starless @starless@pixie.town

@noyovo@rage.love most of those seem to be things from Scott and not her, or conflicts that seemed to be pretty "in person"/con-oriented in nature. I didn't find any quotes or actions, aside from the lack of moderation around her blog post, that really stood out as deplorable.

What did you see that concerns you? Maybe I'm missing something here.

@noyovo@rage.love maybe I'm missing something, though?

@noyovo@rage.love yeah, I get that. It's been fourteen years, and it doesn't look like she said anything racist, but rather failed to moderate racist discussions on her blog post.

To me, this is a distinction worth making, and is why I say she is unlikely to be a good moderator, but could be a good user.

@Shrigglepuss I might hesitate before blocking Bear immediately.

It sounds like she would make a terrible moderator, and inaction on her part caused the comments section of something she'd written to get super toxic in 2009.

The world has changed in the last thirteen years or so, and in light of some of the other work she's done in shifting the needle in sci fi lit fields, I think it might be worth holding space for her to have grown, as well.

I would advise a block at the first sign of red flags, though, especially around race stuff. But that's just my take here.

IMO, Bear played a substantial role in shifting science fiction literature (and the surrounding older fandom community) out of a space where all characters were white, Christian men, and into a space where the characters at least looked different, even if she is still writing from the perspective of a white woman. She's not perfect, but I do think she's tried to make stuff better, and has made an impact particularly on what is or isn't assessed as "publishable". That's just my take, though, and I have read a lot of her stuff.

It also seems like her emotional bandwidth tends to stay kinda 'used up', like she gets emotionally overwhelmed kinda often. Which isn't an excuse, but idk, it might give context? I get the impression that when that happens, she doesn't tend to head online.

My read is that she'd make a bad moderator, but might be a fine user. We met briefly a while back and she seemed emotionally drained and physically tired, but polite. I imagine with her cancer, she is maybe more drained now than she was.

I can't speak to Scott Lynch; the things I'm seeing on him are more concerning. While I understand they're married, they do appear to be two different people, and it seems like they should be moderated as such.

@skye you should be able to use the same technique on the middle seam? Oh, wait, I get what you're saying now. Lol

A serger is a special kind of sewing machine that sews a wide seam using a whole lot of thread! If I understand how they work right, they kinda crochet the thread together around the seam.

If you have a shirt made of a knit material (like most t shirts), you might notice that the seams have a whole lot of thread on them. That's made using a serger, and the benefit of it is that the seams are more stretchy than using a normal sewing machine stitch.

@skye you sew a straight stitch along the sides of the legs, but you don't hem them or add the waistband yet.

Then, you take an iron and you press the seams kinda "open" so that you don't have the little flappy tab, and everything lays flat. (Picture two pieces of fabric, both folded in half on their own. Then move them so that the 'folds' are kinda facing each other, fold-on-fold with a little microscopic gap between them. It's in that kind of orientation.) Then, you might sew over it again with a serger a using a zigzag stitch (if your machine has it).

Then, you hem and sew on your waistband.

Hopefully this makes sense. A phrase people sometimes use is 'press the seams flat'.

It's a bit more work. I usually don't do this, but it's up to you if it's worth it to you! :)

@skye on a secret other way to sew a flat seam (that is symmetrical, but more laborious).

@fack oh man, I relate. Best of luck in navigating.

@skye would you like advice?

@taedryn I'd be curious to see results with an option similar to "only sometimes, in response to experiencing sexism".

@bethsawin
- the coming over a few hours early to cook together party
- Glass/transparent windows

@annaecook I wonder what they're trying to figure out someone is even "qualified" for.

Rather than deciding who is or isn't "disabled" or what that even means, an accommodation-first approach is usually much more helpful.

What a funny thing to gatekeep.

I've occasionally met people who introduce themselves as 'disabled', and I sometimes find that word difficult to hold space for. Do you need an ASL interpreter? Should I avoid venues with stairs? Are flashing lights dangerous to you? Should I make sure the spaces we meet have a quiet place in case stuff gets too loud? Do you need to 'call out' for rest some days? Should I just plan for an occasional mobility issue to interfere with yoga or whatever?

I'm all about people reclaiming "disabled", and if someone uses it, I tend to assume that they're using that word because they don't want to invite questions about it.

I could see it occasionally being helpful, especially if giving social context for an experience or whatnot. I guess it reminds me a bit of saying "I have a food allergy". This is helpful to know, but it's often more helpful to know what the accommodation (avoid eggs and peanuts) is, if we're hanging out and making lunch plans. If you're a rando on the internet, I really don't need to know your lunch order.

Idk, just musing at this point. Agreed that gatekeeping is real weird in this zone.