Books read in February 2022

New:

 

1. Our Darkest Night by Jennifer Robson

2. Jonny Appleseed by Joshua Whitehead 

3. Return of the Trickster by Eden Robinson

4. The School between Winter and Fairyland by Heather Fawcett

 

Reread:

 

1. Salvation in Death

Twosday!

(I know I already posted this on 2/2/22, but today is even twoier and it's a Tuesday!)

My third COVID vaccine experience

They opened up boosters to my demographic on December 20. On December 17, some of the major pharmacy chains let people in my cohort start signing up for waiting lists, so I signed up for every waiting list within a feasible walking distance. In the days that followed, I'd start every morning by checking the internet for new availabilities and calling pharmacies that were offering the vaccine but didn't have an online presence. (I made so many of these calls that I stopped being nervous about them!!) 

 

I was able to get an appointment for March 2, but nothing earlier came available for weeks.

I was starting to question limiting myself to walking distance. On one hand, I was on 35 waitlists - surely that's enough?? On the other hand, the fact of the matter is they weren't coming through - maybe it was time to take the risk of taking transit to get boosted sooner rather than waiting longer for something to come up nearby?

Then, in the first week of January, I got an email from my doctor's office (which had never emailed me in my life!) They were accepting vaccine appointments for later that week! So I called and was able to book an appointment for January 7.

My doctor's office limited the number of patients in the waiting room and had very aggressive ventilation going on. (I can't tell if if the ventilation was good enough, but there were fans and air purifiers and air blowing around everywhere. The doctor and the receptionist were both wearing gowns, two masks, and face shields. They rotated between 3 exam rooms, so each room had 45 minutes to air out between patients. 

I had to wait about 15 minutes before I was called because they were running a bit behind, but then got my shot (Moderna) quickly and was instructed to wait only 5 minutes afterwards. 

My symptoms were much milder with this dose than with previous doses. I slept normally and the injection site pain was mild enough that I didn't need Tylenol. My lymph nodes were inflamed for 48 hours, and then went back to normal.

 

My first period after the vaccine arrived 24 hours late, but other than that it was completely normal and I didn't notice any other symptoms.

How to gift your child wedding money when you don't trust their choice of spouse

From a recent Ethicist:

My wife and I have two adult daughters. They are very close in age and deeply connected to each other (thankfully). They attended private school and graduated from private colleges, without college debt, as we paid for everything. They are both really good people, and we are very proud of them.

Years ago, my wife and I agreed we would provide a fixed sum for our daughters’ weddings when the time came. (They could each decide how to spend it — on the ceremony, the honeymoon, a down payment on a house or whatever.) We decided to do this for a few reasons. We don’t see the value of a large and elaborate wedding. We gifted our children a superior education. And we wanted to avoid having either daughter complain that we spent more money on one wedding than the other or any last-minute requests for more money to upgrade the ceremony.

One of our daughters recently got married. We provided the gift money as promised (a not-shabby five figures), and it went toward a fairly fancy and large wedding.

Our other daughter isn’t in a serious relationship at this time. However, she has demonstrated some poor judgment in trusting people who have not earned her trust, and this makes me concerned about whom she might choose to marry.

Which brings me to my question: Are we obligated to gift the money as promised if we have a serious issue with the character of a future fiancé — his personal history, lack of a career path or ability to maintain steady employment? Our concerns would be based on her welfare, not on whether we “liked” the guy.

Another option: Would it be acceptable to place conditions on the gift? Or gift it in another fashion, such as a college savings account for future children? Something that would not go to waste or be divided in a messy divorce.

If we did any of that, we would be indicating that we are not in favor of this wedding and do not want to contribute toward it. But we would and will provide equal financial support in the future under certain circumstances. I hope this scenario won’t happen, but I do wonder what the proper and fair approach might be or if it is necessary to worry about “fairness.” Name Withheld

There's a simple way to reduce the risk of the the money being wasted on a partner of poor character while also avoiding treating your daughter unfairly or in a way she'd find alienating: give her the money now.

