Poem: "Why People Hold onto Memories"

[ysabetwordsmith]

This poem was written outside the regular prompt calls. It was sponsored by a pool with fuzzyred. It belongs to the Rutledge thread of the Polychrome Heroics series.


"Why People Hold onto Memories"

[Tuesday, July 1, 2014]

At six o'clock, Oscar and Labib
closed their temporary office.

Sunrise Strip Mall had
a good location and included
the Sunrise Day Care on one end,
two stores, and an office plant service.
The wide end held an office block now
rented by the Business Incubator.

"Would you like to share supper?"
Labib asked on the way out.

Mandy's Diner had hired
a new Syrian cook to expand
their halal menu. Now they
had a nasty yogurt drink and
a mint lemonade that Oscar loved,
a weird cake and rice pudding, and
some ridiculous stuffed zucchini.

There were all kinds of new kebabs,
of which he adored the cherry one.
Who put cherries in what was
basically a long skinny meatball?
But it was beyond delicious.

"I'd love to," Oscar said
as they stepped outside.

The sun was sliding down
the western sky and shadows
were already deepening under
the trees, but sunset itself
was still hours away.

Oscar had just finished
locking the outer door when
something went whump.

A weight slammed into him,
knocking him to the ground.

Labib pressed himself tighter
on top of Oscar, mashing
him into the concrete and
yelling something in Arabic.

A loud CRACK sounded nearby.

Oscar looked up and glimpsed
a couple of teenaged boys
running between the cars.

"Stay down!" Labib barked,
shoving his head flat. "Wait
for the shelling to stop."

"What the fuck, dude?"
Oscar said. "It's just
some dumb kids lighting
fireworks in the parking lot."

"F-fireworks?" Labib said.

"Yeah, they shouldn't be doing
that, but it happens," Oscar said.
"Usually they do it in the park and I
yell at them for the fire risk. They may
have thought pavement was safer."

Finally Labib slumped off him.
"Why do it at all?" he said.

"Well, it's July," Oscar said
as he sat up and looked around.
The culprits were long gone, though.
"Fireworks are traditional then."

"I thought -- I thought that was
later this week," Labib said,
counting on his fingers.
"Did I lose the days?"

"Nah, it's only the first.
The fourth isn't until Friday,"
Oscar said. "Some people
just like to get an early start."

Labib rubbed shaking hands
over his face. "It sounded
like a bomb," he said.

"Well, yeah," said Oscar.
"They're related. That's why
folks aren't supposed to light more
than little stuff inside city limits, and
not just any time. The rules aren't
strictly enforced, though, because it's
rarely worse than kids goofing off and
nobody wants to be a hardass."

"So this, it's not just today, it's
going to keep up all week?"
Labib's voice cracked.

"Are you -- no, you don't
look okay," Oscar said,
frowning. "What's wrong?"

"Damascus," Labib admitted.
"When the bombing started, I
used all the connections I had
to get my family out of the country.
It worked, but ... now I have no one
outside my wife and children. That's
hard, and loud noises sometimes
remind me of the unrest there."

"Shit," Oscar said with feeling.
"Let's go back inside for a bit."
He offered Labib a hand up.

The older man was shaken
and wobbly, so Oscar kept
a discreet hand behind him
as they slipped into the office.

"Splash some water on your face,
maybe it'll help," Oscar suggested.

"But you're the one who's bleeding,"
Labib said, waving at his face.

Startled, Oscar touched his mouth,
and yeah, now he was actually
paying attention, that stung.

He went into the bathroom
and looked in the mirror.

He must have bitten his lip
when he hit the ground.
There was a raw spot on
his chin, too, but at least
his beard hid most of that.

Oscar grabbed the bottle of
Refresh nonalcoholic mouthwash
and rinsed his mouth until his lip
finally stopped oozing blood.

Then he dabbed antiseptic
over his chin. Nothing more
to do about that, because
a bandage wouldn't stick
and damned if he was going
to shave a spot so it would.

"All done," Oscar said when
he came out. "Your turn."

Labib disappeared inside
the bathroom without a word.

The rhythmic swishing of water
told Oscar that he was making wudu.

He'd already done the afternoon prayer,
and it was nowhere near sunset, so
it must be just for the comfort.

Oscar went into the breakroom
and started the hot water for
a batch of Syrian herbal tea.

It was mostly made from
flower petals, not tea leaves,
but it looked pretty and smelled nice
and sure worked to settle nerves.

When Labib came out of the bathroom,
he made a beeline for the coffee station,
and Oscar pressed a teacup into his hands.

"Feeling better now?" Oscar asked.

"A little," Labib said. "I must apologize
for knocking you down. I was a fool."

"It's okay," Oscar said. "You were
just trying to keep me safe. If it
had been a real bomb ..."

Then Labib would have
taken the shrapnel instead
of Oscar. It made him shiver.

"It wasn't. I should have remembered
that this is America and there are
no bombers here," Labib said.

"Just numbskulls who couldn't
wait three days for fireworks,"
Oscar said, shaking his head.
"It's the thought that counts."

