Lost: The Last Recruit

Content note: This post contains spoilers for season six, episode 13, of Lost, ‘The Last Recruit.’ If you want to skip it, head on over to ‘Another Reason to Avoid Exclusionary Language,’ or you can check out my post at FWD today, ‘Occupational Hazards: Dangerous Conditions in the US Mining Industry.’

So, this is the last episode before the hiatus, and then we are hurtling through the last five episodes. The final three will all be airing in a single week! Which is quite exciting. Although I have jury duty the day after ‘The Candidate’ airs so I may not have a chance to write/discuss it until 6 May, just warning you ahead of time. (Since people seem to get worried when I don’t post television discussions right away. Incidentally I haven’t even watched Glee yet so that post will probably not be going up until tomorrow, assuming there’s anything going on in this week’s episode which I end up wanting to write about.)

I have to say that I wasn’t terribly excited by this episode. It felt like a lot more moving chess pieces into position, and it’s kind of been going on for too  many weeks now at this point, the chess pieces. At least we got to see some sweeping moves, and some shifting around of characters, like the Jack/Claire swap, which I admit I was not expecting. Usually it’s the women on Lost who are all waffly about what to do, so that was a nice change.

I’ve decided that I’m tired of leading my Lost posts with rants about what I didn’t like, so I’m switching things up this week and talking about what I did like first:

1. Science Lady! AKA Zoe. But I call her Science Lady in my head. I was initially not thrilled with the show introducing another woman in what seemed like a bit role, but in this episode, Zoe rocked the casbah. She was a total hardass. I loved the scene where she blazed right into the camp, totally unafraid, and then proceeded to lay down the law, with mortars for punctuation. And then again on the beach. She’s a character who doesn’t fuck around or pull any punches, she just gets stuff done. And she is, indisputably, a strong leader. She’s starting to feel like a callback to the days when women on this show actually did stuff and weren’t ashamed of it.

2. Claire. I wasn’t too stoked with everyone running around planning things behind her back because she’s all ‘crazy’ and stuff. And that scene where she showed up at the boat, I braced myself for something really ugly. But Kate totally turned the tables when she insisted on bringing Claire! It was a really nice reversal from last week’s episode, where we were reminded that it was a good thing Libby wasn’t crazy because then Hurley could love her. Kate basically straight up made it clear that Claire’s mental health didn’t matter to her: What mattered was keeping her promise.

I’ve really not liked how Claire has been handled, for reasons discussed in prior posts, and this was the first episode where I felt like they tried to humanise her a little. Make her seem like, you know, a person. With feelings. Because she is excluded and when she points out that the Man in Black was the only person who didn’t abandon her, it is, you know. A fair point. Made even fairer when she sees everybody sneaking off without her. I’m not going as far as to say that I am 100% into her characterisation now, but I am liking the direction this episode took.

Things I did not like:

1. The reunion scene. I know, I know, I have been rooting to see Sun and Jin back together on the Island at last, but when it finally happened, I gagged. It was oh so very saccharine, paired with the miraculous ‘cure.’ In order to get her voice back, all Sun needed was…love? I really feel like Lost is really gonna do this, is gonna go the love conquers all route, and it’s quite annoying. Because, homechickens, I am so not into that I can’t even fully articulate it. I’m trying to pretend there’s a supernatural reason, like she can speak English again because she’s on a different island from the Man in Black. Yeah, that’s it. Totally.

Things I thought about during this episode:

1. Desmond’s manipulation and shuffling of the characters. I get that it’s for a good cause, or at least he thinks it is, but he’s pushing the ‘coincidences’ hard and it makes me have all sorts of thoughts about free will and determinism. Something that gets played a lot with in this show is the idea of happenstance; whatever happened, happened, right? Except that really, we find out that all of these seeming coincidences are the work of someone else. Jacob. Man in Black. Eloise. Desmond. Everything has, in fact, been carefully orchestrated by players who are larger than the story itself and have the ability to step outside it. Those people, of course, do not consult the people they use like pawns and they sometimes actively harm them.

2. Jack and Locke. The two men are intimately connected whether they’re working in opposition to each other or with each other. In this episode, we saw Jack ultimately choosing to side with Fake Locke on the Island, and getting ready to perform surgery on Real Locke in the sideways timeline. Are we going to be treated to another Miracle Disability Cure where Locke walks again and there’s a swell of music to counterpoint with the scene in which Fake Locke saves Jack from the mortars? Is that scene going to make me smush cupcakes when it happens? We’ll find out!

21 April, 2010 – 6:25 pm | By s.e. smith | Posted in television | Tagged |

Another Reason to Avoid Exclusionary Language

There are a lot of reasons which I think are pretty compelling to avoid the use of exclusionary language, which is to say language which is sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. I think that one obvious reason, of course, especially if you are a social justice activist, is that such language props up problematic structures, even when you are using it in a way which you think is harmless, like calling an activity ‘retarded.’ Even if you don’t give a fig for the fact that exclusionary language supports kyriarchal structures, you might care about the fact that it hurts people, and that if you don’t want to hurt people, you might want to avoid.

These arguments may have failed to compel you, for any number of reasons. Maybe you reject the idea that using ‘gay’ as a pejorative hurts gay-identified folks, or you really want to defend your right to call things you don’t like ‘lame.’ Perhaps you reject the arguments in which these discussions are rooted about how words matter and continue to matter, about how dilution of words does not magically erase their original meaning and thus when a word used to describe someone’s identity gets used as a pejorative, it creates pejorative associations with that identity.

