RL Anger
-
@Kanye-Qwest I prefer to provide a listening ear. I have a hard time with conveying sympathy in any way other than listening, or providing my presence as an audience. Sometimes best, since foot in mouth can and does happen.
-
How do you provide a listening ear if not by asking a leading question like "are you ok"? I def don't disagree with the sentiment, just curious how my suggestion wasn't offering a sympathetic ear.
-
@Kanye-Qwest Because 'are you okay' can sometimes elicit the very standard 'I'm alright' response, even when it's not really true and the person is shaken the fuck up.
I prefer to say, in the end, 'That sucks, man' or something equivalent. Unfortunately, in forums I cannot provide any sort of human warmth, so I will remain silent and let the person vent. Instant messages are a different matter, of course.
-
@deadculture I even understand the kind of defense. "Well, I'm involved in a hobby and something that I've always considered net positive. Sure, there's bad spots, and I can picture these things happening, but I have never witnessed anything like it should it stands to reason that these are far less common than it sounds and it might be overstated." That's kind of the mental process that started from this stuff about sexism and assault in gaming, and it's the last part of that defense that's the problem.
Because no one here seems like a big enough asshole to actively be turning a blind eye to something as loathsome as assault or overt abuse, and they sure as fuck don't feel it's fair to be grouped in with it. Everyone here gets that. But when they say, 'Well, since I haven't seen any signs of it, I feel like it has to be overstated', that's where the shit hits the fan, because no, lord no, LORD NO it is not anywhere close to true. It is pervasive and constant and that's why so many posters here gets enraged when they see the, 'but there's two sides guys!' polite dismissal. Because that kind of the unconscious, 'well, benefit of a doubt time' that is a large reason why this kind of abuse stays as pervasive as it is. So right, it's probably better to let the topic change if you still have that, 'well, these assault victims probably are being too loud or I wanna withhold judgement'. It's really not the time or place, and confronting them is pretty damned cruel when they aren't exactly looking to debate about it.
some fucking idiot who people only like because he's good at taking credit for the work of everyone under him, just like every other fucking L&L headwiz.
-
@Apos Well, the thread's name is RL Anger. They're allowed to be loud about it, much in the same way not confronting them about it is my polite way to await for a better topic to be brought up. However, as this is a vent thread in many aspects, perhaps not likely to find meaningful discussion here.
EDIT: Not that I doubt them. Only people who take the hit know they've been hit, to put it in the simplest terms possible.
-
“You’re an opera singer but you still have a day job? So when do you plan to turn into a real opera singer?”
I know almost every opera singer gets asked this at some point or another. It doesn’t make it any less irritating, though. I’m honestly tempted to print out little pamphlets to carry with me so as not to waste time explaining that yes, while I am a professional and beginning to make a name for myself, unless they’re independently wealthy or come from families that are independently wealthy… or have a spouse who makes a lot of moolah (mine can’t work due to a disability, so I’m the provider and sole source of income for the household), most singers need to find a job with steady employment (and benefits don’t hurt either) because there will be seasons where you’re getting work out the wazoo…
And then there’ll be dry seasons where nobody seems to be casting for your voice type. Example: I’m a lyric tenor who specializes in Mozart and the Bel Canto tradition. Two years ago it seemed like every company in the state was doing either Puccini (which, except for two operas, always requires a heavier, bigger tenor voice) or birazzo atonal modern crap or Russian operas (Russian composers liked their tenor voices big, meaty and screamy) so there wasn’t really much worth auditioning for. You could always audition with out-of-state companies… but we’re talking hundreds of dollars in hotel costs, plane trips, audition costs (yes, that is a thing, many companies charge you to audition for them), so more often than not it is a huge gamble because there are more singers than roles floating around, and casting doesn’t go to the best singer- nowadays it tends to go to whomever the stage director thinks looks the part, even if they are not that good a singer.
The music director doesn’t get any input in casting in a lot of companies.
So what happens if you do a round of auditions but the stage directors prefer a tenor with cast-iron pecs and arms that look like they’re smuggling cantaloupes- Who cares if he sounds like he’s trying to shit a porcupine when going for the high C if he looks great in his underwear? (Because opera is clearly not about the music, how silly!)Yup, you’ve just lost about a thou or more looking for work.
And that’s why singers get day jobs. Because until (and if) you manage to get to a certain level where you aren’t auditioning for houses but houses are asking you to come sing for them (and pay your way and housing), there is no way in hell you’re going to have a steady enough income.
Mind you, this isn’t really the fault of the profession as much as the administrative side of the profession. Most opera houses haven’t moved out of the 19th century in their thinking and the system still reflects the days when singers often depended on patrons to pay for their expenses. Most companies want to hear you auditioning live for them because of the unreliability of recordings (classically-trained voices don’t’ record well unless you’re using some top-of-the-line expensive mikes, otherwise a lot of partials are lost), which means traveling to them to get the gigs until they know you enough to recall what you sound like from memory when casting. Some companies are starting to hold joint auditions together in one location so singers don’t have to basically go broke running from one place to another… but not enough are doing it right now.