If she has the money now, while she's not in a relationship, she's far more likely to use it to benefit herself, towards a downpayment on a home or further education or to start her own business - or, yes, to put in a wedding fund, which would also double as emergency savings until such time as a wedding is imminent.

Divorce law varies by jurisdiction, but a general trend is that assets brought into a marriage are less likely to get divided during a divorce than assets acquired during the marriage. Prenuptial agreements can also reduce the likelihood of these assets getting divided. (As ever, people should consult with a family lawyer about their actual situation.)

Messaging is important here. It can be difficult to be the only unmarried person in your family, and you want to avoid presenting this to your daughter in a way that might hint at either "You are a person who chooses bad relationships!" or "You are a person who will never get married!"

This is where the pandemic comes in handy!

The pandemic has shed light on the many ways previously-unquestioned practices don't serve everyone well, and has led many people to rethink a lot of things they previously took for granted. 

You can use this to construct a narrative where the pandemic has made you rethink tying this financial gift to getting married.

Example: "We were recently [thinking/talking/reading an article] about how the pandemic has hindered dating and developing new relationships, and what kind of impacts this might have in the medium and long term. And we were also [thinking/talking/reading] about how the pandemic has driven up housing costs and generally made life more difficult for people just starting out, and what kinds of impacts this might have in the medium and long term. And we realized that it's hideously old-fashioned and completely unfair to tie the gift money to getting married. Therefore, we are going to give it to you now, so that you are empowered to use it to get started out in life according to your own best judgment, without having to wait for some arbitrary milestone, with our apologies for making you wait this long."

Basically, approach it from a position of humbly correcting a flaw in your own previous policies, without any mention whatosever of your evaluation of your daughter or her future spouse.

This is proper and fair, deprives your daughter of nothing, maximizes her opportunities to benefit from the money herself without being influenced by a questionable spouse, and keeps your relationship with her as positive and judgement-free as it has ever been.

Two!

Books read in January 2022

1. Fields Where They Lay by Timothy Hallinan

2. Charlie Thorne and the Last Equation by Stuart Gibbs

3. Dogs on the Trail: A Year in the Life by Blair Braverman and Quince Mountain

4. Good Omens: The Nice and Accurate Prophecies of Agnes Nutter, Witch by Terry Pratchett and Neil Gaiman

Flaws in my antiracism education: educating us like children rather than future adults

If I'm talking to one of the adults who was around when I was a kid and I mention one of my racism-related shortcomings, such as the fact that I was blithely ignorant of the racist tropes contained in the media I was consuming, their response is invariably "But you were just a kid!"

 

Yes, I was just a kid. 

And now I'm not. Now I'm a middle-aged adult. A middle-aged adult who's woefully inadequate at even spotting racism, to say nothing of countering racism. 

 

And, as a middle-aged adult who's established in my profession and my community, I have (or am perceived to have) a certain amount of influence. I have no actual authority, but I can sometimes set the tone. If I say "This is a problem we should do something about," I tend to get listened to, insofar as even if they opt not to address the problem, they take seriously the fact that I see a problem. 

 

Unfortunately, when it comes to racism, I am currently too ignorant to reliably see the problems. Even though I'm trying to do the work and learn about problems that exist and what I can do about them, I haven't yet developed the ability to extrapolate from what I've learned and identify other problems that I haven't specifically read about or been told about.

If my antiracism education had led me to start thinking along these lines, maybe I'd be better at it. Maybe by the time I'd aged into the privilege and influence that comes with being an established middle-aged adult, I'd have been thinking about it for longer and have come up with some clue about how to actually make use of that privilege and influence.

My other posts in this series have been entitled "flaws in my education". This one is entitled "flaws in my antiracism education", because the other aspects of my education did in fact assume that I personally and my peers in general would eventually be in positions of authority or influence. 

