Profile cover photo
Profile photo
Kimberly Chapman
40,554 followers -
Official Sucromancer of the Realm
Official Sucromancer of the Realm

40,554 followers
About
Posts

Post is pinned.Post has attachment
PINNED POST

I am a cranky, liberal, intersectional feminist who has no time for bullshit. Do not comment with unsolicited advice, 'splaining, derailments, unnecessary pedantry, bigotry, come-ons, or other assorted crap in my space. All such comments are at risk of deletion without warning, bitingly expletive-laden retorts, and/or blocking.

I owe you nothing. Freedom of speech is not a mandate to be heard.

Now if you can behave, come on in because there's cake and snark and geeklove.

I used to have several opt-in notify circles but G+ killed that. I do not run collections because they have poor functionality that I'm not going to rehash here.

Now that G+ doesn't let me see if a given person has me in circles or not - a sure-fire way to identify drive-by trolls - and has taken away my ability to limit comments to Extended Circles, all while still failing to grant users reasonable methods of controlling trolls, I have decided to set my posts to circles only for commenting. I'm just too tired to deal with endless bigots and bullshit. I apologize if this means nice people I don't have in circles can't comment anymore, but I'm just tired of it.

In fact I'm getting really sick of G+ in general and posting on FB more (https://www.facebook.com/kim.chapman.96199). FB is evil, but functional. G+ is broken unless you're a straight white guy.

If you read this far and like geeky feminist romance, congratulations, here's a coupon for $1 off my novel Finding Gaia at Smashwords. It's also available at Amazon but they don't let me make coupons.

Promotional price: $3.99
Coupon Code: AC26H
Expires: December 31, 2018
https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/180554

https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B008K82BWE/
http://findinggaia.com
Finding Gaia
Finding Gaia
smashwords.com
Commenting is disabled for this post.

I hate FB. I do.

But I had to concede to it awhile back when G+ just became too toxic for me as a woman, and frankly because it's where my cake community and my local community peeps all were.

My fields are dominated by women and women were never treated well here on G+. I tried to get legions of women into G+, and was even on the cusp of getting a conference full of mom entrepreneurs on here via Hangouts, and then Google did the typical Google thing of breaking Hangouts for a couple of weeks just before the conference and that scared them off. And over the years when I've mentioned that, too many men have said shit like, "We don't want a bunch of mom bloggers on here anyway," because misogyny and elitism have always been woven into the fabric of G+.

At every turn, my brand evangelism was undermined by G+/Google itself, and I grew weary of bothering.

At every opportunity of attracting the types of groups of influencer women that actually make a social media platform, G+ failed. Other than a couple of staffers, they routinely displayed fake concern but then went behind closed doors and made decisions that hurt that demographic, most notably putting a 4chan dude in charge. And when the good staffers left, the staff left behind thought it funny to make jokes about women's safety online and even "joked" about their ability to pull our accounts if we kept questioning them. Haha. Super funny.

So I switched to FB, like so many other women in my social group before me. I gave up. FB might be a wretched hive of scum and villainy but at least it is consistently that so you can be on your toes. G+ pretends to be different, hides behind that "don't be evil" slogan, and then lies and manipulates women into sticking around to be the fodder for socially awkward men who abuse women. OH SORRY RIGHT WE CAN'T CALL THAT OUT, THAT WOULD BE A "WITCH HUNT". G+ staff routinely used a term pertaining to the actual slaughter of women to defend why men should keep being able to routinely harass women. Chew on that...because too many of us got sick of chewing on it so we went to FB where the misogyny is at least out in the open. Because there is no social space for women that is both safe and thriving (oh I know there are itty bitty little things here and there, but not thriving in the way that makes sense for large communities of people who need to communicate on a blended personal-professional level like I do, like so many women do in the types of careers that tend to be female-dominated).

FB sucks, but it consistently sucks. G+ pretended to accommodate and then didn't. FB is an abuser, G+ is a gaslighting abuser.

And it was only a matter of time before Google pulled the plug because it was never their focus. Over and over again when we the users requested features, requested security, requested thread management, requested so many things that would help us use and evangelize this space, we were told we couldn't have that for this, that, or the other reason. Even as other social networks offered it.

When I switched to FB, my life got easier. It's easier for me to decide I'm done with drama for the day and close FB and not have it follow me around to email, Maps, search, and elsewhere online. I had to learn to ignore that 99+ red dot from G+ for my own mental health, but FB is something I can close after dinner and ignore until the next morning. On FB, thread management tools make it easier for me to deal with problematic people. I'll concede that FB is missing one thing that G+ does better: the ability to shut down comments on a post. That is the single thing G+ does better in terms of being able to communicate while controlling responses in a way that is safer for marginalized groups and for letting people pause conversations so they can go to bed without waking up to a mess.

