Eli Bishop
@errorbar.bsky.social
Button-pushing by day, comics & theater by night. http://errorbar.net [he/him]
Sure it's fine if you remove the aside. The aside is the problem - this is just a straightforward misuse of a parenthetical. You either don't need the first "often" or don't need the second "often". "Intended as poetic" is a highly generous interpretation of a thing people do by accident easily.
November 17, 2025 at 11:37 PM
Sure it's fine if you remove the aside. The aside is the problem - this is just a straightforward misuse of a parenthetical. You either don't need the first "often" or don't need the second "often". "Intended as poetic" is a highly generous interpretation of a thing people do by accident easily.
What am I missing? "People often, often people..." looks to me like nothing but a mistake for "People, often people..." - it's being used exactly like I'd expect if that was the intent, I don't see any way for it to work as wordplay.
November 17, 2025 at 11:25 PM
What am I missing? "People often, often people..." looks to me like nothing but a mistake for "People, often people..." - it's being used exactly like I'd expect if that was the intent, I don't see any way for it to work as wordplay.
I'm picturing something like the alien from ALIEN with its little spring-loaded mouth that shoots out of the big mouth and stabs you
November 17, 2025 at 8:33 PM
I'm picturing something like the alien from ALIEN with its little spring-loaded mouth that shoots out of the big mouth and stabs you
It's hilariously wrong in terms of vibes and personality and policy and pretty much any other metric other than "this is a Democratic [or Democratic-adjacent] politician who said a strongly worded sentence at some point, and has recently gotten some likes on their social media posts"
November 16, 2025 at 8:16 AM
It's hilariously wrong in terms of vibes and personality and policy and pretty much any other metric other than "this is a Democratic [or Democratic-adjacent] politician who said a strongly worded sentence at some point, and has recently gotten some likes on their social media posts"
That's a thing people say, but you don't get oxygen by yawning - you get oxygen by breathing. Yawns don't make breathing faster or deeper, they can even slow it down.
November 14, 2025 at 7:17 AM
That's a thing people say, but you don't get oxygen by yawning - you get oxygen by breathing. Yawns don't make breathing faster or deeper, they can even slow it down.
(Btw, I do realize dyslexia is no joke, and I did consider at the time that maybe that's what was going on, at least with the handwriting. But this was more of a "there's not really any content in this sentence" situation)
November 14, 2025 at 3:37 AM
(Btw, I do realize dyslexia is no joke, and I did consider at the time that maybe that's what was going on, at least with the handwriting. But this was more of a "there's not really any content in this sentence" situation)
Your initial post seemed to be acknowledging that there are such stories, but that that's not a legit thing to do, that it means the art is bad, and other people shouldn't appreciate that kind of experience. As a writer and performer, I don't get it.
November 13, 2025 at 11:34 PM
Your initial post seemed to be acknowledging that there are such stories, but that that's not a legit thing to do, that it means the art is bad, and other people shouldn't appreciate that kind of experience. As a writer and performer, I don't get it.
To me this is a fairly common-sense-based and consideration-based thing. We don't need to analyze every possible scenario where some hypothetical story could use surprises in some hypothetical way. But there are cases where it's pretty obvious that the intended experience includes a "whoa!"
November 13, 2025 at 11:33 PM
To me this is a fairly common-sense-based and consideration-based thing. We don't need to analyze every possible scenario where some hypothetical story could use surprises in some hypothetical way. But there are cases where it's pretty obvious that the intended experience includes a "whoa!"
I didn't say anything about "belonging", and I don't believe every suspenseful story is constructed around an intention for the audience to not know anything. That's a weirdly absolutist framework that has tons or counterexamples.
November 13, 2025 at 11:29 PM
I didn't say anything about "belonging", and I don't believe every suspenseful story is constructed around an intention for the audience to not know anything. That's a weirdly absolutist framework that has tons or counterexamples.
I think sometimes people interpret "please don't spoil the surprise" as a statement that the story would be catastrophically ruined without the surprise. For me it's more like-- I would just appreciate the opportunity to be surprised if the storyteller felt like giving me that opportunity.
November 13, 2025 at 11:25 PM
I think sometimes people interpret "please don't spoil the surprise" as a statement that the story would be catastrophically ruined without the surprise. For me it's more like-- I would just appreciate the opportunity to be surprised if the storyteller felt like giving me that opportunity.
My reply to every "I don't know why anyone would care about spoilers" type argument: storytelling is creating an experience for the audience. If I craft a thing that is just more fun or more interesting if you receive it in the order I presented it, is that "relying on surprises"? Or just craft?
November 13, 2025 at 11:24 PM
My reply to every "I don't know why anyone would care about spoilers" type argument: storytelling is creating an experience for the audience. If I craft a thing that is just more fun or more interesting if you receive it in the order I presented it, is that "relying on surprises"? Or just craft?
Again, when one of the things this would facilitate is massive voter-suppression legislation, the "14 months, then Dems are back in power" idea seems iffy.
November 13, 2025 at 10:48 PM
Again, when one of the things this would facilitate is massive voter-suppression legislation, the "14 months, then Dems are back in power" idea seems iffy.
Their title was VP of Customer Service so you might think communication would be part of the skill set, but not to worry, the customer service decisions were mostly outsourced to a consulting firm.
November 13, 2025 at 9:31 PM
Their title was VP of Customer Service so you might think communication would be part of the skill set, but not to worry, the customer service decisions were mostly outsourced to a consulting firm.
