The Pain Game

We find ourselves two nights before Halloween, and with just two more posts before we find ourselves at All Hallow's door. Well, one post after you've finished reading this one . . .
I originally planned to write a post all about how certain traumatic incidences can result in specific psychological trauma. However, after doing some research, I came to realize that my conclusion: "do this, and it will result in that" was wrong.
I will explore this in the future, do more research and see if I can write it properly. However, it's currently Monday the 29th of October, and I have a blog post to write. So, realizing that it was just two days from Halloween, I was reminded of a post I wrote a long time ago about my personal experience with the theme of the Countdown. That year, the theme was "bloody" and confronting one's own mortality, so I wrote The AWN'S Top 5 Personal Near-Death Experiences, and told you about five times that I nearly died.

Since this year is about pain, suffering and Torture, this year, I've done some personal reflection, and I have come up with the five most painful injuries that I've ever sustained. Now, after creating this list, I realized that I live a rather privileged life. In fact, I said at the very beginning of this year's Countdown:

"And as someone who has lived a very privileged life - privileged enough to have earned 27 years of it so far - pain isn't something that I encounter in my life. At least, not pain inflicted upon me, anyway."

- The Absurd Word Nerd, The Torment of Tartarus, 2018

The thing is, this is very true. Sure, I've chipped a tooth, I've been electrocuted, I've had a root canal (in that same tooth), I've been in a fight before & I think I may have had a concussion, although I don't remember it very well . . .
But, not only are all of these not on this list because they didn't actually hurt that much at the time, but I spoke with my parents just to be sure I wasn't forgetting anything and I have confirmed with them: I have never been bitten by an animal larger than an insect, I have never broken a bone in my body, I have never been hospitalized & even with my mental illnesses, I've never self-harmed.
Genuinely, before I sat down, and managed to jog my memory, "gas pains" and "sunburn" were on this list. I left off gas pains because that's not really an injury, but Sunburn was on a list of the worst pain I've ever experienced. And yeah, it was nasty-looking sunburn, but the point that I'm making is that this is a personal list, it isn't a contest . . . but, the reason I called this is "The Pain Game" (besides the fact that it sounded cool) is because, if you want to, you can make it a contest if you'd like. Feel free to write your own list of the most painful physical injuries that you've experienced in your life, and share your pain with the world. Until then, this is . . .

The Absurd Word Nerd's Top 5 Most Painful Injuries (That I Have Experienced)

5. Carbon Fibre Splinters
Incident: Have you ever been inside of a roof? Not just under the ceiling, but inside the roof of a house? I have, a few times, but one of the worst was definitely in my current home (at time of writing). We decided to put in an attic, for the sake of storage, so we installed a ladder (yes, it turns out you can just buy roof access ladders), and my father put down boards for the floor, and some shelves, and ta-da, we had an attic. Now, we helped of course, by cleaning up a little, and my brother helped to organize our network cables so that they weren't under the boards, and he also helped put in the ladder. After the ladder was installed, I helped the set up the shelves, and clean up the roofspace.
But, whoever had installed our roofing insulation had been incredibly lazy, and just kinda chucked big slabs of fibreglass insulation, also known as "glass wool" around the roof. So, even though I never laid my hands on it directly, the little fibres were everywhere, and that afternoon when I climbed down, I realized that my hands were stinging. We eventually swept and even vacuumed up there, and made sure that the fibres were gone. The only real way to get it out is to use sticky-tape, but it took me two days, and several attempts with the sticky-tape roll, to remove every single fibre from my hand.
The Pain: Fibreglass is what it sounds like, glass that's turned into thin fibrous strands. So, essentially, my hands were being impaled by hair-thin shards of glass. Don't get me wrong, there's a reason why I say I'm privileged, this is not the worst pain in the world, but if you have just one of these fibres in your hand, it hurts a lot, because they're quite rigid, so every time you move your hand, you will feel the fibre move inside your skin, which is a sting that is not entirely unlike the feeling of being bitten by a small ant, so having it all over my palms, and between my fingers, was very painful.

4. 11-Hour Walk
Incident: My friend Sean and I do some silly things sometimes, and one time, out of boredom, we decided to go for a walk. I had some vague notion that I was going to see a friend but we didn't really have a goal. So, even though neither of us had slept, we both decided "fuck it" and so we just left my place and started walking North, with a map in my pocket and nothing else. It was an interesting time, because we actually encountered some obstacles which we had to overcome, and on more than one occasion we got lost, but after eleven hours of walking, we were nearly at our destination, and our feet hurt a little bit, and we were both tired. So, we both sat at a picnic table and fell asleep. I don't know how long we slept for, but when we eventually woke up, we decided to stand up, and when we did, our feet hurt like hell.
The Pain: I don't entirely understand the mechanism, I think that because humans are supposed to walk, when we walk for a long time, our body must numb the pain. I'm sure you've had the experience of sitting down and realizing that you can't stand up again because your feet hurt too much? Well, we did, but we did after walking for eleven hours. After you've walked for eleven hours, every step feels like you're walking barefoot over sharp gravel, and your feet are hot and throbbing the entire time. The worst part is that at the time, we still needed to get home. So, we were actually stuck until Sean decided to walk to the train station. So, we had to walk about half a kilometre to the train station. That was the hardest part of the whole journey.

3. The Stomach Pinch
Incident: My grandmother used to live in a house in Grafton, with a big garden out the back, a huge shed, and beside a caryard. It was a lovely house, but for some reason after living in it for several years, she installed a gate by the stairs leading from the back patio to the backyard. I don't know why she bothered, it was just two or three steps, and nobody had tripped on it before. Maybe it was because my grandfather had dementia and she didn't want him to walk out. Maybe it was to stop the kids from heading outside, maybe it was to keep the dogs out - I honestly don't know, I don't even know if she still had dogs at that point. What I do know is that, it went across the top of steps, and the gap was about a metre and a half across. So, to make sure that the gate folded away neatly, it had a hinge in the middle as well as on the side, which you could unbolt.
Because my brothers, cousins and I were stupid, little kids, we really liked playing on that gate, by standing on the lower bars and opening it. If you unlocked the middle bolt, then opened the gate, it would feel like you were floating, since it would swing open, but you'd turn on the hinge . . . this was before everyone had iPhones, and we had to make our own fun. We would play on it all the a time, but parents would yell at us because "it's not a toy", so of course we had to do it when they weren't looking. One day, I was heading to the shed to join my brothers or something - I think they were doing something with the car, I can't remember. What I do remember is that I stood in the middle of the gate, unlocked it, and swing. But, I heard someone coming, so I quickly pushed off the wall to close it, and straightened the gate whilst I was leaning on it. and some of my skin just under my bellybutton caught in the metal hinge as it closed.
The Pain: It's hard to describe, because it was definitely a pinch - if you've been pinched, you know what that feels like - but it actually tore out a little chunk of my flesh, and I still have the scar today, a little round spot about the size of a fingernail. Because it ripped out so quickly, it actually felt like I'd been punched in the stomach, and I remember stepping back from the gate and doubling over. It throbbed and was sore for the rest of the day, and even once it started to heal and scab over, there was a bruise on my stomach around the wound. It didn't bleed, but it hurt for a week, and when I first picked the scab off, it was gross to see that it literally had ripped my skin out, since there was a little concave hole where skin was, and now wasn't. It grew back, but I know how much it hurt because even though I don't know how old I was, or what else happened that day, I remember that pain.

2. Getting Foot Stitches
Incident: When I was younger, my uncle had a boat and a few times, he invited us to go with him to some publicly-accessible river somewhere, we usually had picnics and went swimming, it was fun. But, one thing we sometimes did is that, beside the river, there was also a big mud puddle, near the mangroves. It was fun playing in it, and slopping around, because you could just walk in the river to wash it all off, then keep playing or doing whatever. I'd played in the mud several times before, but when I headed in to join my cousin, as I stepped into the mud, I felt something happen to my foot. The best way I can describe it is, imagine you're thirsty, so you're about to take a drink of water, but before you gulp, the water suddenly disappears, and you gulp air. That's what it was like, I was going to take a step through the mud, but instead of touching the ground, I felt something, and it felt weird, so I pulled my foot out, and as I moved, my foot hurt. So, I limped into the river to wash the mud away, and saw that the water around my foot was stained red. I'd cut my foot. That, in and of itself, didn't hurt much. I think it throbbed a little, but my aunt told me to elevate my foot, which I did, and Dad organized for me to get to the GP. What hurt wasn't the damage, but what they did to fix it.
The Pain: We went to the nearest doctor, still in my swimming gear. Since I didn't know what I'd stepped on, I got a tetanus shot and some other things, but then they lay me on my stomach, applied some anaesthetic, then started stitching my foot. The thing is, either because my foot was cut open, or because the doctor hadn't put the anaesthetic in right, I felt some of the stitches. Unfortunately, the way it feels is exactly the same way it sounds - it felt like someone was stabbing my foot with a needle. But, it was made worse by the fact that it was in a spot that was already throbbing, and because I wasn't allowed to flinch. I had to bear the pain. I remember that my way of coping with the pain was rapid-fire, bad puns - to get my mind off the pain, I just tried to think of something funny to say. It didn't help much, though, as I still remember how much it hurt to have someone stick a curved needle in my foot, six times.