But unfortunately the differences aren't just technical. My social circles on G+ are mostly men, especially after so many of my women friends left here after sustained harassment G+ did squat all about. My FB social groups are mostly women, in part because of the G+ refugees but again in part because my real life professional and personal friends skew female and they're all on FB, not G+. And by golly what a difference it makes! I mean yeah, I still have to deal with the occasional Trumpie fucknugget moron on FB. I still have to deal with white women who don't understand or appreciate intersectionality and spew a lot of privileged garbage that needs serious correcting and/or removal from my space. But you know what I hardly ever get in my space on FB? Mansplaining. Nerdsplaining. Pedantry. Whinging about the age of memes.

See on FB, in my social groups anyway, there's a culture of, "SQUEEEE I'VE SEEN THIS MEME BEFORE BUT I NEVER GET TIRED OF IT, I LOVE IT, THANK YOU FOR POSTING IT AGAIN YAYYAYAYAY!" On G+? "I posted this meme three years ago." or "I already posted this, you should give me credit." G+ became the land of constant downers on my joy. Why would I keep posting to that?

On FB I can post, "I let Peo watch her first episode of this science fiction series tonight and it was awesome!" and my friends there are all, "Yay, welcome Peo to this nerd club, you're going to love it!" and "Good job nerdy mama!" On G+ I post that same thing and several white male nerds will immediately quiz me about have I let her also see and read this list of items? When will I show her this other part? No no no, I should have started with this other thing first. And worst of all, they think they're being friendly and conversational and no matter how often I ask them to stop with that shit, they do it again and again. It's gatekeeping. It's rude. It's not friendly. It's not welcoming. It's a constant way of establishing nerd dominance in someone else's space and I really got fucking tired of it. I told you all so many times, and then I'd come back and post something again and you'd do it again and I just......left.

FB sucks.

G+ has sucked a lot worse for a long time for many people, and if you're already typing a kneejerk, angry response to this post, you're proving my point about why I didn't want to be here anymore. Also kind of don't bother because I only ever come here every few months so I won't read what you have to say in a timely manner. I considered shutting off comments on this post to avoid those of you who will feel the need to lecture me about how great G+ is, but then I decided to leave some rope for all y'all to hang yourselves with and the few good people I actually care about talking to can post a way they'd like to keep in touch. But I'm not joining another network so...yeah, sorry. Email or FB it is.

G+ has been dying a slow death from the moment they broke their promises about giving a shit about my demographic's needs. I'm neither sad nor surprised to see it take a final swan dive.

I'd say come friend me on FB if you want to talk but honestly, probably anyone who wants to talk to me without being a jerk probably already has. I mean if you're thinking, "I'm not a jerk, I'll friend you on FB" fine, go for it, but be aware that I will boot your ass if you 'splain at me, if you gatekeep me, if you nag me, if you belittle me, or if you do that to my friends in my space. I'm not having it over there. Dealing with men on G+ broke me for giving a shit about men's feefees on social media anymore, and after what my friends and I have emotionally dealt with over these last few weeks with SCOTUS, I have no fucks left to give about any of it.

Post has attachment
OMG I know I'm pretty much never on here anymore but I had to come back today to say that I just saw +Jyoti Q Dahiya's review of Finding Gaia on Smashwords and IT HAS MADE MY DAY!

THANK YOU SO MUCH! <3 <3 <3

https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/180554
Finding Gaia
Finding Gaia
smashwords.com

Post has attachment
Here is my now award-winning recipe for "Chocolate Truffle Cake Bombs With Salted Caramel Popcorn Buttercream Centres" plus photos and how-I-made-it for my cookie entry for Tea and Tents:

http://www.eat-the-evidence.com/2018/07/29/my-chocolate-balls-bring-all-the-ladies-to-the-yard/

Post has attachment
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
For +Corran Webster. Because Robin's cup was too small and she wanted three pringles, not two.

Photo

Post has attachment

Post has attachment
For anyone taking on the unenviable (and largely pointless, but still laudable) task of trying to argue facts with pro-gun people who keep pinning the problem on "mental illness" instead of where it belongs - on the GUNS - here are two papers at Violence and Gender that have been made free for a limited time in order to encourage the spread of actual science and data on these issues. I'm citing the abstract and conclusions, and if you want to see the actual breakdown of data and ample citations, read the entire article at the link.

But yeah, it's pretty clear in statistic after statistic: mental health is NOT the issue. ACCESS TO GUNS IS THE ONLY ISSUE. As long as there are guns to be had, guns will be obtained and used. This is fact. This is science. This is reality. Stop blaming side issues. Go ahead and fund better mental health care because that would be awesome, but it won't stop shootings until you get rid of the guns, period.

Comments are being disabled because I am not on this platform enough to delete the inevitable "but what about" style of pro-gun crap.