And then you have the biggest mixed bags of all, the pay-to-sing “Young Artist Programs.” Most of these programs advertise themselves as unique opportunities to work with professionals on the field under their training for x number of weeks while you put an opera or two together. You get charged tuition, room and board for these things (ranging from $2000 to $4000), but companies love to see that shit on your resume when you’re auditioning. Even if a large number of them are vanity projects that won’t teach you much that you can’t pick up by just doing productions yourself.
There are some that are worth it. One of them is a Colorado Springs program that is dirt cheap by comparison… for three weeks and the cost of $1200, and you get to work with fantastic professionals, coaches and the like (two summers ago, one of the voice teachers had just come back from Germany singing with Renee Fleming in a major production of Faust). The woman who runs it is a bona fide ex-star of the Met and the international stage, and she actually cares about the singers. So there are good programs out there, but it’s hard to find out which kind you’re in until it’s too late to get out. The opera administration side of things needs to get its ass into the 21st century… and hopefully it will before it’s the 22nd century
So… all of that is why some opera singers need day jobs.Mind you, the money isn’t bad when it’s there- I basically got paid a nice amount for two one-hour rehearsals and two one-hour performances, but the frequency and cash flow of the gigs aren't enough yet to justify throwing caution to the wind.
… well, looks like I needed to get a lot off my chest, huh?
Vorpal is actually Satan made MU*nifest
-
I hate that, absolutely hate it. When I was writing more and getting paid for it, I would get the same question. "So what's your day job?" Mind you, I did have one, but it wasn't my real focus in life -- wasn't what I wanted to do at all. It seems like the creative community in general is just completely discounted. When my wife was doing pretty well with her music (some of it's getting sampled on the new IAMX album, if you're into them, by the way), she'd still get that same question. I don't understand it at all. Why can't your passion be your day job? What makes us assume that in order to have a "job," you need to be locked in a cubicle or office 9 hours a day (or more)? Meh.
-
@somasatori I guess the assumption was that, because I wasn't doing it as my day job, it wasn't my real job at all.
Mind you, in a way there's a reason for that assumption- because if you intend to make something your profession, people assume that you're going to be doing it as your main endeavor. Because some creative careers have specific obstacles that make that not an immediate "thing" to do right away as the only thing you do, it can seem to some people that it's just something you're doing on the side for fun instead of your vocation, if you catch my drift.
It's still rather irritating once you get asked about it for the millionth time, though.
-
That sucks, @Vorpal.
Tangentially related:
I hate it when people ask what my major is. Because it constantly leads to the inevitable awkward moment. My friends and I constantly are getting asked what our major is. When we explain we're in Political Science as Prelaw, they all look interested, and then comes the inevitable "So what can you do with a bachelor's in Political Science?"
I mean, other than go to law school? You try and get at least a Master's, if you want to teach, or be a serious analyst. A doctorate if you want to really work professionally. But a bachelor's is essentially useless, much like a bachelor's in many other fields. Not much different than a high school diploma, except outrageously more expensive. But it's an easy in to Law (as far as there are any 'easy ins' -- poli sci, english, and a few others are more desirable, at least), and that's what I want it for. I love politics, but I don't want to do this shit professionally, it's soul-wrecking, but apparently wanting to go to law school is a waste of time because I can't use it to find a 'real job'.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
@somasatori holy fuck, dude. You will have to let me know which songs.
-
But it's an easy in to Law (as far as there are any 'easy ins' -- poli sci, english, and a few others are more desirable, at least), and that's what I want it for.
Start looking into the logic problems. That's where most people trip up on the LSAT. In my practice, I've found that political science majors among the most annoying practicing lawyers; they are so caught up with "rights" and "entitlement" that they forget about "practicality."
I love politics, but I don't want to do this shit professionally, it's soul-wrecking, but apparently wanting to go to law school is a waste of time because I can't use it to find a 'real job'.
Don't believe the hype. There are plenty of law jobs. The problem is that law school does not teach you how to start up a career in law. Gone are the days of getting picked up by a large firm on grades alone.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
Don't believe the hype. There are plenty of law jobs. The problem is that law school does not teach you how to start up a career in law. Gone are the days of getting picked up by a large firm on grades alone.
Oh, I know there are plenty of law jobs. I meant there is nothing you can do with a bachelor's in Poli Sci. That's apparently where my giant waste of time is. Nevermind I'm getting a J.D., the fact that the poli sci bachelor's can't be used for much in actual political science just means it's not worth it. Apparently. Or so I'm told.
In my practice, I've found that political science majors among the most annoying practicing lawyers; they are so caught up with "rights" and "entitlement" that they forget about "practicality."
