth (Brutes): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Geri (Ravens): 1
Gladroon* (Titans journeyman): 1
Jan Axel Blomberg (Ravens): 1
Morgur (Brutes): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Piergor (Mütants): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Sorgask (Brutes): 1
Urghuk (Brutes): 1
Fatalities:
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 1
Galhag (Brutes): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Completions:
Beleg Strongarm (Titans): 6
Carecalmo (Titans): 4
Giron Manas (Murderers): 3
Grab da Bol (Brutes): 2
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 2
Avil Darksoul (Buccaneers): 2
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 2
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 2
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 2
Balyn Omavel (Murderers): 1
Hans von Helvete (Ravens): 1
Ilmiril Telinturco (Titans): 1
Meryaren (Titans): 1
Mornil (Buccaneers): 1
Mossanon (Titans): 1
Nilos Talds (Murderers): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Per Yngve Ohlin (Ravens): 1
Savure Uvalor (Murderers): 1
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 1
Thor Åkenskaldi (Ravens): 1
Tussurradad (Murderers): 1
Ulundil (Titans): 1
Sacks:
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 4
Tyrim (Buccaneers): 3
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 2
Sorgask (Brutes): 2
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 2
Azgrum (Brutes): 1
Beleg Strongarm (Titans): 1
Carecalmo (Titans): 1
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 1
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Hans von Helvete (Ravens): 1
Kinzgor (Mütants): 1
Nasty Narsil (Buccaneers): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Per Yngve Ohlin (Ravens): 1
Reidar Horghagen (Ravens): 1
Shaungor (Mütants): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 1
Stian Tomt Thoresen* (Ravens): 1
Tussurradad (Murderers): 1
FAME 0, 1
BRB: 2 Bloodweiser babes
Winnings: BRB 50 000, BRU 20 000
Fan factor +1, -1
Weather: nice
Gate: 7 000
1st half, Brutes receiving
Kick-off: Brilliant coaching -> extra re-roll for Brutes
BBT1 #5 Sorgask KO’s #6 Galfir
#9 Grab da Bol picks up the ball and passess a quick pass to #10 Slib’ry Ands
BRBT1 #2 Tyrim fails to dodge and causes a turnover
BB2 #5 Sorgask blitzes #10 Athlan Icecold and KO’s him
BBT3 #7 Grambad fails to dodge, despite his dodge skill, causing a turnover
BRBT3 #7 Mordak Blackheart pushes # Sorgask to the crowd, but the home team fans leave him unharmed
BRBT3 #5 Hehtar fails to dodge and the turn ends
BBT4 #7 Grambad causes a turnover with another unsuccessful dodge
BRBT5 #7 Mordak Blackheart blitzes #10 Slib’ry Ands and knocks the ball loose, but it bounces to the only orc standing nearby, #7 Grambad, who manages to catch it despite being surrounded by two Buccaneers.
#2 Tyrim blocks 7# Grambad and sacks the ball again, and again it bounces to the only orc around, #9 Grab da Bol, who also catches it, despite two Buccaneer’s tackle zones.