 

"Leadership" was a buzzword when I was in high school. Our teachers would compliment us or respond to others' compliments of us by saying "They're leaders!" If you'd asked any of the adults involved in our upbringing and education, they would absolutely have agreed that we would eventually be in positions of authority or influence, hiring people, training people, making decisions that affect people's lives and affect broader policy, righting the wrongs of the past.

Except, apparently, when it came to racism. Then we were just a bunch of kids who couldn't possibly be expected to know better.

 

Which is an obstacle on the path to becoming adults who can do better.

An alternative to "I'm sorry" is "My condolences"

Dear Miss Manners: I am a reasonably empathetic person. I’m not a sob sister, but I do feel true sympathy for other people’s misfortunes. But I have reached my limit.

If someone tells me that a family member has died, and I respond with an “I'm sorry,” the rejoinder is often, “Not your fault.” If a friend mentions her recently broken bone, her divorce, her speeding ticket or broken fingernail, I obviously say that I am sorry. Again, the response is, “Not your fault.”

I agree that I was not the cause of any of the aforementioned disasters; I was not indicating my guilt. I am certainly old enough to say “You have my sympathy,” but I am not formal enough to pull it off. “I see” seems heartless. “Imagine!” seems cruel. “That is so sad” sounds sarcastic.

In this age of online trolls, rudeness passing as humor, and constant hate speech by politicos, what does one say to show empathy with a friend’s or acquaintance’s tale of woe, discomfort or loss? I need an appropriate response or I’m going to start saying “huh.”

A response that would meet the letter-writer's needs is: "My condolences." 

You can make it more formal or intensive (e.g. "My most heartfelt condolences to you and your family") or just leave it as it is, depending on what's most suitable to the context. 

You can also use "My condolences" as a wry response for things like speeding tickets or broken nails, but if you want a more sincere response, and option is "Oh no!", with the same tone and delivery you'd use if the next thing coming out of your mouth was "I'm so sorry!"

I agree with Miss Manners and with LW that "I'm sorry" is perfectly appropriate, but apparently this standard script leads the people around LW to respond in a way that LW dislikes, so it's time to change up the script. I am surprised that Miss Manners didn't suggest this phrasing in her response.

Why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Currently, there seems to be a shortage of political will to lock down to stop the surging omicron variant of COVID-19.

What I don't understand: if they're unwilling to lock down now, why were they willing to lock down in March 2020?

Usually if you ask this, people answer "because capitalism doesn't care about people's lives."

But we had the same capitalism in March 2020. And in March 2020, lockdowns were unprecedented - I don't think most ordinary people would have faulted the government for not locking down, because that just . . . wasn't a thing that we did. And in March 2020, we didn't know about Long COVID yet. (Or, at least, ordinary non-medical people whose lives hadn't yet been affected by post-viral syndrome didn't.) And in March 2020, it was less commonly known that COVID is airborne. 

 

Even if we think about it solely from the point of view of capitalism without regard for human decency, in March 2020 we didn't have so many people out sick that it was causing staffing shortages, closing nearly half of library branches and cancelling GO Transit trips.

 

As far as the general public could tell, capitalism could have chugged merrily along in March 2020 without issue, whereas the impacts are visible and tangible and undeniable in the omicron era.

So why were they willing to proceed with lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020?

To be clear, I'm not saying that they were wrong to do lockdowns and restrictions in March 2020. Rather, I'm saying that the argument for lockdowns and restrictions is far more compelling right now, and we're all old hands at it now. We all know how to zoom and pivot to takeout-only and choose the optimal grocery pickup slots.

So why were they willing to take then-unprecedented measures in March 2020, but aren't willing to take well-established measures now?

Thoughts (without advice) on Captain Awkward #1359

Captain Awkward #1359:

Dear Captain Awkward,

I (she/her) have a Dad (he/him) and Mom (she her) who value their traditional culture and religion even though they did not raise my sister (she/her) and I to be very religious, i.e. we were allowed to go away to college, I was encouraged not to observe religious dress and they didn’t expect us to participate in daily religious activities (they didn’t either). You could say we were culturally faithful but not pious. They took a lot of crap from relatives who insisted they were making a huge mistake and would end up with kids who have no values or faith.