"All right," Labib said, clutching
his tea like a life preserver.

Oscar poured himself a cup
and took a sip. It was weird,
but it was growing on him.

"Will you be okay?" Oscar said.
"You haven't seemed so, uh,
jumpy before this. I'm worried."

"Most of the time, I'm not jumpy. I
was lucky; I got my family out in time,"
Labib said. "It was just so loud and
so close -- if that had been real, it
could have dropped a building on us."

"Scary thought," Oscar said quietly.
"If I had memories like that, I'd
probably be a lot jumpier."

"I think the only reason why
people hold onto memories
is because memories are
the only things that don't
change when everyone else
does," Labib whispered.

Oscar thought about
all his relatives who had
moved away over the years.

"Yeah, I get that," he said.
"Everyone needs something
to hold onto, so that you don't
wind up drifting through life."

"I am adrift now, though,"
Labib said glumly. "Everyone
but my family I had to leave
behind -- friends, neighbors,
men I knew from the mosque."
Then he lifted his chin. "But I
am lucky. Most others were not."

Oscar's stomach took a sudden trip
to his toes. "Oh, shit," he said.

"What?" Labib asked.

"If most other Syrians had it
worse than you, how will they
react to fireworks?" Oscar said.
"I think this problem is bigger
than just you knocking me down."

Labib muttered something in Arabic
that probably meant Oh, shit.

"Will you be okay for a little while?"
Oscar said. "I want to call the mayor,
and somebody should probably
give Mr. Khaled a heads up too."

"Go, make your call," Labib said,
waving him all. "I'll tell Ibrahim."

So Oscar returned to his office
and shut the door. With luck,
Theodore would still be at work.

Predictably, he got some secretary
who tried to fob him off instead of
actually putting him through.

"The mayor is very busy,"
she said. "Is this an emergency?"

"It's urgent," Oscar said. "I'm
trying to keep it from becoming
an emergency. So unless he's in
the can, put him on the damn phone!"

She gave an outraged sniff, but
at least she made the connection.

"Oscar, what's wrong?" Theodore
sounded distinctly worried. "I know
you wouldn't get fussed over nothing."

"Some idiot kids lit a loud firework in
the parking lot, and Labib thought it
was a bomb. He knocked me down
and tried to cover me," Oscar said.
"We need to quash the fireworks
outside the Fourth of July, at least
for this year -- maybe a few years."

"That won't be easy," Theodore said.
"You know how frisky people get,
just from chasing them in the parks."

Oscar sighed. "I think that's actually
why they chose the parking lot," he said.
"We have to do something, though,
before anyone really gets hurt."

"Are you all right?" Theodore said.
"Your voice sounds a bit odd."

"It's nothing," Oscar said. "I bit
my lip when I hit the ground, is all.
What worries me is that Labib isn't
usually jumpy, and he freaked.
If one unexpected firecracker can
do that to him, what's it going to do
to the rest of them, all week long?"

"Nothing good," Theodore said.
"All right, we'll need to arrange
an announcement. I can talk
with the Fire Department and
Public Health, if you'll handle
Parks and Recreation."

"That I can do," Oscar said,
grateful to have something
actually in his wheelhouse.

"Somebody needs to reach out
to Ibrahim," said Theodore. "He's
the one people will turn to in panic
if they believe they're being bombed."

"I think Labib is on it, or will be,"
Oscar said. "He's shaken,
but he should snap out of it
and work on solutions."

"Speaking of which, how
do you plan to handle all of
the inevitable violations?"
Theodore said. "People are
used to getting away with this,
even though they know they
shouldn't be doing it."

Oscar thought about that.
He really didn't want to involve
the cops, who'd be busy enough
with extra drunk-and-disorderly calls.

He needed more than a warning ticket,
though, or kids wouldn't take it seriously.

"Community classes," Oscar decided.
"Choice of EFA or PTSD support, and
Syrian culture or Syrian civil war.
Add fire safety if necessary."

"That sounds like a good start,"
said Theodore. "What about
repeat offenders, though?"

"First offense, two classes,
one emotional, one cultural,"
Oscar said. "Second offense,
the other two classes plus
fire safety if they didn't
do that one already."

"And save the cops for
the third," Theodore added.
"That'll work. Not many kids
will want to risk more classes
in the middle of summer."

Oscar laughed. "Well, I
sure as hell wouldn't have."

"Speaking of kids, though, are
those classes right for them?"
Theodore wondered.

"College kids or teens
are most of the ones who
light fireworks, and they'll do
fine in adult classes," Oscar said.
"Younger ones, make their parents
take the classes, and give the kids
an age-appropriate talk about
not scaring the skin off people."

"That sounds like a good plan,"
Theodore said. "You're really
getting good at this, Oscar."

"I don't know what the heck we're
going to do about the Fourth itself,
though," said Oscar. "It's not fair
to ask people to give up fireworks."