1. The Forearm Burn
Incident: As part of Work for the Dole, I volunteered at several venues. There was some administration and data entry work, but mostly I worked hospitality because I had a certificate in hospitality, and experience with it. So, one of the gigs I got was as one of the cooks and helping hands at the Salvation Army, Bayside. It was a church, but it also helped to feed people, as there were a few people who struggled to afford food. We would give people tea and coffee, as well as some food, and even made dinners which could be frozen, and given to people. We relied pretty heavily on foods that were donated to us from businesses that either couldn't sell them, or had excess. So, one day, we got two large slabs of meat - I think they were pork and beef, but they were huge, and perfect for roasting. We had an oven, a little gas-fire thing - basically there's just a tube full of holes in the bottom that leak gas, you light them and that cooks the food. This oven was quite small, so we had to take out all but one of the racks just to fit this thing in, and to make sure that it didn't stick to the oven, we put aluminium foil over it. So, we put it in, we cook it, and it cooks beautifully. So, we go to take it out. However, as we take it out, we realize that it's actually changed shape slightly, so the foil is sticking up, and as we pull it, the grill plate is pulling off the foil. So, to make sure it doesn't wreck the roast, I get the tongs and help it slip under the lip. So, we manage to slowly but surely pull it out. However, halfway through, a rogue piece of foil falls off, and lands right on the fire of that gas pipe I described before. In a split second, I realize that it could potentially melt and fill up the holes in the pipe - ruining the oven. So, quick as a flash, I reach in the tongs and snap up the foil, but in the process I touched the grill-plate.
The Pain: A burn is an insidious injury. When I touched the hot metal, it hurt, but when I pulled it back, it didn't feel too bad. I actually felt pretty good, since I'd saved the oven (I did research, and aluminium melts at about 660 °C, and the flame in a gas oven burns at over 1950 °C, so if I hadn't done what I did it easily could have melted and damaged the oven).
Because I know you have to, I ran it under the tap, and told the supervisor who went to get a first-aid kit. I stopped the tap, and it felt fine, so when they offered cream, I said "okay, sure, but it doesn't hurt that bad", but the supervisor told me that the burn looked red and angry. So, they put on the cream and sent me home. I didn't understand all the fuss . . . but then I started driving home. On the drive home, I don't know whether the cream wore off, or if my body just decided that it would stop numbing the area, but the burn on my arm suddenly felt like it was on fire, it was boiling hot, and as I drove it got worse and worse. I rolled up my sleeve to make sure it wouldn't touch it, and I remember as I drove, I kept yelling and swearing at my steering wheel, because for some reason it helped take my mind off the pain. There was no throbbing or stinging, it was just pure heat, I felt like I was being branded - and by some definitions, I think I had been. I am lucky that when we got home my mother had a numbing gel for burns and cuts in the cabinet, because painkiller pills didn't do anything at all. And that's the most painful injury that I've ever experienced.


Anyway, that's my list. Again, I know that I'm lucky I've had to suffer so little throughout my lifetime. Perhaps this is part of the reason why I feel like psychological horror is more powerful to me, because the things I've suffered as a result of mental illness are much worse than my physical pains.
If you asked me whether I would prefer to burn myself again or have a panic attack - and I had to choose one of the other - I would turn on the oven myself. But, I don't know if that would be true if I'd also experienced greater physical suffering.

But, do you know what this makes me think of? My fingernail is purple . . .
I am a Polished Man, still, and I will continue colouring my nail until the end of the month. As well, afterwards I will continue to support the ideals of the campaign, about leading by example and .
But, this list reminds me that this is what I want for children, everywhere. Yeah, a scratch here and a burn there, maybe sore feet . . . but, most of these injuries are just incidental - heck three of them happened because I hurt myself while having fun. Like I said, your personal pain shouldn't be a contest, but in a just world I would win that contest, because in a just world, children wouldn't be victims of rape, assault and murder. Because it shouldn’t hurt to be a child.
Anyway, this list is just for fun, it's not meant to be another part of the Polished Man campaign. I would like you to donate to myself or others, but the main point if this list is because I kept talking about the pains other people have suffered - so, I wanted to reflect on my own.
I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, these are just some of the experiences I've collected throughout my lifetime. I'm sure there will be many more to come in the future, but with any luck they won't make the list . . .

Re$urrection

A few years ago now, I wrote a blog post called Party Mu$ic all about a particular singer I'm rather fond of, formerly known by the stagename of: Ke$ha
There were some jokes peppered throughout, but it was a serious character analysis of a singer who seemed to deliberately evoke a partygirl character, and rather than deconstruct it, she expanded it to encapsulate the character in all of its depth, despite how shallow that depth ultimately may have been.

It was a fun character piece of a singer whose music I rather like, and it's not something I ever thought I'd find myself writing about again. However, the real world has not been kind to any of us, let alone the woman who performs Ke$ha.
And that's something we need to remember, "Ke$ha" is a caricature, but she is performed by a real woman called Kesha Rose Sebert (for the sake of clarity, I will refer to the real person as Miss Sebert, and the singing persona as "Ke$ha", even though Miss Sebert has dropped the dollar sign from her stage name). Whereas Ke$ha is an unemployed, partying, simply-minded, functional alcoholic, singer and occasionally mildly romantic and sexually explorative young girl . . . Miss Sebert is an unconventional, highly-educated, Californian, talented, young musician and artist. Unfortunately, whereas Ke$ha is a fictional character, an exaggeration of reality impervious to conflict beyond that inflicted by her medium, Miss Sebert is a human being, and so when she was abused and assaulted by the hands of those in the music industry, in particular a man who goes by the name of Dr Luke, born Lukasz Gottwald (the record producer that owns Miss Sebert's contract), she was hurt in more ways than one.

[Blogger's Note: It occurs to me that, throughout most of this post, I include the accusations, and in some case explicit details of actual claims of rape, assault and abuse. I don't want to go triggering a panic attack or PTSD episode in any of my readers, so if you have reason to believe that will happen, please consider yourself warned and take necessary steps to avoid that.]

In October 2014, just a year after I wrote my original post in fact, Miss Sebert filed a civil suit against Dr. Luke -  for infliction of emotional distress, gender-based hate crimes and employment discrimination. She claimed that Dr. Luke had sexually, physically, verbally and emotionally abused her for the entirety of her professional singing career, and that he had drugged and raped her on more than one occasion; made threats against her and her family and called her derogatory names which were directly responsible for an eating disorder that she suffers from.

Unfortunately, her suits have all been denied by both the courts and the alleged perpetrators. However, some of these have been thrown out due to technicality, such as the statute of limitations and insufficient evidence. So, whilst you or I may have enough reason to believe that she is the victim of abuse, there is legal precedent that shows these reasons would not stand up in a court of law.
But, I'm not here to condemn or redeem alleged abusers. Not because I don't think it's important, but because I'm underqualified and uninformed as to many of the facts of these cases, so I hope that someone else might have more information in this regard.

All you need to know, for the purposes of this blog post, is that Miss Sebert is a musician who performs as Ke$ha, she claims to have been a victim of assault and as a result of the legal battles she has undergone, did not produce any music for four years (early 2013 to mid-2017) as a result of the prolonged legal proceedings.

See, after all that time, she finally released a comeback single on July 2017, called Praying which has thinly-veiled references to her abuser and the suffering she was put through. The song managed to reach #22 on Billboard's Hottest 100. Not long after on August 2017, she released her third studio album, called Rainbow which debuted at #1 on Billboard's Top 200.
It may not seem like a big deal at first, but there was a very high likelihood that after these allegations surfaced, Miss Sebert would never have been heard from again.

There have been several cases in the past whereby being the victim of abuse, assault or suffering was career suicide, especially if you went public with it.

Taylor Swift is a famous singer who claims that during a photo-shoot she was groped by David Mueller, a morning radio host, and when he sued her, calling her claims defamatory, she countersued him for the assault. Despite the courts finding in her favour, and also donating $250,000 to Miss Sebert after she lost her own court case, people demonized her actions, and the only possible "reason" seems to be that Taylor Swift wasn't very popular at the time of her trial. She had a reputation in the media for being a liar [you can look this up for yourself, but  her latest album, Reputation is about that controversy]. Despite winning her case, several people (including some celebrities I won't name) claimed that having a man forcefully grab your butt without consent "didn't count" as sexual assault.
As a direct result of retaliating against her assaulter and responding to sexism, Swift was publicly criticized and her image suffered.

Janice Dickinson is an actress and model who claims to have been raped by Cosby in 1982. When Dickinson wrote a memoir which included the details of this rape, she claims that Cosby and his lawyers threatened legal ramifications if she did not remove said details.
As a direct result of being raped, she was threatened with legal action. If she had gone ahead with the memoir, she could have lost a great amount of time to that case, which for some performers can be the end of their career.