In 2004, I had an admin assistant job for an executive where the job was to print out all the emails they received, leave those on their desk, then translate the replies they scrawled on them into outgoing emails. It wasn't just a tech issue - their handwritten notes were also hasty & garbled.
November 13, 2025 at 9:29 PM
In 2004, I had an admin assistant job for an executive where the job was to print out all the emails they received, leave those on their desk, then translate the replies they scrawled on them into outgoing emails. It wasn't just a tech issue - their handwritten notes were also hasty & garbled.
I've been open about my shame & regret for not only having been a Nader fan in 2000, but specifically having tried to convince people "don't worry about the Supreme Court - they don't *really* want to do that shit, it's just talk." It was already a dumbass idea then, but now it's been proven so.
November 13, 2025 at 8:35 PM
I've been open about my shame & regret for not only having been a Nader fan in 2000, but specifically having tried to convince people "don't worry about the Supreme Court - they don't *really* want to do that shit, it's just talk." It was already a dumbass idea then, but now it's been proven so.
What you & Marshall are doing is taking an idea that sounded clever 30 years ago, in a vacuum, and clinging to it in the face of massive evidence that 1. the enemy has gained major ground in 30 years & isn't doing politics the same way, and 2. great harm has already been done due to this same idea.
November 13, 2025 at 8:32 PM
What you & Marshall are doing is taking an idea that sounded clever 30 years ago, in a vacuum, and clinging to it in the face of massive evidence that 1. the enemy has gained major ground in 30 years & isn't doing politics the same way, and 2. great harm has already been done due to this same idea.
And there were probably plenty of cynical Republicans, both legislators and voters, who really thought about it that way. But their party is now driven by fascists who actually do want to accomplish those goals and who don't give a shit that they are unpopular.
November 13, 2025 at 8:28 PM
And there were probably plenty of cynical Republicans, both legislators and voters, who really thought about it that way. But their party is now driven by fascists who actually do want to accomplish those goals and who don't give a shit that they are unpopular.
This same argument was used during my entire lifetime as a way to say the Republicans don't really want to ban abortion. Seriously. Like, 1. that the Supremes wouldn't really strike down Roe because then the base would have nothing to aspire to, or 2. if they did, state legislators wouldn't ban it.
November 13, 2025 at 8:26 PM
This same argument was used during my entire lifetime as a way to say the Republicans don't really want to ban abortion. Seriously. Like, 1. that the Supremes wouldn't really strike down Roe because then the base would have nothing to aspire to, or 2. if they did, state legislators wouldn't ban it.
That is obviously a thing that happens, but that's not a reason to assume it's the *only* reason they vote for terrible shit (including a lot of terrible shit that doesn't sound best in the news at all, it just appeals to the far-right faction that dominates R primaries).
November 13, 2025 at 8:22 PM
That is obviously a thing that happens, but that's not a reason to assume it's the *only* reason they vote for terrible shit (including a lot of terrible shit that doesn't sound best in the news at all, it just appeals to the far-right faction that dominates R primaries).
And, by insulating them from electoral loss, it'd also make them less likely to push back at any other piece of the far-right agenda, to whatever extent "it'd be unpopular" was a factor there.
November 13, 2025 at 8:21 PM
And, by insulating them from electoral loss, it'd also make them less likely to push back at any other piece of the far-right agenda, to whatever extent "it'd be unpopular" was a factor there.
So the reason I specifically mentioned the SAVE act instead of those things is - that's the one that most directly benefits R legislators even if they have no ideological commitment and no concerns other than "will this help or hurt my chances of re-election."
November 13, 2025 at 8:19 PM
So the reason I specifically mentioned the SAVE act instead of those things is - that's the one that most directly benefits R legislators even if they have no ideological commitment and no concerns other than "will this help or hurt my chances of re-election."
The Marshall/Lemieux position on this seems to be basically "No, they vote for that stuff to please the base because they know it can't pass - they don't really want to accomplish those things, so if there was no filibuster, they wouldn't try." I think that is nuts but it's a popular thing to say.
November 13, 2025 at 8:15 PM
The Marshall/Lemieux position on this seems to be basically "No, they vote for that stuff to please the base because they know it can't pass - they don't really want to accomplish those things, so if there was no filibuster, they wouldn't try." I think that is nuts but it's a popular thing to say.
The dysfunctional Republican House caucus unanimously voted for the SAVE Act. If you're counting on "Democrats get elected & fix things" then you're counting on the Trump admin to be unable to get their Senators to pass an extreme voter suppression bill that increases the safety of their own seats.
November 13, 2025 at 8:09 PM
The dysfunctional Republican House caucus unanimously voted for the SAVE Act. If you're counting on "Democrats get elected & fix things" then you're counting on the Trump admin to be unable to get their Senators to pass an extreme voter suppression bill that increases the safety of their own seats.
I don't think propter's post is about whether "its downsides outweigh its positives" in general, or about what the Dems will or should do when in power, so I don't think a debate on that point would be fruitful. The argument is that doing so _now_ has severe dangers - which Lemieux just dismisses.
November 13, 2025 at 7:36 PM
I don't think propter's post is about whether "its downsides outweigh its positives" in general, or about what the Dems will or should do when in power, so I don't think a debate on that point would be fruitful. The argument is that doing so _now_ has severe dangers - which Lemieux just dismisses.