Well, that's because we -are- pretty annoying about those things, because people often overlook them in the name of 'practicality', which should not be the case.
It's not that we forgot about practicality, we just don't agree with the premise that the easier way is the right way, especially when it comes to rights.Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
It's not that we forgot about practicality, we just don't agree with the premise that the easier way is the right way, especially when it comes to rights.
An attorney's primary duty is to his client, not to his own sense of what is right and wrong. The practical way is not necessarily the easiest way, but the normative way is usually not.
As an example, a trespass on one's real property: yes, it is against common law; yes, you are entitled to the judgment that what the defendant did was against the law; but, no, you aren't going to get $100,000 for your neighbor stepping on your lawn; and, no, I'm not going to take your case because you don't seem to understand that I have to prove damages in a civil action.
Even if someone handed me a $10,000 retainer, I wouldn't take that case. I feel that would be aiding and abetting stupidity.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
It's not that we forgot about practicality, we just don't agree with the premise that the easier way is the right way, especially when it comes to rights.
An attorney's primary duty is to his client, not to his own sense of what is right and wrong. The practical way is not necessarily the easiest way, but the normative way is usually not.
As an example, a trespass on one's real property: yes, it is against common law; yes, you are entitled to the judgment that what the defendant did was against the law; but, no, you aren't going to get $100,000 for your neighbor stepping on your lawn; and, no, I'm not going to take your case because you don't seem to understand that I have to prove damages in a civil action.
Even if someone handed me a $10,000 retainer, I wouldn't take that case. I feel that would be aiding and abetting stupidity.
Oh, -those- guys. Yeah, I'm not that guy. I'm on your side of the fence there.
Racism isn't Tinkerbell. It doesn't need you to believe in it for it to exist.
-
-
That's good. There's hope.
This taps into a peeve of mine: a large one. It goes to the whole "zealously advocating" thing. Many attorneys seem to think this means that you have to roadblock everything I try to do, or attempt to convince me of the merits and strengths of their clients' cases.
The thing is, if I'm looking to settle a case, I don't give a shit what you think of the merits and strengths. I am clearly trying to figure out a cost-effective way of resolving our clients' interests. This can be done if the other attorney isn't a fucking moron, but many of them seem entrenched in the idea that making my life difficult will make me want to settle things faster. This is not at all true, as I am backed, most of the time, by an insurance company.
I pretty much have unlimited resources and funds to tap into. If you want to play the game like that, fine. But realize that your client probably wants money as soon as possible, and to move on with their lives, you prick. And I'm willing to do that, if you just fucking cooperate with my requests for information. I haven't lost a motion to compel in my entire career because I only ask for shit that I know I am entitled to through the discovery process.
Just give me the damned documents.
“It is better to live doing the things that you like. It is foolish to live within this dream of a world seeing unpleasantness and doing only things that you do not like.” -- Yamamoto Tsunetomo.
-
That's good. There's hope.
This taps into a peeve of mine: a large one. It goes to the whole "zealously advocating" thing. Many attorneys seem to think this means that you have to roadblock everything I try to do, or attempt to convince me of the merits and strengths of their clients' cases.
The thing is, if I'm looking to settle a case, I don't give a shit what you think of the merits and strengths. I am clearly trying to figure out a cost-effective way of resolving our clients' interests. This can be done if the other attorney isn't a fucking moron, but many of them seem entrenched in the idea that making my life difficult will make me want to settle things faster. This is not at all true, as I am backed, most of the time, by an insurance company.
I pretty much have unlimited resources and funds to tap into. If you want to play the game like that, fine. But realize that your client probably wants money as soon as possible, and to move on with their lives, you prick. And I'm willing to do that, if you just fucking cooperate with my requests for information. I haven't lost a motion to compel in my entire career because I only ask for shit that I know I am entitled to through the discovery process.
Just give me the damned documents.
Yeah, no. I mean, that's not even my area, really. I'm more the guy that does the groaning facepalm at cases like Wickard v. Filburn and the overzealous use of the Everything Clause when it comes to rights and such, or the guy shaking his head that Obergefell wasn't decided as a gender discrimination case. That's more my area of 'up in arms zealotry'. If there's an offer to settle on the table, I'll present it to a client and maybe pressure him to take it, if it's decent. Because seriously, everyone wins and it doesn't have to get that messy.
So I feel your pain there. But rest assured, my idealism is confined to other things than making your life miserable.
-
Just give me the damned documents.
Dear writers of Daredevil,
Here is a free line that I think your fans will love because I personally got a kick out of it and would like to see a lawyer on television use it.
Tinuviel about 9 hours ago
I hate you with the power of a thousand Pandoras. -
-
@Pandora I've read complaints on assorted places on the interwebs who wanted more lawyer stuff on Daredevil.
... Daredevil isn't The Good Wife. It's not a legal show. The emphasis will always be elsewhere.
- He who takes offense when not intended is a fool. He who takes offense when intended is a greater fool.