"Open a bigger shelter," Theodore said.
"Every year the veterans and some folks
with sensory issues get together and throw
basement parties where the sound and smell
don't carry. If they run out of room, I open
an underground storm shelter for them."

"Oh, that's a great idea," Oscar said.
"When one of my cousins was little,
he was so scared of fireworks that
he'd wet himself, so we used to go
downstairs and show home movies
instead of going to the fairgrounds."

"That would work," Theodore said.
"We could throw an Americana Party.
Show our new neighbors what else
we do for the Fourth besides fireworks."

"Picnics. Parades. Party games.
Family photos. Telling stories.
Red, white, and blue food -- hell,
red, white, and blue everything,"
Oscar said with a laugh.

"Come to that, I think that
the veterans already bought
a gross of T-shirts tie-dyed
in red, white, and blue to
give away," Theodore said.

"The Vermont clothes were
a hit," Oscar said, nodding.

"So your cousin -- did he
ever get used to fireworks?"
Theodore asked him.

"Yeah, my uncle bought
pea-sized poppers to play with,
and the girls made fake fireworks
with flower petals. My mom cooked
maple pecan popcorn for the movies."
Oscar said. "Four years later, Jake
set the yard on fire with Black Cats."

"Well, we'll try to avoid that part,"
Theodore said dryly. "The rest
of it sounds very promising."

Oscar hadn't thought about
any of this in years -- so many
of his relatives had moved away --
but they were happy memories.

He could pull together the same kind
of party now, he felt sure of it.
Maybe it would help Labib
and the other Syrians.

"I've got enough ideas
to start with," Oscar said.

"Good, then let's get on it,"
Theodore said. "I'll call you
tomorrow to touch base on
whatever progress we've made.
Thank you for bringing this
to my attention, Oscar."

"You're welcome,"
Oscar said, and
wrapped up the call.

When he went back to
the breakroom, Labib was
still talking on his phone
in Arabic, but quickly
said his goodbyes.

"Oh, your face," he said.
"It's coming up bruises!"

"Don't worry about it,"
Oscar said. "I've hurt
myself worse than this
every time I wipe out on
the slopes. What's up?"

"I have warned Ibrahim
about the fireworks this week,"
Labib said. "He thinks his sons
may find them upsetting too,
but we have some ideas for
coping with the challenges."

"Great, because Theodore and
I came up with a few things too,"
Oscar said. "We'll do what we can
to discourage out-of-bounds fireworks,
but we also thought of ways to make
the holiday more comfortable for you
and yours. It's not a new problem."

"I suppose not," Labib said. "It just
feels very conspicuous, sometimes."

"Nah, we have veterans who feel
the same way. Plus I have a cousin
who was scared of fireworks as a boy.
I think I'll call him up and invite him
to come for a visit," Oscar said. "I've
got room for Jake and his family
to stay with me in the cabin."

"That's kind of you," said Labib.

"I'm thinking basement parties,
introduce folks to traditions for
the Fourth of July that don't
involve blowing things up,"
Oscar said. "Movies, games,
maple and pecan popcorn,
red, white, and blue everything."

"It sounds nice," Labib said.
"Do you have a basement?"

"Yeah, but mine's a walkout
so it won't work. We need one
all underground to block the noise,"
Oscar said. "I'll ask around, but
the mayor already offered to open
a storm shelter if we need one."

"Not everyone might feel
comfortable in something that
looks like a bunker," Labib said.

"So we sort 'em out and send
those folks to a private home
if they need to hide from fireworks,"
Oscar said. "We can make it work."

"I do believe we can," Labib said.
He was almost smiling now.

"Come on, let's head over to
Mandy's Diner," said Oscar.
"At least let me buy you supper
to make up for my town's screwup.
We can talk about party planning
and EFA over delicious food."

Labib chuckled. "I am glad
that you like our food," he said.

"That Kardal is a real whiz at
the grill, and as a wilderneer I
do not say that lightly," Oscar said.

"Then it is good that we could bring
such joy to your town," Labib said.

"Yeah," Oscar said. "It really is."

* * *

Notes:

This poem is long, so its notes appear elsewhere.

Comments

[siliconshaman]

I'd also be prepared for one or two jerks who, when they discover the refugees are twitchy about fireworks, go out and deliberately set them off near them! Just for laughs at their reactions.

There's always a few who'll do that with animals, and I doubt T-america is so good they have totally eliminated that kind of behaviour. (reduce yes, certainly, but not gone completely.)

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

That Guy does not get a warning and a couple of community classes. That Guy gets a visit from the cops and an opportunity to explain to a judge why he thinks torturing people is funny.

It's one thing when dumb kids light fireworks, knowing damn well they shouldn't but not realizing how much trouble it could cause. It's quite another when someone lights fireworks with the intent of hurting people. That's assault at best and torture at worst. T-America takes such things very seriously. Feel free to prompt for it if you want to see the results.

I do know at least one incident of asshattery: local boys throwing bacon at one of the Muslim girls. 0_o They knew that Muslims dislike pork and that it's a mean prank. They had no idea that such things could be considered life-threatening or that nutjobs elsewhere use it as a death threat to drive away Muslims.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>They had no idea that such things could be considered life-threatening...<<

Allergies? Spiritual injury? Or am I missing something?