My sister married a guy who was of our background but even less connected to the culture and religion. My parents welcomed him though I suspect privately they were a bit uncomfortable because he drinks alcohol and has tattoos which are prohibited in the religion. Then my sister put up a Christmas tree (not Christians but her in-laws do Christmas). I happened to be there when they found out and it was like watching my parents take a fist to their face. My sister was their closest child, she could do no wrong in their eyes and they’ve always bent over backwards for her. After being so sure that they could raise us liberally while still upholding the culture and religion, they were devastated. No amount of me reminding them that she doesn’t consider it a religious act or framing it as a decoration has helped. They’ve decided they won’t go to her house until the tree is gone. My mom does daycare for my niece so BIL (he/him) drops the baby off at her house now.

I’ve tried to point out that they may regret this and harm their relationship with their only grandchild once she is old enough to figure out that her paternal grandparents happily celebrate Christmas and drink alcohol with her parents while her maternal grandparents make a stand every December, but they won’t budge. My sister is surprised they are upset and says a tree is no big deal which strains credulity in my opinion. I’m visiting and keep walking in on my mom just sitting silently with tears running down her face and my dad quietly counting the days until he can see niece again on daycare days (he is the only name/word she can say so far, total bff’s). I resent my sister for taking so much over the years (I was not similarly favored) and then so casually throwing us into this chaos. I am annoyed with my parents for not seeing something like this coming considering her husband’s background. Do I keep defending her, comforting them or should I just stay apart like normal?

Never thought I’d miss the days when they were a unit of three + me.

I absolutely agree with Captain Awkward's advice that LW's role is to stay out of this. 

But what baffles me is that the parents seem to see this as LW's sister's tree and seem to be having a falling-out with LW's sister over it, rather than seeing it as BIL's tree, since his family of origin is the one that does xmas. Even if the sister literally put it up, they somehow got to "The person who brought this family tradition into the marriage is utterly blameless!" 

If I were advising BIL, I'd recommend that he "take responsibility" for the tree - not in the sense of sitting down and having a serious conversation, but more in the sense of blithely chattering in LW's parents' presence about how lovely it is to be sharing his family's traditions with the daughter.

 

I'm also rather baffled that they're wondering about what to tell the child and thinking the different families' different behaviours will harm their relationship with their grandchild. All they'd have to tell the kid is different families do things differently - they could probably even point to benign examples, like how one set of grandparents uses the front door of their house and the other set uses the side door.

Books read in December 2021

New:

1. This is a Book About the Kids in the Hall by John Semley 

Reread:

1.  Strangers in Death

All about my Good Omens OC named Muriel

I was amused to see that season 2 of Good Omens will include an angel named Muriel, because the Good Omens sequel fic that lives in my head also includes an angel named Muriel. My fic is almost certainly going to stay in my head because I can't figure out enough of what the plot needs to be even to put together all the good bits as a tantalizing series of vignettes, so instead I'm going to post what I know about my Muriel character, so when the actual Good Omens season 2 comes out I can delight in any resemblance to the canon Muriel.

 

My premise, inspired by Aziraphale's "Just imagine how awful it might have been if we'd been at all competent" line is that Heaven and Hell have replaced Aziraphale and Crowley respectively as their agents on Earth with people who are actually competent, by virtue of having been actual humans before they died and went to Heaven and Hell respectively.

Muriel is Heaven's new agent on Earth. I chose her name because it's an actual human name that also sounds like it follows angelic nomenclature patterns. (A quick google as I was writing this blog post finds an actual angel named Muriel, but I didn't know that when I chose the name.) Depending on Good Omens theology and the needs of the story, she might be an actual angel, or she might be a human soul who was sent to heaven but doesn't count as an angel.