ETA: I don't know why G+ is putting an error on the link but it appears to work for me anyway...if the links don't work for you, search at the site for the titles. G+...wtf FB posted it just fine...sigh...

__________________________

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2015.0054#_i8
The Tenuous Connections Involving Mass Shootings, Mental Illness, and Gun Laws

Abstract:

Despite their exceptional rarity, high-profile mass murders, particularly those involving firearms, are often linked to deficiencies in our mental health system and gun laws. In this article, we consider the tenuous connections between severe mental illness, gun control measures, and mass shootings. Several suggested preventative strategies are evaluated for potential effectiveness, including expanded firearm restrictions and background checks for the mentally ill, the now-expired Federal Assault Weapons Ban, and the establishment of gun-free zones. Examining data on mass shootings from various governmental and news sources, we find that offenders are generally not psychotic, infrequently use assault weapons, and do not often target gun-free zones, and so strategies based on these elements are not apt to reduce the risk of mass shootings to any significant degree.


Conclusions:

In the aftermath of catastrophic mass shootings, there is considerable momentum, although partisan, on Capitol Hill and in various state legislatures to establish policies and procedures designed to reduce the likelihood of such crimes. Although expanded psychiatric services and various measures to restrict gun sales to dangerous individuals are limited in their ability to prevent mass shootings, these strategies may still have significant value for society as a whole, including the potential to curb ordinary gun crime. Of course, taking any nibble out of the risk of mass murder, however small, would still be a worthy goal for the nation.

Completely eliminating the risk of mass murder would entail extreme steps that we, as a society, are unable or unwilling to take—abolishing the Second Amendment, achieving full employment, restoring our sense of community, and rounding up anyone who looks or acts at all suspicious. Mass murder may indeed be a price that we pay for living in a society where personal freedom is valued.


__________________________

http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/full/10.1089/vio.2015.0049#_i14
Mental Illness and Gun Violence: Lessons for the United States from Australia and Britain

Abstract:

In the United States, the nexus between mental illness and shootings has been the subject of heated argument. An extreme expression of one point of view is that “guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do.” This article seeks to demonstrate the falsehood of this argument, by examining the real-world experience of two comparable societies. Australia and Great Britain are both Anglophone nations with numerous points of commonality with the United States, including high rates of mental illness and significant exposure to popular culture that perpetuates the stigma of the mentally ill as a violent threat. However, in Australia, it is difficult to obtain firearms, and a mentally ill person behaving aggressively is unlikely to be able to harm others. On the contrary, police are almost the only people routinely armed in Australian communities and are often too ready to use firearms against the mentally ill. In Britain, guns are even more difficult to obtain, and operational police are not usually armed. The authors examine statistical data on mental illness, homicide, and civilian deaths caused by police in all three nations. They also consider media and popular opinion environments. They conclude that mental illness is prevalent in all three societies, as is the damaging stigma of “the dangerous madman.” However, the fewer people (including police officers) who have access to firearms, the safer that community is.

Conclusions:

Australia, Britain, and the United States are directly comparable societies. Statistical data confirm that they have similar rates of mental illness, including those forms of mental illness most likely to be associated with violent behavior. All three societies have a negative media and popular culture construction of mental illness, including an exaggerated sense of the dangerousness of the mentally ill. They also have, through both traditional mass media and social media, access to the same script of personal apocalypse. What Australian and British men do not have ready access to, however, is firearms.

The significant differences among the three societies are the number of firearms in the community and whether the police are armed.

In the United Kingdom, guns are difficult to obtain and the police are not usually armed. A person suffering a mental health crisis is unlikely to be able to cause serious harm to other people, and the police will almost always be able to resolve such a crisis without a fatality.

In Australia, guns are difficult to obtain but the police are routinely armed. The greatest risk of fatality is for the mentally ill person, due to a police response that automatically involves firearms.

In the United States, firearms are very readily accessible. A mentally ill person in crisis often has a weapon available capable of easily inflicting lethal violence, in some cases, upon a large number of people in a short time. Police are also usually armed, and although the data are unsatisfactory, an unknown (but probably large) proportion of an unknown (but very large) number of civilians shot dead are mentally ill.

The benefits of strict gun control and unarmed police are most starkly illustrated by the differences in deaths due to police action. The population of the United States is almost five times greater than that of Britain. This means that, according to data known to be a vast underestimate (Planty et al. 2015), a US civilian is between 171 and 226 times more likely to be killed by a police officer than a person living in Britain in the worst recorded year of the past decade (Teers 2015).

The contention that “guns don't kill people, the mentally ill do” is unsustainable. Guns kill people. The fewer guns there are in a community, whether in the hands of civilians or of police, the safer that community is.
Commenting is disabled for this post.

Post has attachment
LOLSOB
Photo
Wait while more posts are being loaded