BBT6 #9 Grab da Bol blitzes a hole in the Buccaneer’s defense, dodges himself free and scores
0-1
Kick-off: riot -> clock moved back one turn
BRBT5 #13 Solana Spikeheel blitzes #1 Braga to the crowd, but nobody dares to touch him
#4 Mornil gets the ball and passess a quick pass to 2# Tyrim, who then hands it off to #7 Mordak Blackheart, who goes for it but stumbles, causing a turnover and wasting a re-roll
BBT6 #10 Slib’ry Ands fails to pick the ball up and the turn ends quickly
BRBT6 #13 Solana Spikeheel jumps up, dodges, picks up the ball, dodges free, goes for it and scores
1-1
Kick-off: Brilliant coaching -> extra re-roll for Buccaneers
BBT7 #6 Urghug KO’s #6 Galfir
#7 Grambad, undaunted by previous bad luck, tries to dodge but stumbles again and the turn ends
BRBT7 #7 Mordak Blackheart blitzes through the orc’s line of defense, dodges two times, goes for it two times and tries to pick up the ball but fails, wasting a re-roll
BBT9 #9 Brab da Bol Gets a hold of the ball
BRBT8 #11 Clarius Vile dodges 4 times to assist #7 Mordak Blackheart, who dodges, sacks the ball, picks it up and scores
2-1
2nd half, Buccaneers receiving
BRBT1 #7 Mordak Blackheart KO’s #4 Azgrum
#10 Athlan Icecold picks up the ball and passes a quick pass to #11 Clarius Vile
BRBT3 #3 Malsadrian fails to dodge and the turn ends
BBT3 #9 Grab da Bol tries a difficult dodge to get to the Buccaneer’s ball carrier, but falls over in what looked like a fatal accident. The Brute’s shaman manages to stitch him up however and he’s good to go again in the next run
BRBT5 the orcs closing in, #11 Clarius Vile decides to cross the TD line and scores
3-1
Kick-off: Blitz
BRBblitz #7 Mordak Blackheart tries to get to the ball by going for it two times, but stumbles and hurts himself badly
BBT5 #10 Slib’ry Ands gets a hold of the ball
BBT6 #7 Grambad fails a dodge roll for the eighth time in the game and the turn ends
BBT7 #10 Hands the ball off to #5 Sorgask, who has to use a re-roll to catch it. He then tries to run to the end zone but stumbles while going for it and the turn ends
BRBT8 #13 Solana Spikeheel pushes #10 Slib’ry Ands to the crowd, but again the docile fans fail to hurt him
#11 Clarius Vile picks up the ball
the game ends, Buccaneers win 3-1
**
League table: [pts, goal differential, casualty differential, fatalities, completions, interceptions, sacks]
Brutes (5-1-0) 15 pts, 14-3, 7-2, 1, 3, 0, 7-2
Titans (3-3-0) 9 pts, 5-8, 9-3, 0, 17, 1, 6-6
Buccaneers (3-3-0) 9 pts, 8-6, 5-10, 1, 10, 0, 10-5
Ravens (2-3-0) 6 pts, 4-7, 6-8, 0, 3, 0, 4-3
Mütants (1-1-1) 4 pts, 2-3, 3-3, 0, 0, 0, 2-6
Murderers (0-3-1) 1 pts, 2-8, 1-8, 0, 8, 0, 3-3
**
Individual statistics:
Touchdowns:
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 3
Grab da Bol (Brutes): 3
Grambad (Brutes): 3
Leifur Eriksson (Ravens): 3
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 3
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 3
Faramir Neithan (Titans): 2
Galhag (Brutes): 2
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 2
Sorgask (Brutes): 2
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 1
Dexgor (Mütants): 1
Galfir (Buccaneers): 1
Galoth (Brutes): 1
Gorgor (Mütants): 1
Savure Uvalor (Murderers): 1
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 1
Tomas Haugen (Ravens): 1
Tyrim (Buccaneers): 1
Interceptions:
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Casualties:
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 5
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 2
Freki (Ravens): 2
Harald Hårdare (Ravens): 2
Nasty Narsil (Buccaneers): 2
Boss the Unbeaten (Mütants): 1
Braga da 'Ed Bash'a (Brutes): 1
Carecalmo (Titans): 1
Cyrus the Unbeliever (Mütants): 1
Dark Elf journeyman* (Buccaneers): 1
Dranas Dradas (Murderers): 1
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Galhag (Brutes): 1
Galoth (Brutes): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Geri (Ravens): 1
Gladroon* (Titans journeyman): 1
Jan Axel Blomberg (Ravens): 1
Morgur (Brutes): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Piergor (Mütants): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Sorgask (Brutes): 1
Urghuk (Brutes): 1
Fatalities:
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 1
Galhag (Brutes): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Completions:
Beleg Strongarm (Titans): 6
Carecalmo (Titans): 4
Giron Manas (Murderers): 3
Grab da Bol (Brutes): 2
Athlan Icecold (Buccaneers): 2
Avil Darksoul (Buccaneers): 2
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 2
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 2
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 2
Balyn Omavel (Murderers): 1
Hans von Helvete (Ravens): 1
Ilmiril Telinturco (Titans): 1
Meryaren (Titans): 1
Mornil (Buccaneers): 1
Mossanon (Titans): 1
Nilos Talds (Murderers): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Per Yngve Ohlin (Ravens): 1