I hope that someone shuts down that harassment real quick... Solidarity for the win!

(I'm a bit more irritable than usual about guys-hassling-girls-in-public today.)

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Allergies? Spiritual injury? Or am I missing something? <<

Throwing pork products at Muslims is a popular way of telling them to get out or die, in countries with religious unrest that often turns violent.

>> I hope that someone shuts down that harassment real quick... Solidarity for the win! <<

Oh yeah.

>> (I'm a bit more irritable than usual about guys-hassling-girls-in-public today.) <<

Feel free to ask for quashing that in any relevant prompt call. Tuesday's theme will be "Fantastic Queerness."

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Throwing pork products at Muslims is a popular way of telling them to get out or die, in countries with religious unrest that often turns violent.<<

That is...unpleasant, but makes sense. For some reason I was imagining how bacon would /literally/ kill someone...

>>Feel free to ask for quashing that in any relevant prompt call.<<

Oh, I'm just extra grumpy today because a) some guy was being obnoxious at the store yesterday and b) my reaction was 'rude!' instead of being creeped out...which indicates I see that sort of behavior as normal.

And he (and half the people in the store) were being rude to the staff by ignoring a certain policy posted at the door. (I used to work retail; I know retailese for "We want X but can't actually enforce the boundary.")

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> That is...unpleasant, but makes sense. For some reason I was imagining how bacon would /literally/ kill someone... <<

Allergic reaction to additives is possible, as is slipping on the greasy stuff and falling. But those are nowhere near as common as the bigoted uses.

>> Oh, I'm just extra grumpy today because a) some guy was being obnoxious at the store yesterday and b) my reaction was 'rude!' instead of being creeped out...which indicates I see that sort of behavior as normal. <<

Yeah, civility is long gone.

>> And he (and half the people in the store) were being rude to the staff by ignoring a certain policy posted at the door. (I used to work retail; I know retailese for "We want X but can't actually enforce the boundary.") <<

Owning a store does not grant legal authority or right to make decisions about anyone else's life. The manager may make demands of employees but not customers. If it's not enforceable by law, it's just a request that people are free to ignore. Either side picking a fight about it is rude. The polite thing is to post a sign on the front, making clear that it is a request and not a law.

I've seen stores making more and more offensive intrusions on people's lives, which causes problems. In one case, Wal-Mart was trying to search everyone's cart to compare items against receipts, which pissed off basically everyone. Stores routinely demand phone numbers and become angry if refused. On and on. So if someone ignores a sign that isn't a law, I don't really have any sympathy for the store.

Consider also that, while it is a hardship to be unable to buy things locally because a customer disagrees with a store's behavior, there are now many more other options. People can and do buy things online instead. If stores and customers can't get along, there will simply cease to be many stores. That would really suck, because lots of things are harder or impossible to buy online where you can't feel them. But that is where the trend is heading, so store owners should be careful about squabbling with customers. It doesn't excuse anyone picking on each other, but does highlight that if people want stores to continue existing, both owners and customers will need to make choices with that in mind.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Allergic reaction to additives is possible, as is slipping on the greasy stuff and falling.<<

And cholesterol.

>>Owning a store does not grant legal authority or right to make decisions about anyone else's life.<<

Stores [and schools and government institutions and doctor's offices and...] can have policies like "wear shoes, because of broken glass" or "please keep out of this area, because private/danger" which I think are reasonable, even if not enshrined in law. Something like "everyone who shops here must dress like a clown" would be ridiculous, even if it were/is legal.

I don't know enough about law to know the exactly specifications of what is technically allowed or not.

Though I do think safety issues should get extra consideration, even if only from an ettiquite standpoint. (Think scent-free office, quiet shopping hour, wearing shoes in a pottery shop, etc.)

>>So if someone ignores a sign that isn't a law, I don't really have any sympathy for the store.<<

You have a point. For your examples: I don't think the receipt thing makes sense. Insisting on phone numbers might make sense for a members-only store (to pull up the accounts), but not for other stores. (Although not getting enough signups in that case is often blamed on the employees, which I don't think is fair either.)

My reaction is more emotional. Basically
1) Consent is important
2) Store employees often are not allowed to say no to customers
3) It is polite to respect other people's boundaries
4) If someone cannot say no it is the duty of the person with more power to respect the boundary.

Or in other words, if I [as a customer] get a "We'd prefer if..." from someone who can't outright say no, I should at least give it extra consideration.

Imagine a situation where a waitress asks a kid to stop running in the aisles, the kid doesn't and gets tripped over, and the waitress gets blamed.

(And I didn't actually say anything to the guy. It didn't seem worth more effort than irritable mental grumbling. And again, like half the other people there were ignoring the policy...)

I guess overall we should try to respect each other, and listen to different viewpoints. Usually, all people have some good points, and one person can't forsee all potential problems by themself.