In her human life, Muriel was a frumpy older woman, easily overlooked and underestimated, and used these characteristics to her advantage in her actual human career as a highly skilled secret agent. (This was inspired by an article I read long ago about how the best secret agents are actually nondescript, unassuming people.)

 

Her dress and grooming are reminiscent of a Monty Python pepperpot, and she has an extensive range of hidden skills and talents. (Whatever the plot requires!) It's possible that she's the older lady who lives downstairs from Crowley, but I'm not sure if the timing on that works.

 

Muriel isn't actually an especially good person, and got into Heaven on a technicality. (Perhaps the Catholic church's pandemic plenary indulgence, but I'd have to understand the nuances in greater detail to see if that would work.)

 

Muriel has angelic powers like Aziraphale, but, because she's lived as a human for most of her conscious existence, she keeps forgetting about her powers and doing things the human way. This is played for laughs throughout the story, and then ends up playing a key role in the denouement.

Muriel's assignment as Heaven's agent on Earth includes spying on Aziraphale and Crowley. However, she sympathizes with them - she'd rather just be left alone to live on Earth too!

Muriel has a Hellish counterpart, whose name I haven't decided yet. Her Hellish counterpart is also a highly-competent former human with a complementary extensive range of hidden skills and talents resulting from their life as a human. (These skills and talents, and therefore the specifics of the Hellish counterpart's human life, are what the plot needs them to be, and I don't know enough about the plot to fill in the blanks.) The Hellish counterpart isn't actually a bad person, but rather got sent to hell on some kind of technicality. (I like the idea of them being an unbaptized infant, but I don't think the theology works out, plus I don't have an explanation for how they gain the ability to function as an adult on Earth.) And, obviously, the Hellish counterpart would rather be left alone to leave peacefully on Earth as well.

If Muriel and her Hellish counterpart fall in love (which would be an elegant parallel to Aziraphale and Crowley, but I haven't figured out how to make it happen without feeling forced - probably because I haven't figured out what kind of person Muriel's Hellish counterpart needs to be), they would address it with Heaven and Hell by cleverly writing "posing as a couple" into their scope of mission.

 

The actress who's been cast as the real Muriel in the real Good Omens appears significantly younger than my headcanon Muriel, so I strongly doubt the actual Good Omens character will in any way resemble mine.

 

But if there were any resemblance, I would be nothing but delighted. And if someone wants to use elements of my Muriel in their own fanfiction, I would be similarly delighted. #StealThisIdea

Horoscopes

Toronto Star:

The day brings a burst of energy and creative inspiration our way, which can bode well for work-related projects, as well as personal goals. However, as we head toward the afternoon, the vibe changes significantly, leaving us feeling a bit heavy or dejected. We can beat the blues by ramping up the self-care and focusing on what brings us joy. At the same time, it might be helpful to lean on the support of others when it comes to working through any difficulties. Being open to new experiences also can help us break out of a bad mood.

Globe & Mail: 

There may be a tendency over the coming year to go looking for conflict, most likely just for the fun of it. For best results, channel your aggressive instincts into positive and creative areas. Sporting and other physical activities will help burn off excess energy.

It's interesting how the Star horoscope just talks about today - no attempt to predict the year whatsoever!

Last year's Toronto Star horoscope made the bravely specific prediction that I would fall in love in May.

I did not fall in love with a person. But, if I do flail about trying to find an interpretation that makes this statement true, it's possible that I did fall in love with no working, as I took a full month off work for the first time in my life and discovered I didn't miss it at all. (Unfortunately, I still need an income and this is still the easiest and most reliable way for me to earn an income.)

I'm starting the new years with 2 full months off work. We'll see where that takes me...

Books read in November 2021

1. Markswoman by Rati Mehrota

2. North Korea Journal by Michael Palin

Hard work

Conventional wisdom is that hard work is a virtue.  If you work hard, you will achieve success.

I think we need to question the notion that work needs to be hard to be adequate.

Some people, when they read that, will have the visceral reaction of "Oh, you just don't want to work!"

But that's not the argument I'm making here today.