Corey Feldman is a former child star who claims to have been molested as a child by several different people in the film industry, amongst which he has named Ron Crimson, Marty Weiss, Cloyd Jon Grissom & Alphy Hoffman. He also claims that he has good reason to suspect that paedophilia is rampant in the film industry.
As a direct result of these abuses, he and fellow child star Corey Haim fell victim to drug addiction, as one of his abusers was a dealer. This led to his co-star's death in 2010 from an overdose, and due to being sent to and from rehab throughout his life, his acting career has suffered.

Timothy Heller is a female musician (with a "boy" name, but Miss Heller is a girl), who claims that on or around the date of June 25th, 2015, she was raped by her best friend, Melanie Martinez, a fellow singer. After being solicited for sex multiple times over the course of two days, and saying no in every way she could imagine, the two smoked cannabis together and Heller claims that despite rejecting Miss Martinez's advances, she was molested and penetrated with a sex toy without her consent. Because the accused is also female, it appears as though Miss Heller's claims of assault have been largely ignored, but more importantly, because both of these women have a large online following due to their indie music reputations, an allegation of rape appears to have become a bizarre fandom rivalry. But, in a very sad twist to this tale, it appears that Miss Heller still held some favour for her rapist, to quote her directly: "I still love them in a fucked up way", and so seeing the accused suffer backlash from these allegations - despite how slight that backlash has so far been - has also impacted Miss Heller negatively.
As a direct result of being raped by her friend, Miss Heller (who already suffered mental health issues) struggled with codependency and insecurity. Her own reputation has been sunk as she is continuously called a liar, and a fake by zealous fans of her accused rapist.

And these aren't just my own speculation based on hearsay - the Guardian wrote an amazing piece with firsthand accounts from several women whose media careers were ended or derailed as a result of being sexually harassed or assaulted.

As it turns out, that whole "rape culture" thing that people talk about isn't just something feminists made up. Because I was so right it almost hurts, I'm going to go ahead and quote Festering an Unclean Culture, my blog post about rape culture:

"Rape Culture is the concept that certain attitudes and practices of a society - especially those which are sexist and promote inequality -  can normalize, excuse, tolerate & even condone rape and sexual violence.When I say "certain attitudes" I am talking about sexual objectification, victim-blaming; misandry/misogyny; rape trivialization & desensitization towards sexual assault."

—The Absurd Word Nerd, 2014

But, I'm not here to congratulate myself on my genius . . . well, not exclusively. Rather, I'm actually here to congratulate Miss Sebert, Kesha herself.
See, it appears that not only has the greater majority of Miss Sebert's reputation remained intact, and her credibility has not waned, despite the length and difficulty of her legal battle. Not only does it appear that she has overcome the greater pain and personal struggle of what she has suffered, in whatever capacity that took. But even moreso than that, she appears to have defied the odds and returned to her career without waning in quality, or (perhaps more importantly) losing her audience.
Don't get me wrong, at time of writing her legal battles are still ongoing and the legal system seems to have, again and again, failed to achieve anything resembling justice. But, the unstoppable partygirl is dancing again and making new music which she'd been prevented from doing for several years due to her contract.


I admit that when I first heard about the Kesha v. Dr. Luke lawsuit, I thought she was a goner. For the reasons I've already written about, and because of the history of past victims that I've just listed. In fact, there is an amazing piece written for the New York Times detailing the contractual limbo Miss Sebert found herself in, since her producer was unfit to do his job. I thought that she would disappear, perhaps return with a fizzle, but be lost to the mainstream and hidden. And since I had found her so fascinating (and because I'm a decent human being that doesn't like it when people suffer), I was saddened by that.
So, when she came back not only hitting the ground running, but when she came back swinging with an album that is an anthem for the oppressed; that celebrates female empowerment; which expresses her rage at those who made her suffer, that encourages self-worth and self-forgiveness & promotes moving stridefully into the future . . . that's not just a comeback, that's a goddamned resurrection.

My personal favourite song from the album would have to be Hymn, an anthem for the irreligious; with Praying, her visceral, heartfelt open letter to her abuser a close second. However, in regards to this whole mess - including what I've spoken about in this post - it is most fitting that the song which gives the album its name is Rainbow, a song all about how she has learned to move past depression, suffering & stress in her life, and encouraging others to finding the rainbow on their horizon after the storm.

And since Miss Sebert has changed a lot herself, Ke$ha, has as well. Whereas in the past, Ke$ha was singing about liquor and glitter, and enjoying the life you can live in them, now she's singing about rainbows and monsters and aliens, adding a touch of magic and fantasy to her repertoire of things that makes life more exciting. But as well as the fun and excitement, she has songs about sadness, anger and pride.
She has changed quite a lot, I can still see that same partygirl in there, wanting to get up and dance. But this time, Ke$ha is a little older and a little wiser. Sure, she's still just as refreshingly crude and she still just wants to live life to the fullest and dance, but now she also wants to encourage others to dance - especially those who have fallen off the dancefloor . . .

You'll find a rainbow, rainbow, baby
Trust me, I know life is scary
But just put those colors on, girl
Come and play along with me tonight . . .

You gotta learn to let go, put the past behind you
Trust me, I know, the ghosts will try to find you
But just put those colors on, girl
Come and paint the world with me tonight . . .

And the most amazing part of this? The Ke$ha persona we see now is much more akin to the character that Miss Sebert always wanted to encapsulate her music. To quote from Kesha Rose Sebert herself:

“I was like, ‘I am fun, but I’m a lot of other things.’ But Luke’s like: ‘No, you’re fun. That’s all you are for your first record.’ . . . To this day, I’ve never released a single that’s a true ballad, and I feel like those are the songs that balance out the perception of you, because you can be a fun girl. You can go and have a crazy night out, but you also, as a human being, have vulnerable emotions. You have love.”

—Kesha, Interrupted by Taffy Brodesser-Akner, Oct 2016

The reason her partygirl persona intrigued me so much was because I could see artistry and depth in her despite how unashamedly shallow she was, and I wanted to see more and as it turns out, so did she. Now, that depth is more than just a shadow, and she's portraying a rounded, human experience. I wish I could say that I expected that, but I genuinely didn't, I just thought that person writing the songs was incredibly talented, and it's fantastic to see that realized to a greater potential, when all I was hoping for was just to hear more from that glitter-soaked partygirl.
In fact, I still do. I hope you do too, because this isn't the last we'll hear from her. . .

Only 61.6% Equal

At the moment, my grandmother is in hospital. She is staying with us after she fell down due to chronic bradycardia - her heart wasn't beating hard enough or fast enough and she collapsed when there wasn't enough blood in her brain. She was given a pacemaker as a result, but because of the risk of her heart misbehaving again, she had to go into care.
My mother was willing to become her carer, so she now lives here. However, a few weeks ago, partially due to the fall and partially due to knee surgery in the past, she had exacerbated a kneecap fracture which started to cause her pain and swelled up like a balloon, so she's in hospital with a splint on her leg.

She is okay, in no pain, but she's very very bored. Hospitals are not fun, so we spend time with her when we can to give her something to get her mind off the fact that she's unable to stand up on her own.
Now, I love my grandmother, and I think she's fun to talk to, but I don't like visiting her in hospital because I'm bored too. The only things we can talk about are either how she's healing (which she doesn't like talking about, because it's boring and she doesn't like dwelling in her own fragility), or all the stuff she can't do since she's in hospital (i.e. pretty much everything else). So, we just end up talking about stuff she's seen on TV, current events, or stuff I'm doing.
Last time I went to spend time with her, it was the 10th of November, just three days after the marriage equality postal survey results had been tallied. So, I talked to her about that.

I thought it was interesting, because she said she voted 'Yes', because she think people should just keep to themselves, and also "Now your brother can get married, I guess". I thought that was pretty sweet. She doesn't really "get it", but she did it for her grandkids, that's cool. But, after we spoke about it, she said.
  "But, it is kind of weird, isn't it?"And, I felt kind of sorry for her. No not in the "pity the close-minded fool" way, but more . . . I really couldn't relate. She wanted to understand, and she was being kind by doing the best for the future, her family and her grandkids even though she herself didn't understand how it helped. But, she still didn't "get it", and didn't know how.
To me, homosexuality just is, it's about as weird as blond hair or vegemite sandwiches - but she's in her eighties now, for the vast majority of her life "gay", "faggot", "sissy" and "nancy boy" were abnormalities to be avoided, or insults to be slung at the weak and the pitiful. I wanted to make her understand, but as much as I can sympathize with her confusion, I can't empathize. I never lived that life. So, I just said to her:
  "I can see how it could be weird to you . . . but, to me, it's not that weird. I've grown up with it just being a part of life. I guess that's all it is, another part of life."
I don't know if that was a satisfying answer for her, in fact I'm pretty sure it wasn't, but it's the best I could do.