Savure Uvalor (Murderers): 1
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 1
Thor Åkenskaldi (Ravens): 1
Tussurradad (Murderers): 1
Ulundil (Titans): 1
Sacks:
Mordak Blackheart (Buccaneers): 4
Tyrim (Buccaneers): 3
Shishi Yanumibaal (Murderers): 2
Sorgask (Brutes): 2
Teclis Turukáno (Titans): 2
Azgrum (Brutes): 1
Beleg Strongarm (Titans): 1
Carecalmo (Titans): 1
Clarius Vile (Buccaneers): 1
Finrod Angamaitë (Titans): 1
Gatgor (Mütants): 1
Hans von Helvete (Ravens): 1
Kinzgor (Mütants): 1
Nasty Narsil (Buccaneers): 1
Orodreth Ecthelion (Titans): 1
Per Yngve Ohlin (Ravens): 1
Reidar Horghagen (Ravens): 1
Shaungor (Mütants): 1
Slib'ry Ands (Brutes): 1
Solana Spikeheel (Buccaneers): 1
Stian Tomt Thoresen* (Ravens): 1
Tussurradad (Murderers): 1
Jun 6, 2012
Jun 4, 2012
Because words matter
So we used to read a webcomic called Gutters. It was occasionally very good, quite funny at times, and a good way to keep up with what's going on in the weird world of comics.
(Advance apology and trigger warning: I'm going to be using some very offensive language in this post. Unfortunately I think it's necessary.)
Every now and then, they did some things that bothered us. The worst were a series of really cheap, unnecessary transphobic slurs. Tranny jokes, to be triggeringly precise. In case someone doesn't know, "tranny" is to transgender what "nigger" is to African-American. It is a word that is not okay, to put it mildly. As I've made clear on this blog about a million times, I fully support free speech. In fact, one of the main reasons I have blogs in the first place is because I'm deeply concerned with the status of free speech in the ex-Soviet-satellite shithole I live in. However, I believe that a part of free speech is the freedom to hold people accountable for what they say. It's become a standard idiot gambit to start screaming FREE SPEECH at anyone who disapproves of something another person says, as if freedom of speech was freedom from critique or disagreement. It isn't.
Especially because the truth is that words matter. The society we live in is constantly being created and re-created by the people who live in it. Especially attitudes - racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia - exist in speech. People will make racist or homophobic jokes, use sexist and transphobic slurs, and act outraged if they're called out on it. This is what's called hipster racism: the idea that because I say I'm not racist, therefore nothing I say can be racist.
Tvtropes.org calls this "Hitler Ate Sugar": the notion that bad things are bad because bad people do them. Taken to its logical extreme, it's to say that genocide is wrong because the Nazis committed it, when the reverse is true: the Nazis were evil because of what they did, not the other way around. The logic of "Hitler ate sugar" is the logic of hipster racism, and it's amazingly common. Here in this country, I know people who will go berserk if anyone calls people who say and write blatantly racist things racist, because we don't know if they're really racists or not.
Newsflash: people who say, write and do racist things are racists. That's the definition of a racist. It is beyond pointless to debate what a person "really thinks", for two reasons. First of all, without telepathy or mind-reading technology, we can't know. More importantly: it doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what you do.
Our thoughts and attitudes have no impact on the world whatsoever. The only things that affect mutually observable reality are the ways in which we express them. If you're a warm, fuzzy, wonderful person who loves everyone in the whole wide world, and you express yourself with racial slurs, guess what? You're a racist. The only impact you're making on the world around you is a racist one. The same goes if you personally believe that all people are equal, no matter what their color, ethnicity or any other attribute, but the only contribution you make to the discussion is to defend racism. The only ideology you're propagating is racism. That makes you a racist. It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what you do.
If you secretly hate black people and think they're subhuman animals, but spend your life fighting racism and advocating equal rights and treatment for all, you will have made the world a better place. If you passionately believe that all people are equal, but spend your life defending racists and making excuses for them, telling racist jokes and generally propagating racist attitudes, you will have made the world a worse place. What you do is all that matters. There is no god or other divine referee who will judge you for what you "really" thought, and reward honesty and punish hypocrisy. In a sense, all you are as a person is your impact on the world around you.