For the purposes of today's blog post, I'm not questioning the "work" part, I'm just questioning the "hard" part.

(I know there are other people questioning the "work" part and I'm not going to get in their way, that's just not my topic here today.)

When I think of everything I've ever done well, I've never worked hard at any of it. I simply...did it. I carried out the necessary actions, did the thing, and it was done and done well.

So, you might be thinking, what would happen if I did work hard at it?

And the answer is that it would be impossible to work hard at it, because I finished it before the work got hard.

Analogy: you can't sprint one step. You simply take the step, and you've completed it before you can even get up to a sprinting level of effort. (Unless, of course, you can't take any steps.  But then you can't sprint one step either.)

There are also quite a few things in life that I've worked hard at.  And, despite my hard work, I never reached the point of doing them well. I basically knocked myself out to achieve mediocrity.

Before we even look at it from our own perspective as workers, if we look at it just from the perspective of having a functional economy and society, people knocking themselves out to achieve mediocrity is the last thing we want!

If you're in the market for a product or service, you want that product to be made or that service to be provided by someone who knows what they're doing.  The more important it is and the harder it is to do, the more you want someone who's certain they can do it well.  

 

You want a beautician who makes people way uglier than you look way hotter than you've ever aspired to, no one who isn't sure if they can make eyebrows like yours look good but they'll try their best. You want a renovator who thinks the work you have in mind is so easy they don't see why you don't do it yourself, not one who's unsure whether it's possible but is willing to give it the good old college try. You want a surgeon who could do your surgery in their sleep, not one who for whom it's a reach goal.

 

Essentially, if someone is working hard, it's a sign that something is wrong - insufficient training, too-tight timelines, not the right person for the job, etc.

 

Maybe, instead of valuing hard work, we as a society should be working on eliminating it.

Homebuying incentives need to come before the home is bought

From time to time, you hear politicians talking about improving housing affordability by providing tax incentives or tax credits or rebates to first-time homebuyers.

From my point of view as a first-time homebuyer who received a number of different tax incentives/credits/rebates, I can tell you with confidence that this will do nothing to improve affordability.

First, let's look at what goes into affordability. To buy a home, you have to not just actually be able to afford it, but also be considered on-paper to be able to afford it. 

To be considered on-paper to be able to afford a home, you need a combination of down-payment and mortgage that will add up to the price of the home, and you need to have this at the moment you seek approval for a mortgage, which comes before the purchase. 

Your mortgage eligibility is calculated based on your current salary and debt load. The amount of downpayment you have is determined either by having to show proof of your bank balance or having to literally write a cheque, depending on whether you're buying pre-owned or pre-construction.

And, at no point in the process, do they look at any tax incentives or other incentives that might be forthcoming in the next year.

I bought pre-construction in 2012, and the sale closed in 2017. I had about $5000 coming to me in rebates from my realtor and my developer (which I received when the sale closed), and further $5000 in tax credits/rebates/incentives (I forget exactly how they were classifed), which I received in spring 2018 after doing my 2017 taxes.

But affordability was calculated at the moment I committed to the purchase in 2012. I had to get a mortgage commitment letter from a bank, which looked at how much money I had immediately on hand to use as a downpayment, and then plugged my income (and, possibly, my debt - I didn't have debt at the time so I'm not certain) into a mortage calculator to determine how much I could afford on paper.

They didn't look at and didn't care about these rebates that were coming to me. If the bank's total of what they thought I could afford had been $10,000 short of the condo's sale price, they wouldn't have cared if I pointed to the rebates that were coming to me. They had no mechanism to plug the rebates into the spreadsheet they used to determine affordability, which, ultimately, meant that these rebates did nothing to make a home more affordable to me. If that $10,000 had been make-or-break, it would have come too late in the process to make the difference between not being able to buy a home and being able to buy a home.

If governments want to provide incentives to make homes more affordable to first-time buyers, any measures they implement need to come into effect before the point at which affordability is calculated. That might mean delivering the incentive payments earlier. That might mean making mortgage lenders change how they calculate affordability. That might mean fixing the economy so that ordinary people with ordinary jobs can afford ordinary homes with no drama. 