So, I get that people may have "issues". Maybe it's weird to some people; perhaps some people don't like the idea of their kids being gay & perhaps some people just don't think the definition of marriage is something that ought to be determined by law instead of retroactively non-polygamous religious terms.
These people are all wrong, but at least I can sort of understand where they are coming from. If I squint, I can see what the issue is. But their issue is not my issue. Their issue can be solved by checking out a dictionary. And since that's something I do quite often on this blog, allow me to indulge you. The Word of the Day is: 'MARRIAGE'

Marriage /'marij/ n. 1. Any of the diverse forms of interpersonal union established in various parts of the world to form a familial bond that is recognized legally, religiously, or socially, granting the participating partners mutual conjugal rights and responsibilities. 2. a. Also called opposite-sex marriage. the form of this institution under which a man and a woman have established their decision to live as husband and wife by legal commitments, religious ceremonies, etc. b. This institution expanded to include two partners of the same gender, as in same-sex marriage; gay marriage. 3. The state, condition, or relationship of being married; wedlock: They have a happy marriage. 4. The legal or religious ceremony that formalizes the decision of two people to live as a married couple, including the accompanying social festivities: To officiate at a marriage. 5. A relationship in which two people have pledged themselves to each other in the manner of a marriage, without legal sanction: Trial marriage. 6. Any close or intimate association or union: The marriage of words and music in a hit song. 7. A formal agreement between two companies or enterprises to combine operations, resources, etc., for mutual benefit; merger.

But, my issue with the recent vote isn't the definition or the political/legal/religious ramifications. See, my issue with this vote was that it was entirely pointless. At the end of the day, do you know what this vote is essentially changing? Time for a minor history/politics lesson . . .
Once upon a time, in 2004, the Marriage Act in Australia was amended specifically to exclude same-sex marriage from the definition of marriage in Australia. Marriage didn't have a legally binding definition before then, so the Amendment redefined marriage as:
  "The union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life."
And, just to be a dick, even added the caveat of disrecognizing foreign same-sex marriages:
  "A union solemnised in a foreign country between: (a) a man and another man; or (b) a woman and another woman; must not be recognised as a marriage in Australia."

At time of writing, there is a 2017 Marriage Act Amendment Bill going through parliament, supposedly as a direct result of this postal survey. However, ALL that this bill is going to do is change five words to just two:
  "marriage means the union of 2 people to the exclusion of all others . . ."
That's kind of it. Apparently, they will also be getting rid of the "same-sex marriages in foreign jurisdictions" line - not that they need to, since it's meaningless by all intents and purposes - and makes allowances for religious celebrants to marry as they see fit.
So, someone added an amendment to the Marriage Act, and we are adding another amendment to remove the effects of that amendment. Cool, but why did we have to spend so much money on this Postal Survey?

Well, it's so that we could finally have the numbers in, right? Isn't that what the survey was for? To determine that we really wanted it? . . . Uh, no.
To begin with, we have known that the majority of Australians have been supportive of gay marriage since 2007. this new result isn't new to me:

• A Galaxy Research poll in Jun, 2007 found a 57% Support Vote
• A Roy Morgan Research poll in Jul, 2011 found a 68% Support Vote
• An Ipsos survey in May, 2013 found a 54% Support Vote
• A Crosby Textor Group poll in Jun, 2014 found a 72% Support Vote
• A ReachTEL survey in Jul, 2015 found a 53.8% Support Vote
• An Essential Research poll in Aug, 2015 found a 60% Support Vote
• A Newgate poll in Sep, 2017 found a 58.4% Support Vote
• A Lonergan Research poll in Nov, 2017 found a 65% Support Vote

The last time we recorded a majority "opposed to marriage equality" vote was the 38% Support, 44% Oppose results found by Newspoll in June, 2004. But, we have known for a damn, long time that most Australians support marriage equality.
Yeah, these numbers fluctuate since they're sample-sizes between 1,000 and 200,000, and they were several years apart in some cases. But, 61.6% . . . this isn't news to me. The numbers fit right into the expected outcomes of every other poll we've had over the last decade.

Okay, sure, maybe we just needed the exact numbers. This is an official, government-sanctioned survey which will affect political outcomes after all, so we need it to be perfect, right?
Yeah, no, that's not true either . . . this was a non-binding postal survey. Do you remember that bill I mentioned, to amend the Marriage Act? The reason it's coinciding with the election results is because of political maneuvering, the actual survey didn't affect it whatsoever. Like I said, it exists to change five words. If the result had been 'No', the bill would have been proposed anyway, because people have been proposing amendments to the Marriage Act ever since they brought in that same-sex exclusive definition, with two separate bills being struck down by the Gillard government in 2011.

So, at the end of all this, after spending over 100 million dollars, what have we gained?

As far as I'm concerned, because I am an incredibly bitter and curmudgeonly sod, all I think we've really gained from this is hardline proof that 38.4% of Australians are Opposed to Equality. Yes, 61.6 is greater than half, more than 50, and that's technically majority; but, 38.4 is greater than a third, more than 33.3. So, over a third of people, when asked if they support same-sex marriage, said No.
Over one-third of the people that live in the same country as me do not believe that people deserve equality. This post is written for those people, because that's the thing that has been bothering me for the last two weeks.
See, even though we've "won" the vote, as it were, these people still exist, and as much as gay marriage proponents would like to think that these people don't matter, and that their discrimination is just impotent rage at this point, they're wrong.

See, do you remember how I mentioned that the law makes allowances for celebrants to marry as they see fit? There is more to that little nugget than I've divulged, and this is part of the Bill which (at time of writing) is currently pending before the Senate.
The Bill proposes to has change the definition of "discrimination" to allow for "ministers of religion, religious marriage celebrants and bodies established for religious purposes" to refuse to provide goods, services or facilities for a marriage ceremony.

Not exactly "marriage equality" when you need to change the definition of discrimination to allow religious people to treat same-sex couples differently, is it?

Nobody should have the right to deny anyone their lawful marriage, that's disgusting - and the law even agreed with me, until the government decided to amend those particular laws.

But, you may think that churches and religious organizations should have the right to practice their religion as they see fit. After all, these are sincerely held beliefs, and nobody should have the right to tell a private institution how it should operate.
Now, you might have a point there . . . however, churches are not private institutions. Religious organizations are not private businesses, they are public businesses, because the government decides who and what is a "religion" by granting recognized religious institutions with tax exemptions. Just as the government provides tax exemption to endorsed charities, not-for-profit businesses & culture, health, science and education organizations - churches are granted tax exemption because they are seen as providing a benevolent, public service. The Australian Tax Office even calls such organizations: "Public Benevolent Institutions"
So, if a church is a "public", "benevolent" institution, it should follow the letter of the law in regards to any government-subvented institution, including those which state one cannot discriminate against anyone, due to their gender, race, age or sexual orientation. To do otherwise is nothing less than institutional discrimination.
If we stop granting churches tax-exemption, then maybe I would change my mind, and treat them like private organizations. I wouldn't like it, but they would have a right to discriminate silently, non-violently, privately and passively - just as I would have the right to publicly boycott them for such discrimination.

I don't see how any church can call itself "benevolent", yet continue to inhibit the safe and healthy relationship of two people in love, all based on Bronze Age bigotry, but much more than that, I don't see how our government could condone, and even support it, financially.

But enough about how we should separate Church and State . . .

What I do want to talk about are the people, those private citizens who I do feel have the right to discriminate. I don't agree with thoughtcrime, and I think that it's good to be able to let people voice their opinion no matter what. I even have some controversial opinions regarding people shouting fire in a crowded theatre, I think that it should be protected, free speech.
You have Freedom of Speech, and Freedom of Thought.
So, I want to say to you . . . to everyone Australian whom, when they received their Marriage Equality Postal Vote, ticked the box marked 'No'. Or, to those who wished they could have voted 'no', but where from another country or too young. Or, those who are upset at the majority 'Yes' vote. Or, even just to those who marked 'yes' for some reason other than the belief that same-sex couples out to have equality.
To all of you, I say, I disagree with you. But, not because I think you're stupid or simple or evil or cruel. I disagree with you because you're wrong.
That's not just my opinion, it's based on the fact that homosexuality is completely harmless in every sense of the word, and the fact that every argument I have heard in opposition to that claim of harmlessness, or against homosexuality in general, or just the freedom of such to marry, has been scientifically, logically, factually or sociologically wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals are paedophiles, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is a sin, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals all have anal intercourse, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is what gives you HIV/AIDS, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals have a naturally shorter lifespan, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuality is unnatural, you're wrong.
If you claim that homosexuals can be cured, you're wrong.
And, if you think I am unwilling to listen to your views, you're very wrong.