I don't know for sure if this all makes sense. I think it does, but everyone says that about the inner workings of their mind, so...YMMV?

...I hope I have expressed my thoughts politely and inoffensively.

And if you have further thoughts on this I am interested in hearing them.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Stores [and schools and government institutions and doctor's offices and...] can have policies like "wear shoes, because of broken glass" or "please keep out of this area, because private/danger" which I think are reasonable, even if not enshrined in law. Something like "everyone who shops here must dress like a clown" would be ridiculous, even if it were/is legal. <,

Some of those are laws and others aren't. However, even the sensible-looking laws have drawbacks.

Suppose folks want to get rid of the homeless, a popular goal. What is the easiest way to do that? Steal their shoes and clothes. Now the poor sod is committing a crime, public indecency, simply by existing in a body without the financial resources to purchase clothing -- and would not be allowed in any establishment whatsoever even if they had money. Further consider that shoe theft is routine in the homeless community anyhow because they wear out so fast and nobody can afford to replace theirs.

>> Though I do think safety issues should get extra consideration, even if only from an ettiquite standpoint. <<

Safety does get extra weight. Consideration? I would bet that people rarely or never give it that, due to the prevalence of solution-caused problems. They only look at what they want, what's right in front of them, without thinking about other implications.

>> (Think scent-free office, quiet shopping hour, wearing shoes in a pottery shop, etc.) <<

Safety precautions like "hardhat area" tend to be sensible, effective, and practical. Not always, but at least often enough to worth respecting most of the time, if you put some thought into whether or not a given rule is worthwhile.

A quiet shopping hour is a good example of a rule where the benefits outweigh the costs and risks. It expands the number of people who can use the facility but probably does not deny anyone access.

A scent-free office is a prime example of a hazardous rule that does a lot of harm which most people simply don't think about. It would literally never occur to them, even though some of it is ubiquitous. Let's take a look at some of the issues.

* It adds to a number of already very dangerous precedents about one person having any say over what another person puts on or in their body. Remember that every weapon you use in politics is a weapon in your enemy's hand. If they can forbid you to wear scents, they can force you to wear scents. If they can force you to wear shoes, they can forbid you to wear hijab. If they can forbid you to have an abortion, they can force you to have an abortion. The details don't matter; only the power and the deciders matter. Once you've given up control of your own body, you're screwed, because sooner or later -- probably sooner -- other people will make decisions for it that you don't like, or possibly can't survive. It usually takes a revolution to recover lost freedoms. That is alarming in a society that is stripping away personal freedom and privacy at increasing speed.

* It fails the "reasonable accommodations" standard. It is not reasonable to force people to behave as if they have a disability which they do not. For example, it is reasonable to add a ramp or elevator alongside the stairs to accommodate people in wheelchairs. It is not reasonable to remove the stairs because those are used by other people to maintain healthy activity levels or to navigate with balance issues and so on. Add, don't subtract.

* Nearly 100% of Americans have exactly zero tolerance for normal animal smells. Not their own, not another human's body, not a service dog farting. If you deny them the ability to cover smells, they will become extremely uncomfortable. Negative outcomes include:
- Avoiding the facility because it is humiliating and/or disgusting to them.
- Reporting the facility so persistently to the health board that it gets shut down due to the constant stream of complaints.
- Breaking the rule and then being ashamed of that or terrified of discovery.
- Saying cruel things to other people about their unavoidable bodily emissions.
- Self-loathing from being forced into public while feeling stinky and disgusting.
- Far subtler impacts of treating people as poor and dirty because their body has smells, such as which medical treatments or financial services are offered, choices that may even be below the conscious level and thus difficult or impossible to manage rationally.
- General unhappiness and grouchiness due to stress, which undermines health and also makes interactions more difficult and miserable.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Some people have an even harder time with this scenario than average.

* Some people's bodies exude smells beyond the usual range, which are distressing to them and/or other people. Extreme flatulence, bad breath, body odor, and sweating are examples. Sufferers may experience this as a life-wrecking problem due to the social disability it causes, even though the condition itself is not life-threatening. Anxiety, depression, and suicide are comorbid risks in some cases, more likely as severity increases.
- Most of the treatments for these problems also smell, but it is less distressing to self and others, so it is preferred. Some treatments actually solve a problem; others are just there to cover it up so it doesn't bother people as much.
- It is not reasonable to demand that these people give up treatment for their problems or avoid public places.

* Social anxiety is very common and becoming more so as civilization degrades. These people are extra-sensitive to pleasing others and to criticism. If you force them to stink, they will quite likely cease to function in that environment. All their energy will focus on how bad they smell (or think they smell) and what other people think about them. They will probably also be distressed by other people's smells and completely unable to address that issue in any way because the idea of confrontation shorts out their brain. And just to make things extra hellish, the more stress they feel, the more they sweat, so the more they stink, so the worse they feel.