The words you use are a big part of that impact, if not the biggest. The slurs you use and the jokes you tell all propagate attitudes. Each of us, in their own personal dreamworld, likes to imagine that they're aloof from society and are commenting on it from a distance. You're not. Everything you say and do builds the society you live in, and what you choose to do or say is your vote on what kind of society you want to live in. The cheap tranny joke is a vote for transphobia. The racial slur is a vote for continuing racism. These are decisions each of us is making every day, and they are what our culture is.
It's very common for white, straight, cis-gendered people to disagree strongly with this. Recently Chloë Sevigny was called out for using the word "tranny" to refer to a transgender character she played. Her response:
(Advance apology and trigger warning: I'm going to be using some very offensive language in this post. Unfortunately I think it's necessary.)
Every now and then, they did some things that bothered us. The worst were a series of really cheap, unnecessary transphobic slurs. Tranny jokes, to be triggeringly precise. In case someone doesn't know, "tranny" is to transgender what "nigger" is to African-American. It is a word that is not okay, to put it mildly. As I've made clear on this blog about a million times, I fully support free speech. In fact, one of the main reasons I have blogs in the first place is because I'm deeply concerned with the status of free speech in the ex-Soviet-satellite shithole I live in. However, I believe that a part of free speech is the freedom to hold people accountable for what they say. It's become a standard idiot gambit to start screaming FREE SPEECH at anyone who disapproves of something another person says, as if freedom of speech was freedom from critique or disagreement. It isn't.
Especially because the truth is that words matter. The society we live in is constantly being created and re-created by the people who live in it. Especially attitudes - racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia - exist in speech. People will make racist or homophobic jokes, use sexist and transphobic slurs, and act outraged if they're called out on it. This is what's called hipster racism: the idea that because I say I'm not racist, therefore nothing I say can be racist.
Tvtropes.org calls this "Hitler Ate Sugar": the notion that bad things are bad because bad people do them. Taken to its logical extreme, it's to say that genocide is wrong because the Nazis committed it, when the reverse is true: the Nazis were evil because of what they did, not the other way around. The logic of "Hitler ate sugar" is the logic of hipster racism, and it's amazingly common. Here in this country, I know people who will go berserk if anyone calls people who say and write blatantly racist things racist, because we don't know if they're really racists or not.
Newsflash: people who say, write and do racist things are racists. That's the definition of a racist. It is beyond pointless to debate what a person "really thinks", for two reasons. First of all, without telepathy or mind-reading technology, we can't know. More importantly: it doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what you do.
Our thoughts and attitudes have no impact on the world whatsoever. The only things that affect mutually observable reality are the ways in which we express them. If you're a warm, fuzzy, wonderful person who loves everyone in the whole wide world, and you express yourself with racial slurs, guess what? You're a racist. The only impact you're making on the world around you is a racist one. The same goes if you personally believe that all people are equal, no matter what their color, ethnicity or any other attribute, but the only contribution you make to the discussion is to defend racism. The only ideology you're propagating is racism. That makes you a racist. It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what you do.
If you secretly hate black people and think they're subhuman animals, but spend your life fighting racism and advocating equal rights and treatment for all, you will have made the world a better place. If you passionately believe that all people are equal, but spend your life defending racists and making excuses for them, telling racist jokes and generally propagating racist attitudes, you will have made the world a worse place. What you do is all that matters. There is no god or other divine referee who will judge you for what you "really" thought, and reward honesty and punish hypocrisy. In a sense, all you are as a person is your impact on the world around you.
The words you use are a big part of that impact, if not the biggest. The slurs you use and the jokes you tell all propagate attitudes. Each of us, in their own personal dreamworld, likes to imagine that they're aloof from society and are commenting on it from a distance. You're not. Everything you say and do builds the society you live in, and what you choose to do or say is your vote on what kind of society you want to live in. The cheap tranny joke is a vote for transphobia. The racial slur is a vote for continuing racism. These are decisions each of us is making every day, and they are what our culture is.
It's very common for white, straight, cis-gendered people to disagree strongly with this. Recently Chloë Sevigny was called out for using the word "tranny" to refer to a transgender character she played. Her response:
Reee-donkulous. You can't say anything anymore.
No, you can. That's what's called freedom of speech. What's being criticized is how you're using that freedom. By calling transgender people "trannies" and dismissing complaints about it as "reee-donkulous", you're using your influence as a public figure to say that mocking transgender people is okay, and if they complain about it, it's okay to laugh at them.