I am willing to explain my point of view, and I am willing to listen to yours, because I understand that a lot of this comes from fear and loathing, or by being convinced my those who seek to confuse you for their own political or religious ends, or a lack of understanding of the relevant facts.
There do exist people, like my grandmother, who want to understand, but can't find an appropriate format by which to voice their concerns. Either they're worried that they'll be singled out for being "homophobic" or "bigoted"; or, they just don't know the appropriate forum to express their opinions - well, try me. I have a comments section, and other various chatting programs such as Hangouts, Kik & Messenger. You may even try to send me a message through Tumblr.
I only ask that you come with an open mind - and if you want to learn how to do that, my last blog post explained the very simple process of doing that.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and this might seem kind of bitter and negative, but it's just how I feel after this whole Marriage Equality Postal Survey result. I'm sorry if this seems unnecessary to some of you, but the fact of the matter is, when it comes to equality, I don't think that 61.6% is good enough . . .

Conspiracy Bleary

I have been talking about ignorance a lot, during this Countdown. Ignorant ideas, ignorant beliefs, ignorant people, ignorant movies. But it may seem, at a glance, as though I am just complaining for my own sake.
Maybe I'm just another upset progressive on the internet who is whinging and whining because things aren't going the way I want them to. After all, what kind of experience does the “Absurd Word Nerd” have with the real world? He is just a writer, he doesn't even leave the house that often. How do we know that he's not just making all this up, like all those other stories he's written?

Well, I am here today to tell you that I have, in fact, experienced my fair share of ignorance. For two months, I was the resident skeptic in a group of conspiracy theorists.

It wasn't an official title, mind you, that's just what I called myself. There was an online group that appeared to believe in every single conspiracy theory from Flat-Earth; Ancient Aliens; the Bermuda Triangle phenomenon; the Evil, Gay agenda; the Jewish cabal; Creationism; Chemtrails & even Magic.
I didn't seek out this group, one day the main administrators added me. They merely said “do you like debate?” I said “yes”, and lo and behold, I was added to a group of the most ignorant people I've ever interacted with. Despite disagreeing with most of what they said, I had a great many discussions with them.
I only was there for two months. Not because I left, mind you. I was banned. I was booted from the group three times in total. But the first time I was re-added, because of a conflict in one of the administrator’s beliefs. The last time, before I said anything, I was re-banned because the administrator once again, fell victim to his gullibility.
I'm not bothered to have been removed, since dealing with these people wasn't exactly "fun". Sometimes, I was disgusted at how prejudiced and bigoted they were, and although I was always kind and courteous, and gave people the benefit of the doubt and did my best not to be offensive, they showed no such restraint.

It is because of this group that, during this Countdown, I keep stating and restating that these people are not unintelligent. They are quite smart in several ways, but they SEEM stupid because some of the simple things we take for granted, they doubt or misunderstand horrendously. Don't get me wrong, their beliefs are cruel and shameful and I am not defending their bigotry, and my attempts to speak with them as a peer, and expressing my opinion, I was called a "Jew" a "fag" a "troll" a "moron" and a "paid agent of lies" - but, I am merely saying that it is foolish and self-delusory to call them "unintelligent".

I'm going to tell you a few of my experiences from this time. I don't have any transcripts, because the group was often reported for hatespeech, or "infiltrated" by what the group considered to be “neo-liberal trolls” and so they had to constantly delete the group and recreate it, meaning I have to repeat all of this from memory, but I could never forget some of these exchanges.
They changed their group code very often, it was #conspirative at one point, I think now it may be #conspirac, but (at least during the the time that I was a part of it, the group was titled “Anti-System”.

One of the first conversations I had in this group was about recreational drugs. Some of the members believed that drugs could broaden your senses, and allow for greater spiritual awareness. When I stated that I did not believe in the soul, one member with a username constructed of random letter from the Cyrillic and Greek alphabets insisted that I needed to try LSD, and then I would believe.
All I did in response was explain how drugs, whilst they could be enjoyable, did not promote so much as diminish our senses. I also spoke about the chemistry of LSD, as it often produces synesthesia by diminishing the connections in our brain, forcing the brain to reroute these connections, and as a result causing unusual sensory information. I explained that this was a dysfunction of the senses, not an expansion. For saying this, I was called close-minded.
I tried to explain that I was open to being convinced, that I could consider these concepts and was trying to understand, but the quality of their proof was insufficient, as it was either ill-informed, or not based on anything testable.
For this, I was told that I was a victim of system propaganda.

This is something that you will see often, if you ever encounter a conspiracy theorist. If you do not or cannot believe what they believe, then you are the one that is brainwashed - this is an "Argument from Incredulity".

In another conversation, someone was explaining how the world is flat, and gravity made no sense because “the horizon is a flat line”. I explained that the horizon rolls back further than our vision, and that if the world were flat, because of the density of air, then the horizon would not look flat but “blurry”. When you see mountains in the distance, they look blue and hazy, because they are further than the horizon can be at sea level. But, if the horizon was “infinite”, or as far as the radius of the world, then the horizon, where the land meets the sky, would be hidden behind the blur of air particles.
For this, I was called stupid and uneducated. I tried to explain the science, but once I had said that the "flat" horizon was evidence that the horizon was "not flat", they had decided that I was a moron, and unable to be reasoned with.

This is something else I faced often. If a conspiracy theorist doesn't understand what you're saying, they assume it's because you are wrong and too stupid to understand their much simpler explanation - this is the "Dunning-Kruger Effect".

I can't actually pinpoint a single instance of this, because it happened quite a lot, but on a few different occasions, I brought up the fact that I was an atheist. This was not something I sought out to do, but sometimes, when people were arguing for their particular conspiracy theory, they would explain that Allah (or the Qu'ran) was proof of their claim - more often than not, the theists in this group were Muslim, but I don't know if that's representative of the broader conspiracy theorist community [please, don't presume that it does] - and so, God's existence proves their theory. Now, I was not prepared to explain to these people that their preferred deity does not exist, because I was there to discuss their theories, not dismiss their theology. But, if they pressed the issue, I would explain (as kindly as I could) why their god did not exist. Whenever I did this, or sometimes when someone just went on a "fuck those atheists" rant, I was told that I just "hated god", that I "just wanted to sin" & that I was a "satanist".

In my experience, the reason why conspiracy theorists are so antagonistic towards disagreement, is because they don't actually know what others think, so they will tell you what they think you believe - this is called a "Straw man Fallacy".

There was one occasion that I will never forget, because at the time I was struck speechless at how unknowledgeable the person I spoke with was. On this occasion, I must reiterate, I had spoken to this person before, and they were educated in several other respects. But, on this occasion, they were severely uneducated. This person told me that the Earth was flat, because "of course it is". I told them that, in fact, the Earth is round. They pre-empted my claim by saying that I probably believed in gravity, and so I was being foolish because "gravity doesn't exist".
Confused, I asked this person what they thought made things fall down. I was simply told "weight", because "heavy things fall down". It took me a long, long time even to understand that he was, indeed, claiming that "weight" (i.e. the force that gravity exerts upon mass) not only made things fall down, but was somehow proof that gravity is a debunked theory.
I eventually asked them why the moon doesn't fall down, and I was told that the moon was not very heavy.

This, I'm afraid, is something that is often encountered when it comes to conspiracy theorists. They may be so uncritical of their thought that they can claim to believe something that is fundamentally wrong - or, as some might say "Not even wrong".

Now one final, and I fear, most important, little anecdote. A lot of the beliefs of this group were incredibly bigoted and prejudiced. They were vehemently anti-Semitic, blaming Jews for most of the world's problems, from ISIS, media and politics to the economy, and claiming that anyone who was part of the problem was most likely a secret Jew. But, worse (from my perspective) was that transgendered people were seen as sick, disgusting perverts and homosexuals were just considered to be sex-crazed paedophiles.
When I explained that this was wrong, and that homosexuality was basically just 'love' by a different name - the first time I said this, I was banned from the group.
I was eventually brought back in, but later when I explained that homosexuality was not paedophilia, I was presented with photos from LGBT Mardi Gras and Pride Parades, and bilous explanations that it was degenerate, disgusting filth.
Now, I've never been to a Gay Pride Parade, mostly because I'm not gay, I'm not really into self-declared "pride" and I'm not a fan of parades; but, they seem like a lot of fun for those that go. However, I was presented with pictures of men wearing little but jocks and peacock feathers, whom were called "ugly, disrespectful pigs" and drag queens and transgender women called "degenerate freaks". Worst, in my eyes, was the description of two men and a boy which - after some googling, I managed to find the picture - showed them kissing, and it was called "pedo scum".
Now, maybe I am just a brainwashed fool, mislead by the evil Jewish media, but to me that picture looks like two married men adopted a son, and on the day out one of his dads lifted him on his shoulders, and amidst an atmosphere of fun and community, the boy gave his dad a kiss. It's stuff like that which made it really exhausting to talk to conspiracy theorists.

But this is something I saw time and time again. Something innocent, natural, normal or easily understood by most, to them it was twisted and warped into something disgusting and despicable - this bias is just an "Appeal to Emotion".