* Probably less common, but nowhere near rare, are people who need to apply substances onto or into their body that affect smell.
- For example, many antibiotics cause the body to reek of mold for 1-2 weeks. Some other people are allergic to mold. This might be a physical or psychological problem for them.
- Almost all topical medications smell, and some of them smell downright horrible. The vast majority attempt to cover the medicinal stench with perfumes, which often just cause the stuff to stink of something else like flowers, and may render it unusuable to those who are allergic to artificial fragrances. One memorable example, Resinol, smells loudly of a campfire in the rain.
- People may feel distressed about these smells and need to cover them up with some other smell that is more socially acceptable.
- It is unreasonable to demand that people not use these products which are safe and effective for them, just because not everyone could use them.

* Some people are incontinent. This is universal among infants up to toddler age, a fairly common temporary problem in pregnancy due to pressure on the organs, and also fairly common in old age as body parts begin to break down. Some wheelchair users or other people with disabilties need equipment to accommodate eliminatory needs. People are extremely sensitive about these scents and nobody wants to smell them. Only so much can be done to contain them; mostly they have to be covered up with stronger, more pleasing fragrances. Consequently, not all of these products even have an unscented version, and they are not things that people can do without even briefly.

* The vast majority of Americans use personal care products. Almost all personal care products include scents to render the human body acceptable to the American public. This is a cultural thing, but it is overwhelmingly dominant and violating it can have consequences. Toothpaste, mouthwash, shaving cream, aftershave, shampoo, conditioner, soap, deodorant -- those are all things that many people consider necessary for health and presentability in public, and almost all of those things have different smells. People who choose not to use one or more of them for personal reasons (allergies, religion, feminism, etc.) can enlighten you about the social cost of not doing so.
- It is possible to find unscented versions. These are consistently more expensive than the commercial scented ones. Not everyone can find or afford unscented products.
- It is possible to make your own unscented personal care products in some categories. This requires intermediate to expert crafting skill, a lot of time, and equipment that you can't use for anything else. Not everyone can do this.
- Let's not forget that some people need different products. Do white people want to look at black people's natural hair? They do not, it makes them aggressive and sometimes violent. Do white people want to smell the harsh chemicals required to straighten nappy hair until flat? I sincerely doubt it, and black people prefer to cover it up too. (It is nobody's business what anyone else's hair is like, but that's an unpopular opinion too.)
- It is unreasonable to demand that people spend a lot of extra time, money, and effort on personal care products. It is also unreasonable to demand that people forgo personal care altogether.
- It would be helpful to make unscented, natural personal care products more widely available and affordable but this is not very compatible with current business practices.
- It would also be helpful to make unscented, natural personal care products freely available to employees at workplaces that seek to minimize smells. I have yet to see anyone else suggesting this. The closest reference I've seen was in a novel ... where the characters pointed out that said products were very expensive and hard to get. Other characters assisted in making them more available at a lower price.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

* Personal scent is intimately linked to identity. The body products, fragrances, laundry products, etc. that people choose create a collective effect even if someone does not also use a signature scent or varying mood-selected scents to create a specific effect.
- Denying this can cause or increase dysphoria, the feeling of not being at home in one's body. This discomfort can impair their interactions with others.
- This is much worse for people with sex/gender differences who may need to use products to accomplish things their body does not furnish naturally. In those cases it amounts to denying them a necessary means of rectifying a health condition.
- Less obviously, if someone fails to pass and a bigot clocks them, they might get beaten to death. That happens frequently to gender-variant people. Cosmetics, including fragrances, that are "nice to have" for cisgender people can be survival needs for transfolk.

* Almost all cleaning products smell. The stronger industrial ones reek. This is more than enough to affect most people with Multiple Chemical Sensitivity, and often it's enough to affect people with asthma, allergies, or other issues.
- It is possible to find unscented cleaning products for some but not all purposes. They tend to be weaker than stinky harsh chemicals. They are often more expensive and not always available.
- It is possible to make many cleaning products from less smelly, less dangerous ingredients. However, this requires extra time and skill, which not everyone has.
- It is against regulations, or in some cases laws, to use weaker cleaning agents or avoid using them where stronger ones are required.
- It would be helpful to make unscented, natural cleaning products more widely available and affordable but this is not very compatible with current business practices or some regulations.

So that one, simple-looking rule can create a whole host of negative outcomes only some of which quickly become clear as related to it (e.g. "I'm sorry, but I have to quit, my arthritis medication stinks and I can't move without it.").

The sensible version is "Don't douse yourself with perfume like a French whore." That's enough to avoid activating most health problems. The people with MCS or severe asthma? They're fucked anyway and there is no way to get around it, because people have saturated literally every inch of the planet's surface with numerous chemicals of questionable safety, and that is why we are having more problems with respiratory and other issues.

Now, if you have an office that treats those conditions, or a business run by people who are all sensitive, then you can try to make it as safe as possible for those people by minimizing less-necessary fragrances. But how are you going to deal with the laws that require health facilities to be cleaned with extremely harsh chemicals? What if a worker acquires a condition that needs smelly medication?