This is not you having a positive effect on the world around you.
I'd be curious to know if Ms. Sevigny thinks it would be "reee-donkulous" if she called some of her African-American colleagues niggers and they took offense.
**
So when the Gutters busted out a cheap, unnecessary tranny joke, I protested in the comments section. The answers were overwhelmingly from white cis-gendered men, who felt that they must have the right to say whatever they want. Given that I didn't in any way suggest their freedom of speech be curtailed, what this really meant was that they feel they have a right to say whatever they want, consequences be damned, and no-one has the right to call them out on it. That isn't free speech, that's mob rule: you have the right to shout with the mob. The bigotry of the majority gets to speak, and criticism is stifled.
Both amusingly and sadly, a few commentators assumed I must be transgender myself because I was offended by the word "tranny". They advised me to grow a thicker skin and not get insulted so easily.
Full disclosure: I'm a white cis-gendered man. Even with all the empathy I can muster, I cannot imagine how hearing something like that must feel for a trans woman. I belong to the most privileged caste of humanity, and it is simply impossible for me to put myself in the position of someone who spends their life, as the formidable Natalie Reed puts it, being the pejorative. I quote:
We have the inescapable barrage of jokes at the expense of trans women. We have the use of challenges to a man’s gender as the most salient and consistently employed insult. It is effectively impossible for a trans woman to make it through a single day without being confronted with messages telling her she should be ashamed of herself for what she is.
I’ve mentioned before just how bitterly exhausting it is to live in a world where that’s what you hear, constantly, from all sides. That you are the worst thing that could ever happen to someone. That your life is a misery. That your body is a disgusting abomination. That you are brimming over with sin and immorality. That you are an unnatural freak. That your identity is a joke. That your mind is diseased and delusional. That you are unlovable, undesirable, unfuckable, untouchable, that beauty is by definition only attainable through the degree to which you suppress and hide what you are, and that in all likelihood, no one will ever love or want you. That if you have the audacity to pursue love or intimacy or touch, then you are a deceitful liar who deserves whatever violence befalls her. That you are “really” a man, but bereft of everything that makes men “superior”. That nothing awaits you further in life but more pain, more misery, more loneliness, and if you’re lucky, an early death.
I don’t care how much confidence someone has. It is impossible to fight that off forever. We are forever swimming upriver against our culture’s messages about gender, just to maintain the basic level of self-confidence and self-love necessary to survive. It is exhausting. Exhausting in a way I’m not sure anyone who hasn’t lived it can really understand.
I maintain that it's impossible for someone like me to put my privilege aside enough to really understand what that's like. The suicide rate alone speaks for itself. Please, if this topic is in any way new or unfamiliar to you, read that post.
It is unthinkably idiotic to say that this is somehow the result of a person choosing to be offended. The slurs, the insults and the belittling, the delegitimizing, are not just words that you can choose to ignore. Those words create and maintain attitudes, which make up cultures and societies. And they enable violence. In Western societies, barring some truly extreme examples, there is nowhere you can go in the course of your daily life where you will be at extreme risk of violence or death just for being white, cis-gendered, straight and male. There just isn't. For trans women, the opposite is closer to the truth, especially for trans women of color.
That isn't a natural, inescapable state of affairs. None of us have a gene in our body that compels us to insult and assault transgender people. The violence comes about because of attitudes in our society that tell us transgender people are legitimate targets of mockery and violence. That it's okay to call them names and make fun of them just for who they are. That they're not really people, entitled to be treated like equals. And those attitudes come from cheap tranny jokes.
So no, saying "don't be so insulted" really doesn't cut it. At all.
**
I can't say it was very surprising to get that kind of response. It's called privilege.
Another variant was "this is just humor". Or "this comic is offensive to everyone". The problem with the latter is that not everyone is equal, and there are different ways to be offensive. There's offensive in the sense of outraging commonly held sensibilities, which is something I'd say I've been guilty of quite a few times. That can be a constructive way to be offensive, a way to question beliefs and prejudices. Like this:
(I stole that image because I'm a pirate. Arr!)