So you see, I have dealt with ignorance, directly. For two whole months, I spent several thousand words a week dedicated to conversations with people that thought I was a "paid disinformationist", a "troll", a "Jewish agent" and a "devil"; and even the ones that didn't thought I was a moron, a brain-washed victim of the 'System' or a secret homosexual. All because I enjoyed debate, and I believe in equality.
I was capable of getting through to some people on some subjects, but because I was one person and they were almost fifty, my voice was often drowned out by those who wanted to reinforce their beliefs in their fellow conspiracy theorists. One man, alone, is not enough to convince forty-five strangers on the internet, some with a poor grasp of English (some spoke English as a Second Language, which made informed, scientific debate nearly impossible) that maybe "science" is more accurate than "common sense".

You can see why, after two months, I was actually gladdened to finally be banned at the same time as the group made yet another membership purge, and changed its name. I think they call themselves "The Elite" now, but I am not interested in joining. After all, I never "joined" in the first place, I only ever came along for the ride. But, as a final farewell, I sent the group administrator a final message, explaining (in genuinely heartfelt, but nonetheless curt terms) why his views of "Freedom of Speech" were contradictory with his desire to silence "Jewish and homosexual propaganda", and that he should practice some introspection, and ended with a list of every adjective that described his bigoted views, and ended with a 'gif' of an Obama mic' drop. I did not swear, but I admit that I was pretty annoyed, and it came across in my words.

See, I was ultimately sick of it. When it comes to fiction, conspiracy theories can be fun; but in the real world, it's just boring, time-consuming and frustrating.
I have a great deal of patience with those who disagree with me, and I can still look back and see these people as nothing more than some people that have made simple mistakes, leading to some potentially dangerous ideas, but I do not recommend this to anyone with a short temper or little patience.

But do you want to know what I consider to be the silliest part of the conspiracy theory crowd? Well, I have a theory of my own. Not a conspiracy theory,  just a hypothesis about a correlation between them. I call it the “Lens Cap” theory.
I believe that the cause behind most Conspiracy Theories is that conspiracy theorists don't understand how cameras work. Although this is somewhat amusing, it is not a joke, I'm serious. Think about it . . .
Bigfoot? Well, some people confuse photographs of darkly contrasted shapes and poorly focused creatures for a humanoid monster, they don't understand that it's just an illusion in the photo.
Ghosts? People don't understand how night vision cameras pick up light, and confuse dust for “spectral orbs”, or they confuse low-quality images for “ghost photography”.
Flying saucers? Well, people don't understand how poor photography is when taking photos of the sky, due to how far away most airborne objects are, or how extreme the contrast is at night, so confuse distant objects, or nearby insects, for alien craft.
Faked Moon Landing? Some people claim that the footage was faked on a soundstage,correlating test footage with a dress rehearsal or not understanding the particulars of “high speed” footage, and why it cannot explain moon landing footage.
Reptilian overlords? People don't understand that when a person on television blinks, even high-quality footage creates compression artifacts which make people's eyes look yellow during the freeze frame.
Flat Earth? Well, flat-earthers claim that “round earth” evidence (photos and footage of spheroidal planets, like Earth) are “faked” for various reasons from lighting issues to claims of CGI rendering - all explained by a misunderstanding of space photography.
September 11? Some people watch and rewatch WTC attack footage, looking for supposed anomalies, or look at photos of the related Pentagon crash, and report finding supposedly “anomalous” visual features, claimed to be inconsistent with a plane crash.
Chemtrails? Well, most of these claims are based around how some photographs of aeroplanes leaving contrails supposedly show “unidentifiable planes”, due to digital zoom and high contrast obscuring the plane. Or, they correlate unrelated photos of unpopulated cargo planes.
Anti-Vaxxers? Yes, even beliefs which linked the MMR vaccine to autism were based on faulty endoscopy readings (i.e. readings from the camera you stick down someone’s throat), and misinformation presented during this researcher's televised press conference.

This is just a theory, and we must remember that correlation is not causation - the fact of the matter is that images and short videos are much more easily transmissible viral memes, which could easily explain their correlation with popular conspiracy theories. And keep in mind that cameras have a complicated artistry behind them that many don't understand and they are one of the most sophisticated and also most easily accessible investigative tools available to the public. It's therefore not a surprise that the peculiarities of their function are often overlooked.
If you're interested in learning more about the inconsistencies in conspiracy theorist claims, then I highly recommend CoolHardLogic’s World of Batshit playlist on YouTube; he's considerably less forgiving than I am, often insulting and laughing at conspiracy theorists, but the content can be most enlightening, and this is presented as entertainment, as well as providing more evidence for my particular Lens Cap theory.

In conclusion, I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and i want to make it perfectly clear - on the record - that I do consider my theory just a bit of fun. If anyone takes my Lens Cap theory as gospel, or claims that it is some kind of conspiracy by camera manufacturers to mislead the gullible, I will be incredibly disappointed in you . . .

Cis Men's Whiter Festival

I went to the Brisbane Writer's Festival recently. I have to say, it was a very fun event, and I should probably just let you know, although the title of this post is quite provocative, I am not here to besmirch or demean this Brisbane Festival. I am going to talk about prejudices and minorities, and I am going to talk about Brisbane Writer's Festival, but I am not claiming that this festival belittles or silences non-cisgendered, non-male and non-white people in any way.
The two just relate to a greater theme.
I would never want to denigrate this event, because it is a lot of fun and information, I have greatly enjoyed both times I have visited. There are a lot of great authors and events that were well worth buying the ticket. But, lucky for me, all of the events that I wanted to see this year were free.
Well, except the Carpentaria show, that cost money so I didn't end up seeing it, but I heard great things, and I saw the specially designed stage for it, it was really interesting. But, I most wanted to see the "Safe Schools" conversation with Benjamin Law and Lucy Clark, since I am very passionate about how awesome Safe Schools are, read my blog about it if you want to know more; also, the "Writing Aboriginal Stories" panel with Alexis Wright, Claire Coleman & Nakkiah Lui, since I like my writing set in and around Australia, and Aboriginal stories are an enormous, important and inaugural chapter of the Australian story. So, since I was visiting to see these events in particular, choosing to pay money for other events (no matter how great they may be) seemed like a waste of money on my part. I think you should see them, however - and I encourage anyone and everyone to consider checking this festival out. It ended yesterday (at time of writing) but it will come back next year. Mark your calendars, and visit the UPLIT website to get more details about upcoming literary festivals.
But, since I wanted to make a day of it, I did visit two other free events as well, since I wanted a rounded experience. So, I also went to the "Homegrown Tales" panel with Ashley Hay, Ben Hobson & Veny Armanno, all about learning to tell stories based in and around Brisbane; also, the "Published in Oz" panel with Jill Eddington, Melissa Lucashenko & Peter Polites, which spoke about the future of the Australian publishing industry in the face of shifting laws and attitudes.

So, I went to see four events, all of which were free, but I feel they were amazing and would have been well worth paying for, so I feel privileged to have been given the chance to join this year's festival.
However, I honestly didn't know that there was a law saying you can only park within the confines of a parking space. So, because I parked my car illegally, I ended up spending $100 to annul the fine anyway. You win this round Brisbane . . .
But, to the title of this post. What am I talking about? Well, it's something that I have started to perceive recently, which some of the events at this festival helped to solidify and clarify.
The Word of the Day is: 'UNWRITTEN'

Unwritten /un'ritn/ adj. 1. Not written. 2. Not actually expressed, or given form; customary: It is an unwritten rule that you take off your shoes at the door.

I chose this word for two reasons. Firstly, today, I want to talk about rights and privileges and how they relate to the concept of culture, but both rights and privileges are often unwritten moral concepts that we take for granted.
Secondly, one of the major issues I want to discuss is about the tales that are not told, or at least, the minority stories that are often hidden between the cracks, left unwritten, and how they relate to the way we perceive culture. So, seeing as how this year's Brisbane Writer's Festival was all about the big and little stories, it seemed appropriate.

See, I did in fact write a post about 'Privilege' and how this word has been hijacked and used for the purposes of insulting other people, dividing people and shutting down communication. But one thing that post didn't cover, and which I am going to uncover and reveal today, is that ever since that post, I have been very dismissive of the entire concept of 'Privilege', and so have most people. The fact of the matter is that people often prescribe privilege to people, or they declare that they lack a privilege which other people have - but they do so without any truth or fact or realism to their claims.

However, lately, I have looked at situations involving ethnic, sexual and ideological minorities, and I have come to understand that Privilege DOES exist . . . but, it's not what most people would call 'Privilege'.

As far as I can see, and am concerned, things like "White Privilege" and "Straight Privilege" and "Cisgendered Privilege", these are often described as the ability to do things without suffering prejudice, freedom to speak or earn or move with greater ease, and a much lesser likelihood to suffer. These are seen as privileges, but it's really not accurate. To explain why, I must first explain what Rights are . . .