And how do you deal with public places like courthouses where people must go, but their needs are incompatible? The blind person needs their service dog but the asthmatic cannot breathe around a dog; the legally required cleaning chemicals cause the MCS sufferer to break out in hives and need an ambulance. Not necessarily all conditions can be accommodated in public places, and sadly, MCS is one that basically shuts people out of society. I would say, let people conduct their business from an environment that is safe and healthy for them, but that accommodation society is unwilling to make. (I would also say that saturating the Earth with chemicals was a poor life choice on humanity's part.) Another approach would be making scent-free trailer modules available for critical facilities such as courthouses or medical offices, but that would be expensive, and you'd need to provide a scent-free shower facility for employees to use before entering it. Nobody would go for that either. This makes me disbelieve the claims about inclusivity and respect, and suspect that people just go after what they see as desirable per usual.

The thing is, people are different and they have different needs. Whenever you force everyone to do the same thing, it will work well for some people, adequately for others, and badly or not at all for some. The questions you have to ask are: Who decides what will be done? Who is affected, and do those people have a say in the decisions made? Whose needs are accommodated and whose are erased? Who gets shut out or harmed? Is that number smaller, the same, or larger compared to those who were shut out or harmed by the previous situation? Is there a way to accommodate different needs, by using diverse methods or locations, rather than trying to force everyone into the same approach?

One size does not fit all, and pretending that it does can have nasty consequences. It is frequently impossible to find one solution that works for everyone, but it is usually possible to find a set of options from which most or all people can select one that works for them. The greatest flexibility occurs when people are free to solve their own problems, not restricted to solutions foisted on them by others; although it is very helpful to have a list of solutions known to work for some people, so that folks can try those instead of having to start from scratch.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

L-America cares fuckall about this, so it winds up facing a lot of what engineers call a solution-caused problem. Fixing one thing makes something else go wrong, and sometimes that is bigger than the original issue. Avoiding this type of issue requires thinking broadly and creatively, across multiple disciplines, which most modern Americans are trained not to do. Hence the prevalence.

>> I guess overall we should try to respect each other, and listen to different viewpoints. Usually, all people have some good points, and one person can't forsee all potential problems by themself. <<

That would be ideal. In fact, in Terramagne, people routinely staff planning committees and disability consulation boards as diversely as possible to maximize spotting problems in a proposal before it goes into effect. A diverse group including generalists and specialists, multiple races and genders, different socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. can usually come up with ideas that will work for as many people as possible with minimal drawbacks. And they typically do that by creating flexibility so individuals can accommodate their own needs without having to make a spectacle of it. You see that occasionally here, but it is far from the norm.

>> ...I hope I have expressed my thoughts politely and inoffensively. <<

Yeah, it's fine.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>Steal their shoes and clothes. Now the poor sod is committing a crime, public indecency, simply by existing in a body without the financial resources to purchase clothing -- and would not be allowed in any establishment whatsoever even if they had money. Further consider that shoe theft is routine in the homeless community anyhow because they wear out so fast and nobody can afford to replace theirs. <<

This reminds me of the whole toilet debate, and the sleeping in public debate – and I think if there is no legal option, one should not be prosecuted for taking an illegal option. It is not [should not be] a crime to exist!

Ideas for the Shoe Problem:

Sensible: Keep washable or cheap throwaway shoes outside buildings which require shoos. There is a college that does this, and I heard of a social services office that, some decades ago, did this because they had so many homeless clients without shoes.

Less Sensible: Ain’t no rule (so far as I know) against shoes made of cardboard.

Mess with the rules: And technically…just because the rules say you must have a shirt and shoes…doesn’t mean you can’t wear the shirt as a cape and use the shoes as a purse or something. Probably won’t work long term, but might be good for a protest…or just confusing someone long enough to get on with your life.

And yeah, I’ve got some cultural biases here – shoes are one thing but I’d prefer not to have shirtless (or pantsless!) people wandering through the grocery store. I don’t have a logical argument, its just… a cultural imprint.

>>Remember that every weapon you use in politics is a weapon in your enemy's hand. <<

Agree.

>>It is nobody's business what anyone else's hair is like, but that's an unpopular opinion too.<<

Do what you want with your hair.

>>It would also be helpful to make unscented, natural personal care products freely available to employees at workplaces that seek to minimize smells. I have yet to see anyone else suggesting this.<<
I have thought that a good solution for companies demanding their employees do more expensive stuff (like live somewhere with a spare room that can be converted to an office) could be nicely derailed with the question “So how do I get reimbursed for the extra $XXX?” (This is likely too disagreeable to actually work in most social settings, but hey, nice to keep in the back of my Skillset Storage Room.)

>>The sensible version is "Don't douse yourself with perfume like a French whore."<<

And watch out for strong-smelling bug sprays too – that came up in our household once.

>>Now, if you have an office that treats those conditions, or a business run by people who are all sensitive, then you can try to make it as safe as possible for those people by minimizing less-necessary fragrances.<<

I think individual groups should be able to set rules and cultural norms that work for them. But I’d say make sure that no-one is forced to stay, and try to be kind.