Ideally, this kind of offensiveness can be a form of Schumpeterian creative destruction, sweeping out old bullshit. That's very positive. But then there's the other kind of offensive, which doesn't question anything and isn't positive, but reinforces and perpetuates negative stereotypes. That's the tranny joke, the racial slur, the homophobia.
So I can't accept the idea that being offensive is a good thing in itself. Is whatever you're doing or saying offensive in a constructive, positive way? Or is it just hateful?
The reason this matters is the reason a joke in a webcomic matters. On first glance, I'm sure this will sound ridiculous, but comedians and webcomic writers have a lot of power in society. Think about it this way: they define what we laugh at. How big an influence do you think people like Penn Jillette and George Carlin have had on attitudes to religion simply by making it look ridiculous? They're telling us it's okay to laugh at Christianity. I don't think many people of my age group realize what a huge thing that is, let alone younger folks.
Similarly, what a transphobic joke in Gutters is telling us is that it's okay to laugh at transgender people. What Chloë Sevigny is telling us is that it's okay to laugh at anyone who complains about that.
And that's not okay.
**
So it was a little depressing to run into a blank wall of cis privilege, but not in any way unexpected. I left it at that, feeling that at least I'd spoken up and said something. That's pretty much all I can do. Besides, though you might not know it, I really, really hate arguing on the Internet.
Maybe the most ludicrous and the most depressing thing about it was the immediate assumption that if I care about the way a minority is treated, I must belong to it myself. What a horrible way to think.
The subject came up again last week, and someone mentioned Gutters writer Mr. Sohmer's own webcomic, Least I Could Do. I hadn't read it before, but now that it came up, I checked it out.
It's awful. There's just no better word for it. The comic is a hideously misogynist and disgusting ego trip where the writer's thinly disguised alter ego has tons of sex, mistreats women - especially the ones he sleeps with - and insults his friends, and somehow everyone thinks he's awesome. None of it is very funny; the idea doesn't seem to be that it's funny, but rather that it's a wish-fulfillment ego trip. The protagonist is a colossal dickhead and gets to mistreat everyone he's in contact with, and despite this has friends and gets laid. So it's basically wish-fulfillment for male chauvinist assholes.
That's just terrible. You're projecting the attitude that using, objectifying and mistreating women is a funny, desirable lifestyle? What kind of attitudes are you propagating? In the terms I used earlier, what kind if society are you creating? A terrible one.
That is not him having a positive effect on the world around him.
Based on that appalling webcomic, the transphobic jokes in Gutters are hardly an innocent mistake or "just humor". There's a definite attitude here, and it's one I utterly dislike and reject. So I can't in good conscience link to that particular writer's work any more. I don't imagine he'll notice, but that's not really the point. Like I said, words matter: not just words you speak or write, but words that you link to, approve of, silently condone or actively promote.
**
For more on transphobia, I again heartily recommend Natalie Reed's blog, especially her Beginner's Guide to Trans-Misogyny. There's also a handy glossary.
What I hope you take away from this is that words do matter. Free speech is one of the most important basic human rights, but the story doesn't end there. That right can be used to do great harm, and the solution isn't to restrict speech,but for each and every one of us to hold ourselves accountable for how we use it. When you speak, you don't just communicate; you also create the world that you live in. The kinds of words and expressions you use are the kind of world you create. This is what it means when we say the personal is political. Talking is a political act that creates social reality.
We can actually make the world a better place just by talking about it differently. The knee-jerk cynicism of my generation is, unfortunately, nothing but a massive force of inertia. The choices you make in everyday life matter. You can have a positive effect on the world around you. Eventually, barring the singularity, you will die. As far as I know, that's the end if the story for each of us. When we die, we cease to exist. But we leave a world behind: a culture, a society, attitudes, ways of speaking. We can leave behind a better world than the one we were born into, just by thinking a little about what we say.
I don't think that's too much to ask.
Jun 3, 2012
Happy birthday Yelena Isinbayeva!
Today, we're wishing a happy birthday to one athlete we'll be sure to watch at the London Olympics: the greatest female pole vaulter in the world, Yelena Gadzhievna Isinbayeva!
In 2005, she became the first woman ever to vault over five meters, and that was in London, so we're expecting a good showing this time around as well!
She's brilliant, inspiring, and, if I may say so, quite attractive. Happy birthday, Yelena! You rock.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