But, in any case, a tax rebate over a year after the sale has closed isn't going to improve actual in-real-life affordability. Incentives to improve affordability need to be in the buyer's hands a the moment affordability is calculated.

Flaws in my education: I never learned that I'm bad at spotting racism

One thing I've learned in recent years is that I'm bad at spotting racism.

 

There are innumerable racist (and antisemitic, and transphobic, and ableist, etc. etc.) tropes and dog-whistles that I've never seen before in my life, or that look benign to me, or that look like nonsense to me.

 

They're obvious to other racists, they're obvious to the targets of the racism, and to me they're completely devoid of connotations, or of any meaning whatsoever.

 

 

It would certainly have been useful if my antiracism education had mentioned this! 

 

Until just a few short years ago, I had no clue that I was bad at spotting racism. I'd see racist things and think "That doesn't look racist to me," and think that this opinion of mine was some how helpful or relevant rather than being ignorant and ill-informed!

It is a bit complicated if you think about it from an educator's perspective. In an ideal world, people would be able to recognize racism rather than merely recognizing that they're bad at recognizing it. (Well, in an ideal ideal world there wouldn't be racism lurking around needing to be recognized...) Obviously, "I don't know, I'm really bad at this sort of thing" is not the desired endpoint of any educational program.

But, at the same time, if you are going to emerge from the educational program really bad at that sort of thing, it's far better to recognize that you're bad at it than to think you're competent!

The irony is they came so very close to informing me that there were forms of racism that I didn't recognize. 

 

One of the examples of prejudice and stereotypes given in our anti-racism unit was the stereotype that Polish people are stupid.

My mother was born in Poland. Half my family is Polish. I identify as Polish myself, and Poland would claim me if I made them aware of my existence.

And I had never before in my life been exposed to the notion that Polish people are stupid. In fact, if you'd asked me to name stereotypes about Polish people, I would never have guessed that people think we're stupid - the Polish branch of my family is by far classier, more intelligent and better educated!

 

So this could have led me to realize that there are stereotypes floating around out there that I can't possibly fathom.

 

Unfortunately, it led me in the opposite direction: it reinforced my internalized notion that racism is a thing of the past, and that any stereotypes that may have existed in the past are no longer doing harm to the people affected. After all, if I, as a member of the targeted group, had never in my life heard of the stereotype used as a go-to example of stereotypes, surely  nothing about this can be affecting actual real-life present-day people!

I don't know what the actual solution is. I don't know whether it would be advisable to actually go around teaching teenagers stereotypes that they've never heard of before. And I don't think that "I'm really bad at this sort of thing and not able to make an informed comment" is an acceptable outcome of an educational curriculum.

And also, if, for whatever reason, students emerge from the curriculum really bad at that sort of thing and unable to make an informed comment, it is imperative that they are able to recognize this! I would be a much better person if I'd been able to recognize this 25 years ago.

Things the Library Should Invent: lend out external media readers

While rummaging through my box of 20 years of accumulated spare cables, I found some random unmarked floppy disks. I have no idea what's on them, and no longer have any computers with a floppy drive.

 

I pondered what might be on the disks, and tried to brainstorm ways I might get at a floppy drive. I wondered whether you can rent an external floppy drive. There doesn't appear to be any such thing. They're fairly cheap to buy, but I'd only need it for a few minutes to read and possibly copy the contents of the disks, and then I'd be done with it forever.

 

Then I wondered if the library computers still have floppy drives. Doubtful. Apart from the fact that floppy disks haven't been in common use for quite a while, I doubt the library wants to make it easy for people to run random programs on their computers.

Then I realized, this is a problem that the library could solve by making external media readers available to borrow - floppy drives, CD drives, maybe even cassette players and record players that can be plugged into computers to convert music to MP3s, if such a thing exists.