See, Rights, in particular human rights, are rights which you have - and in fact, which every natural person has (dependant upon your place) - which cannot be taken away without consequence. Like, people have the right to live, so if I kill someone, I have taken away that right, and I will suffer the consequences of that action. Or, Freedom of Speech, the right to speak without being silenced. We don't have that right here, since there are multitudes of infringements upon that right, but it is meant to be the freedom to speak freely.
In fact, the consequences of inflicting another person's rights are often having my own rights taken away - the freedom to move unobstructed and to live my life as I choose may be taken away, as I may be put in prison if I infringe another person's rights.

A privilege, however, is a little different. A privilege is something that only some people have, which can be taken away without consequence to anyone except the newly unprivileged person.
An example of a privilege is: having a car license. Nobody has the right to drive a car, you need a license. If, however, your license expires, you drive the wrong kind of car or you drive unsafely, that is a privilege which can be taken away.

Now, in theory, these are supposed to be fundamentally different. However, in practise, they are not. You can have both your rights and privileges taken away; when you abuse your rights or privileges you may lose your own rights or privileges as a consequence. The basic rule of thumb is that rights are something you are granted upon your birth, and privileges are something you are granted during your lifetime. Although there are some rights, like freedom of movement, which you don't get until you're mature enough . . . look, it's a whole mess.

The problem is that rights are not natural. Religion may declare "we are god's children, and god gives us inherent rights and morals" . . . ha, no.
If I send you to the Jungles of Borneo, and you try to argue with a tiger that you have freedom of movement and freedom of speech, she will bite off your legs and face before you have time to complain about it in the comment section.
In fact, I just looked it up, you won't be eaten by a tiger because although they may have once lived there in the past, any tigers there were hunted to extinction, so even the tigers don't have rights in Borneo, you're more likely to be eaten by a leopard.

Rights are unnatural, human inventions, which are devised and practised by civilized society. They are artificial, written for the purposes of granting freedoms where otherwise, we would still just be fighting over bones. That doesn't mean that they "don't exist", rights do exist, but they exist in a complex and easily broken system which we are constantly working to revise and resolve the myriad issues they face.
So, in practise, rights are just privileges which we have decided, as a community, that everyone should have . . . unless we decide that some people don't. I mean, every Australian has the right to vote however they choose, unless they are under the age of eighteen, or if they don't want to vote at all.
Heck, some of these caveats to rights are written in such a way as to remove rights.
A perfect example of this is marriage. Technically, homosexuals are allowed to get married in Australia, it is equal and fair that any Australian citizen can get married here to a person of their choosing . . . so long as that person is of the opposite sex. A gay man can marry any woman he wants, that's fair, right?
You see, although this is a privilege that is available to everyone, it is also written in a way that excludes the rights and free practises of all people in such a way that certain people are made to suffer.

These caveats, these minor quibbles and these "oh, well, only if you do it properly" styles of rights are the means by which we create privilege.

Currently, Australia is undergoing the preliminary stages towards a postal vote, whereby people will vote on whether or not most people are in favour of marriage equality. As a result, there have been a few "Vote No" campaigns, which have been utter garbage. These campaigns have been utterly ripped apart by news and tabloid programs who have shown that all of the points being made are based on lies and misinformation.
But one "Vote Yes" campaign was actually a protest held outside of a church where a forum was being held, to promote people to Vote No, and these people held up signs and chanted in regards to marriage equality.
Police were called to break up this protest, and some people were arrested, and in response a great many politicians were saying "This is not how the debate should be held. We can disagree and also be respectful"

Now, I have two issues with that.

Firstly, there was no mention of what went on inside the forum, and in fact many news sites reported this as "protests outside a church" when in actuality, they were protesting the forum going on within the church.
Secondly . . . whilst I am perfectly capable of having a respectful and honest debate with you, even if you are a homophobic, transphobic, flat-earther, climate-change denying theist, the reason I can do this is because I have had a lot of practice in this kind of communication. Also, although these values matter to me, I have experience in empathizing with people on the other side, and speaking in a way so as to be understood.
However, not everyone has my experience, and not everyone can do that. Not to mention, a lot of this is questioning the value and quality of personhood of certain kinds of Australian, based upon outdated religions, emotional reactions and adherence to regressive and hateful values. We are asking whether or not they deserve the right to live their life and express their love in a way that will be committed, legalized and accepted by the community as right and fair - and when they get upset at that, we tell them that it's unacceptable.

The fact of the matter is, This is Privilege. The privilege of choice. Straight people in Australia, at time of writing, we can all choose whether this matters to us. We can choose whether we care or not, and we can even choose to ignore this whole issue, because it doesn't matter to us. We can even choose to have respectful and calm debate, even in the face of ignorance. Because we have freedom of choice and (to a very measured degree) freedom of speech. So, we can choose to speak out against this, if we want to.
But, gay people can't. Because they aren't choosing whether or not to engage, they are forced to engage because they are the subject, they are the issue being discussed. And although marriage is a privilege, I do believe that equality is a human rights issue, and when we are having a discussion about people's opinions of whether or not we should have equality - of course people are getting upset!

Now, I am not saying that we should let people get protest and assault and accuse people and create a scene . . . but the attitudes in response are wrong. Because these people were being demonized for being passionate. Not their actions, but their attitude. To me, the better response is:
  "Look, I know you're upset. And, frankly, you have every right to be upset, but you don't have the right to break laws or harass others as a result. I know it's hard, and I'm sorry, but this is politics and the only way to change politics is to play politics. This is your chance to fight for what's right, and if you also do that while somehow respecting the people who disagree, then we can get through this painlessly."

Is that the best response? Well, no. Of course not. But, the way people feel is not a choice, their attitude is not a choice, but the actions that result from it are.

And what does this have to do with the Brisbane Writer's Festival? Well, a few things. I mean, the talk about publishing was discussing the rights of writers, and how alterations to how we deal with copyright is disenfranchising writers.
But, most predominantly, the panel on Writing Aboriginal Stories. Now, the main crux of that talk was how we can empower Aboriginal authors by hearing them tell their stories, and how this is changing the balance of power, which is a good thing.
However, some of the commentary, particularly from Nakkiah Lui, a Torres Strait Islander and Aboriginal woman, which said that for non-indigenous people, particularly white people, to tell Aboriginal stories was racist.
Now, this bothered me, because the very reason I had gone to the panel was because I was interested in telling Aboriginal stories, or at the very least stories with Aboriginal characters which explored Aboriginal culture in the margins, even whilst the main story wasn't focussed on that aspect.

My point of view is that I write stories set in Australia, and if I did that without ever having an Aboriginal character be the main focus of the story then I would be whitewashing Australia and retelling the Australian story in such a way as to remove Aboriginals from the limelight.
Here, look, full disclosure, okay? I don't want to talk too much about this but, I am currently half-way through a novel, with a young, white, bisexual, female protagonist. Yes, the same one I was working on for last year's NaNoWriMo, Still Life. I have a planned sequels to this story, with different protagonists, one of which I want to be a young, streetwise, Aboriginal skater. The reason why he is Aboriginal is because I have several stories in this series, with a diverse collection of Australian protagonists, all "good guys", and to me, if I had several different protagonists - different heroes - but none of them were Aboriginal, it would be me saying "Aboriginal people can't be heroes". But I don't believe that . . .
I don't want him to be a side character or an "extra", I want him to be the star, because this is Australia and in Australian stories anyone can be a hero.

Now, I don't know if this counts as an "Aboriginal story". Yes, this character will be Aboriginal, but he will be quite Anglicized, and although I will definitely mention some Aboriginal issues about race, class and mental health, they aren't the focus of the story. I mean, it's science-fiction, it's a story about aliens, so I don't know if this is "an Aboriginal story" per se.
However, that's only a result of knowledge. I can't tell you about something I don't know, and I don't know very much about the Aboriginal story. That's why I went to this panel, and why I do research on Aboriginal history and mythology, because I want to learn how to better represent Aboriginals and their stories, because the fact of the matter is that they are a part of our stories, but I want to tell it right.

I actually asked a question to the panel, and I admit I didn't word it very well (I'm better with written words than spoken), but I essentially said:
"I take issue with you saying that 'white people telling Aboriginal stories is racist' because, well, there are more white people, you're a minority, so there will be less of your stories if only you can tell them. Also, what of stories like Pemulwuy's War? A story of an Aboriginal tribesman who blindsided colonial invaders. That's an Aboriginal story, and I am inspired by that story. But if I want that story to be told, would I have to make him white, and whitewash that Aboriginal story, or should I expect you to tell the story for me?"
Like I said, poorly worded. Alexis Wright's response was very well thought out, and I can't remember all of it, but her answer was, basically: "Do you really think you're capable of doing that?"
Which is a fair point, no I don't. The reason I went to the panel was because I want more knowledge, but I don't have it.
Claire Coleman made a fair response which I found the most inspiring, which was basically: "Well, of course you can tell it, but if you don't have the Aboriginal perspective, it wouldn't really even be an Aboriginal story. But, couldn't you retell that story from your perspective?"
Now, I admit, I can't be sure this was her intent, but to me it was inspiring, because it made me realize that the issue from her mind's eye wasn't the story - the story itself was immaterial to the problem - because the true problem was voice. If I write an aboriginal story, and I say "this is an Aborigine's story", and then I start advertising it in the grand world of publishing as one of the many aboriginal stories, then the problem is that there are already so few Aboriginal voices, that by speaking in the crowd I am actually just helping to drown their voices out.
And because I am not fully aware of the particulars of what it means to be an Aboriginal person, even if I am drowning them out by trying to encourage learning about Aboriginal culture and persons, I risk ignoring the peculiarities of that perspective.