Well, I’ve got another reason for you to think about how you use exclusionary language: It makes you look like you have no point or argument.

The thing about exclusionary language in a pejorative sense is that it’s used as a catchall and dismissal, to indicate that something is completely not worth your time and engagement. So you say that something is [whatever] and that is generally understood to mean that this thing you are describing is bad. So bad that you can’t even be bothered to explain why it is bad. It’s so bad that everyone knows it.

But it can also be understood to mean that you don’t have an argument to support your point. You are hoping that you can hide behind a single epithet to avoid having to provide arguments which would back up the claim or assertion you are making. Now, one could argue that people do not need to justify their opinions and beliefs. But the thing is that if you are going to use your opinions and beliefs in an argument, as opposed to in a simple statement like ‘I really don’t like okra,’ it is not unreasonable to expect that these things are going to be challenged.

When a belief or opinion is being used to make an argument, it needs to supported by backup points.

Let us explore the okra example a little further. You are an okra fan, and I am arguing with you about okra and trying to convince you that you shouldn’t like it, because I think it is bad1. If I say ‘okra is bad,’ your response is going to be ‘ok, why? Why is it bad?’ If I keep saying ‘because it is bad,’ you are probably going to respond ‘so, basically, you have no foundation for that assertion.’ I’ve lost the argument for myself before it’s even begun.

If, on the other hand, I muster up some arguments, like ‘it is always slimy when I consume it’ or ‘it has an acrid flavour,’ then we have something to work with. I have created arguments, and you can engage with them. The fact that I have presented arguments means that I think there is merit to my case and that I actually can convince you. Those arguments provide support for my initial claim, and they provide grounds for discussion about the matter. We may ultimately disagree2, but at least we actually have a conversation.

Saying ‘this is bad’ over and over again does not actually cultivate a discussion. And when you find yourself doing it, you may want to ask yourself if it’s because you have no substantive points to support the claim you are making. Perhaps an epithet is the only word you can use because you’ve got nothing else. Which means that maybe, just maybe, you shouldn’t be making that assertion in the first place.

Or you should be changing the framing of the assertion. Let’s bring okra back into the conversation.

What’s the difference between these statements:

Okra is bad.

Okra is not to my preference.

One is a blanket statement. It’s categorical. It says, in a sweeping gesture, ‘this is bad.’ The other is much more accurate. It says ‘I, personally, do not like this thing which we are talking about.’ It’s harder to argue with that second point, because it is true for the speaker3. People may choose to argue with it anyway, of course; ‘have you tried it this way?’ ‘did you know if you salt it first, it’s less slimy?’ ‘how many times have you tried it?’

Watching your words isn’t just about a no-no list. In fact, if that’s all you think it is, you are completely missing the point of this discussion. It’s about really thinking about the way in which you use language, and what you mean when you say things. And, ultimately? It’s going to make you a better debater, and writer, and speaker, and communicator, when you can be more precise about how you use language. When you can force yourself to explore the meanings of things, and to think, clearly, about what it is that you want to express with the words which you are using.

You can disagree with me, vehemently, on whether or not exclusionary language should be eliminated from your vocabulary. But I’d like you to give this argument a whirl in your brainmeats, and see what you think about it.

See what I did there?

I said ‘exclusionary language is bad,’ and I provided some arguments to back up my assertion.

  1. This is an argument which I am going to lose because liking/disliking a vegetable is based on subjective experiences, but humour me for a moment, if you don’t mind. ↩
  2. As indeed we are fated to do in this particular case. ↩
  3. Gotcha! I actually like okra. ↩
21 April, 2010 – 10:34 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in disability, LGBQT, race, social justice | Tagged , |

Durable Platypi

David Malki at Wondermark: The Science-Doktor’s Vengeance

Science-Doktor Vondurdauðahöfuðkúpa watched through the tall, sloped windows as Eyjafjallajokull began to spew clouds of brown, billowing ash.

Snarky’s Machine at I Fry Mine In Butter: Nothing is Ever Accomplished by Committee: Casualties of War

Moreover, I seek to frame my analysis of pop culture from spirit of genuine appreciation and not some smug distance from the material.

Cara at The Curvature: Rape Apologism in Action: “She didn’t say anything at all.”

In a better world — a world that thought rape was a real crime, and that women’s bodies actually matter (not because only women are raped, but because rape is so associated with women and socially constructed accordingly) — when accused of rape, admitting that you did not at any point obtain any form of consent would be a virtual admission of guilt.

Stephanie McCrummen at the Washington Post: Ruling on racial isolation in Miss. schools reflects troubling broader trend

Although the case is unique in some ways, it fits a broader trend toward racial isolation that has been underway for years in American schools and has undermined the historic school integration efforts of the civil rights era.

Daniel D’Ambrosio at the New Haven Advocate: A Time To Kill

This year, the legislature is considering a proposal to streamline the process and make it more likely death-row inmates will be executed in a more timely fashion, cutting the 20-plus-year wait roughly in half.

Adrienne Jones at Jezebel: The Lessons My Bullies Taught Me

I was just a little girl, deserving of love and protection, like every other child, but I didn’t know that. I thought I was different: unworthy, flawed, and fundamentally unlikeable.

21 April, 2010 – 10:04 am | By s.e. smith | Posted in interesting | Tagged , , , , , , |