Surely I'm not the only one with some obsolete media that I'm no longer equipped to read or back up. Surely I'm not the only one who just needs a floppy drive briefly, with no need to own one.

An external USB floppy drive costs less than the retail price of a hardcover book, so it seems like the library should be able to afford a few to lend out. And if the library lends me a USB drive that I plug into my own computer, my computer bears the risk of whatever the contents of my mystery disks might be - the library's disk drive is just a conduit.

 

Q: But if you let people borrow electronic equipment, they might wreck it! 

A: Yes, just like if you let people borrow books, they might wreck them! I suspect libraries are accustomed to budgeting for eventual wear and tear on their items.

 

Part of the library's mission statement is to provide universal access to a broad range of information. Perhaps that could include the information that we have stored on outdated media?

Another option for Captain Awkward #1352

Captain Awkward #1352:

Dear Captain Awkward,

I (they/them) am single, live alone, and have been working from home throughout the COVID situation – the long-term isolation has been really hard. During the last year I took up fishkeeping, which has been really great for my mental health.

But then I developed something known in the hobby as “MTS” – multiple tank syndrome – in which I, well, started to go a little overboard with new fish tanks and fishes. In addition to the assortment of tanks in my actual apartment (basically one in every room, each with different types of fish), I set up a “balcony tub” with floating plants and rosy red minnows.

Last week new neighbors moved into my building and I guess they must have seen my balcony tub because they asked if I had fish on my balcony and…I truly am not sure why…but I impulsively lied, like, “No! Of course I don’t have fish on the balcony! Ha ha ha…”

But the thing is: I do have fish on the balcony.

The fish are very healthy and happy and I don’t think it’s against the rules (I did check the lease) – although that might be because no one ever thought to make a rule against it…

Anyway, I have no idea why I lied other than like…maybe the built-up isolation of the last year and a half, and some internal sense that keeping fish on your balcony was Too Much, and therefore in order to not seem Super Weird to my new neighbors I should keep that under wraps? (Don’t ask, don’t shell!)

But now I feel even *more* awkward and way weirder than if I’d just been like “oh yeah those are my minnows!”

I lied about having fish on the balcony, and I clearly do have fish on the balcony.

In the past I’ve had good relationships with my neighbors. Is there any way I can salvage this truly awkward introduction??

Thank you in advance for your advice. I don’t think this question has been addressed before.

All best,
A Fishy Neighbor

 

As Captain Awkward points out in her answer, there's a strong likelihood that the neighbour has already forgotten or written off the interaction.

Also as Captain Awkward says:

Fortunately,  “I was trying so hard not to come off as weird that I overcorrected and did something objectively weird”  is an extremely relatable and common predicament, and being able to laugh at yourself (“I didn’t want you to think I was obsessed with fish, good job, me, now you think I’m a liar who is obsessed with fish! Welcome to the building!)  is the best remedy I know.

In this vein of a relatable and common predicament and being able to laugh at oneself, another option, if someone should directly inquire about the fact that you specifically said you don't have fish even though you clearly have fish, is something along the lines of "Sorry, it was an attempt at a joke that clearly didn't work. My alleged sense of humour misfires more often than I'd care to admit!"

(Q: What is the attempted joke? A: The very notion that your fishy self would not have fish on the balcony is laughable!)

Benefits to this approach:

• You aren't admitting to lying, or mentioning that you lied as if it's no big deal. Some people are extremely prescriptivist about lying and think that if someone lies at all ever, they're intrinsically untrustworthy. There are also people who are wary enough of lying that they'd see "I told a lie because I panicked" as a red flag suggesting that you're untrustworthy. 
• Having a joke misfire is also a relatable and common predicament
• When assholes make a joke that misfires, they tend to double down and/or blame the audience for not getting/liking the joke. In contrast, admitting that your joke misfired - and that your sense of humour doesn't do the job as often as you'd like in general - is a sign of humility and strength of character. Wouldn't you think positively of someone who genially admits that their joke didn't land and moves on?