Like, here is one I have actually managed to learn. Do you know what the Aboriginal word for "Brisbane" is? The answer is, it's a trick question, there is no Aboriginal word for Brisbane. Oh, there are Aboriginal tribes which have words which describe that area, but they have very different boundaries. For instance, the Mianjin people called their place Mian-jin, which essentially meant "pointed place", because it refers to how the river and land are pointed in the part of land called Petries Bight, across from Kangaroo Point. Today, you and I know this place as the Brisbane CBD and Fortitude Valley, it's right on the border of those suburbs but for the people of Mianjin, it wasn't the border, their borders were very different to the ones that the white people mapped.
Not to mention, this is just the word in the Turrbal language, and other tribes would use different languages, since there is no "one" Aboriginal language, there are hundreds, many of which have been lost through the execution of its speakers, or because its descendants were stolen and forced to learn English and become Christian, forgetting the words of their parents and ancestors.

This is something that I know, and have come to understand because I have bothered to do the research, but I guarantee that a lot of people won't. An answer to a simple question like that having such a complex and multi-faceted answer? I didn't even cover all of the other names, partially because I couldn't find them when I did my research, but mostly because I don't even know where to start looking.
A lot of people wouldn't bother learning even that much. They might just say "Yeah, Aboriginals know this place as Yuggera", because there are maps that label the greater Brisbane area as "Yuggera", since that was the name of the tribe that predominantly lived in that area. So, if white people were telling the story of Brisbane, and weren't prepared (like I am) to do all of the necessary research and investigation, then all we would do is poison the well with misinformation.

This gets to Nakkiah's response to this question, her response was basically,
"If you tell Aboriginal stories, no matter the intent, it's still racist because it means we can't talk about our own culture. It ignores that minority." and I could tell that my question did upset her, so I didn't pursue it much further with her.
But what did bother me is that after my question, two other people asked questions with similar queries. One woman was trying to say "these are world stories, not your stories" and was even called out for being dismissive of the issue, and I applaud the speaker, Sandra Phillips, for doing that; and she also said that whilst she disagreed with me, she appreciated that I was trying to learn.
You see, when that questioner responded to the panelists' criticisms with "these are world stories", I agree, it was an attempt to silence the debate, rather than deal with it. She was trying to say that these stories belong to everyone, and of course they do, but this isn't an issue of ownership, it's an issue of authorship.
And that's what I was saying before. Just like how using the word "supremacy" wasn't accurate, and makes the issue seem worse than it is, by calling this issue "racism" it makes people ignore it, because I guarantee that the lady who was talking about world stories, she was not racist. She was just ignorant, she didn't understand the issue, and by calling her racist, she didn't learn anything - in fact, she would dismiss the whole problem, because "if the problem is that I am a racist, but I am not a racist, then the problem does not exist".

But, I did come to understand what they were saying, because of what happened after the panel ended . . .
After the discussion, one of the other questioners came up to me - not the 'world stories' lady, but someone else - and she said "look, I appreciated your question, and I agree with you. This is a complicated issue, isn't it?"
And I did say to her, "yeah, it is, I wish it were easier . . ."
But the thing is, I don't really care that she agrees with me. And look, if the person who asked me that is reading this, I am not saying that your opinion doesn't matter - of course it does, and thank you for reaching out to me to know I wasn't alone and finding a kindred spirit. Personally, I appreciated it. But, ultimately, the issue isn't whether we agree with each other, but whether Aboriginal people agree with us.

See, this is a moment of privilege, and I identified it as soon as it happened. The privilege of ignoring the minority. Because, imagine if I wrote a story about rape victims, right? And then most people came up to me and said "Wow, thank you so much for identifying this issue, you're amazing", however, three rape victims came to me and said: "Your story was incredibly hurtful, it totally ignored how we are mistreated by police, misrepresents how we feel, and how little actual support we have" then, you know what? At that point, I don't care about the majority.

This is my privilege. I can ignore the needs of minorities yet make "most" people happy, and suffer no real consequences even if that makes some miserable, that is a privilege.
And look, I think that Nakkiah is wrong and she has every right to feel that way, however, I also have the right to ignore her . . . but, she can't ignore me.
Imagine if she wrote a story about white people, which represented them in a harsh or unfair way, then because the majority of people are white, she would be crucified. But, if I choose to ignore her and her feelings, and write my own stories whilst ignoring her, then unless and until people actually bother to learn and empathize with the way she feels as representative of the Aboriginal Community, then I have the privilege of ignoring her, and not suffering any consequences.

I don't want to do that because I believe that it matters, I would even say I can't do that, because personally I don't think I have that right. As I said in my post about Privilege, it doesn't "feel" like a privilege, because I believe that it tarnishes the right of equality that I hold dear - which is a consequence that hurts my ideals . . . but I know for a fact that most people think I do have that right, and that is the problem. Because I not only have the right intentions, but also the fortitude to write what is true, which includes writing in a way that is not deliberately inaccurate or misleading.

So, I highly doubt she will - she is a famous writer, and busy, so this is in response to Nakkiah Lui. However, it is also relevant to anyone who identifies as Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander for whom this is a concern . . .

I want you to know that although I will write original stories with fictional, Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander characters, I will only do so in a way that makes it very clear that I am not an authority on Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander culture, history, people or community - I will make it clear that my message is not "this is an aboriginal person, representative of who they are" but "this is a hero, representative of the fact that aboriginal people can be heroic" - and also that my voice is not representative of any sense of authority in that regard, but merely one person's perspective.
And I guarantee that I will not rewrite, remake or recreate Indigenous Stories, either true and from history, or fictional; told as and/or by Aboriginal or Torres Strait Islander persons, unless I am doing so, with truth, accuracy and sensitivity, as decided by those who have the experience and knowledge to judge such truth, accuracy and sensitivity, Indigenous persons who know those stories. And be aware that I do this with the knowledge that my goal may be impossible, and I am willing to accept that.

Now some of you may be reading this, and feel as though it is incredibly overblown. I mean, I want to write a science-fiction story with an Aboriginal kid, I am not holding a plebiscite as to their personhood.

(Author's Note: I mean, we already did that. This postal vote on marriage equality was meant to be a plebiscite, but the last time we held a plebiscite, we were deciding whether we should include Indigenous Australians on the census, and let them vote. It's pretty disgusting that we only ever seem to hold plebiscites when we're voting on human rights. Why are we letting things like citizenship, and equality be decided upon by popular opinion?)

But anyway . . . if you think this is overblown, well, I don't think you understand the problem. There aren't very many Aboriginal people, and the reason there aren't is because, well, white people decided that they didn't count as people, so they slaughtered them like animals, and treated them like foreigners on their own soil.
And no, I haven't suddenly gone soft, and started falling for White Guilt.
As far as I'm concerned, technically, the Aboriginal people were conquered by the invaders, so unless they're going to take up arms, we just have to accept that as much as they were the "traditional owners", they don't really own it anymore - and from my understanding of their culture and mythology, they never owned it in the first place. I also think it's incredibly silly that we warn indigenous people when a film "may contain images or voices of dead persons", since it's just old superstition based on an outdated religion, and whether it's a new religion like Scientology, or an ancient religion like that of ancestors and the Dreamtime, it's all outdated nonsense as far as I'm concerned - I treat them all equally, and they're all equally stupid.
The issue here isn't that I care more or less about Aboriginals than I do about women, foreigners or gay people (since I have already written stories about them without concern), it's that there are less well-known Aboriginal authors, overall, and if any other minority was that lacking in representation, I would be just as cautious when trying to represent them myself.
And the very day that there are enough such authors, and we are talking about them in such a way that I am well-educated enough to recreate their work faithfully without worrying about misrepresentation, then I will not worry about this thing so much.
But until that day, the fact that they are an underrepresented minority matters.

That's where I got this title from. Because I watched panels chaired entirely by women, I watched conversations with and about gay men and from people of a multitude of minority backgrounds, and we were listening. But, when I looked at the audience, it was still over 90% white people.

I'm the Absurd Word Nerd, and if you still think that this is being overstated, then please, don't ask me why . . . I have already explained, I am not an authority on this matter. But, I do suggest you ask someone who is actually living through an Aboriginal Story, someone living such a life, and ask them how they feel.
Because at the moment, I don't understand how they feel, and until I can I am not about to pretend that I do.