>>One size does not fit all, and pretending that it does can have nasty consequences. It is frequently impossible to find one solution that works for everyone, but it is usually possible to find a set of options from which most or all people can select one that works for them.<<

Usually I try to have a standard solution for any given problem, but I will try to incorporate other possible solutions as I hear of them or solve new problems.

For example: Use the steps and door to go inside (nope, in a wheelchair) -> install a wheelchair ramp (nope, no space / money / permission) -> install a temporary folding wheelchair ramp (good but hasn’t arrived yet) -> either carry person up stairs or person moves self up stairs without walking (choice depending on mobility and availability of helpers).

Then I end up with a variety of possible solutions to problems, including problems which do not necessarily affect me directly. But I don’t know everything (and smart as I am, I never will know everything), so I still try to learn new solutions as they come up.

>>Avoiding this type of issue requires thinking broadly and creatively, across multiple disciplines, which most modern Americans are trained not to do. Hence the prevalence.<<
>>A diverse group including generalists and specialists, multiple races and genders, different socioeconomic backgrounds, etc. can usually come up with ideas that will work for as many people as possible with minimal drawbacks.<<

So generally:

1) Don’t insist on one solution for everyone.

2) Try and troubleshoot / crowdsource for potential problems to even innocuous-seeming rules before implementing them.

3) Respect other people, their challenges, and their perspectives.

I’ll also add the caveat that people with more societal power should ideally make the effort to be gentle with and listen to people who may have less power.

>>Yeah, it's fine.<<

Thanks. (I usually try to be nice; hopefully I succeed most of the time.)

And thank you for taking the time to discuss this. I appreciate your trying to troubleshoot society.

:)

[(Anonymous)]

And the inevitable "What happened to your face?" discussion.

In our world, at least, some jerk might try to use that as anti-immigrant propaganda. Hopefully Terramagne is more sane...

Myself, I'd ideally give a matter-of-fact explanation. "PTSD flashback to a bombing,' is unusual and specific enough that it probably won't flag as a coverup.

(Granted I'm female; me getting tackled by on overprotective guy would have a different set of social baggage and/or problems, and I'm more familiar with those.)

Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> And the inevitable "What happened to your face?" discussion. <<

Oscar: "Remember how I keep telling people not to light fireworks outside of planned events?"

Nosy person: "Yeah, you're always nagging everyone about that."

Oscar: *points at face* "This would be why. Because sometimes that gets people hurt."

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

A good way to shut down someone complaining about immigrants:

[Irritable] "Well why don't they just stay where they were?"

[Bland voice] "Well, someone dropped a bomb on their house."

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

And yes, this is a true story.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

Not just once, but in fact, repeatedly and routinely true.

Refugees are often rejected for "telling the same store." What, like only one person gets gang-raped or their house blown up or threatened with the same slurs? That's why it's called a war zone, dumbasses. This stuff happens all over.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

I (not a refugee) heard it from refugees, and then had the above conversation with someone who wasn't a refugee.

I also used it as an explanation for why we were missing ... something ... which resulted in getting the human version of an error message.

I also have a sexism version; the gentle version of which:

[A guy] "Sexism doesn't exist!"

"Oh, okay, so how often do people have conversations while oogling your chest, then?"

[Annoyed] "Oh, shaddup."

(I think this was the same conversation where I explained that I believe black people about racism because of my experiences with sexism...especially when guys say that sexism is a thing of the past.)

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>>I also used it as an explanation for why we were missing ... something ... which resulted in getting the human version of an error message.<<

I am greatly bothered by the degree to which modern humans emulate robots, and indeed, are required to do so if they want to keep a job and therefore continue surviving. They're literally trained not to solve problems but to follow a rote list. So problems don't get solved, and folks generally learn that asking for help is often pointless.

>>(I think this was the same conversation where I explained that I believe black people about racism because of my experiences with sexism...especially when guys say that sexism is a thing of the past.)<<

Most people go by their own lived experience. Learning to substitute someone else's or knowledge gained from a book is a different skill that not everyone has. Going against your own instincts is even harder. Like, I know intellectually that some people have difficulty reading and therefore hate it. Me, I love it so much that I have to mentally translate, "Pretend it's math." Then I can think, okay, there are workarounds for math, what can I do to minimize the barriers for this person in text? So I would do things like look at the reference books to find the page in the index with relevant entries, and say, "Here, there are topics you need on this page." That lightens the workload without doing everything for them.

Of course, with racism and sexism, those are easily proven with facts. If they were in the past, we would not presently have huge gaps in pay based on those factors. This is something that could easily be fixed by requiring that everyone doing the same job get the same base pay, and that increases be granted only for objective reasons like "after 1 year, everyone gets a $0.50/hour raise" or "employees with a perfect safety record get $25 extra for that quarter." (It wouldn't solve the problem of disliked groups getting shut out of decent jobs, but at least would cut the same-job gaps.) That people choose not to make this simple change means that they prefer discrimination. It is something that any company could fix if they cared to, and indeed, a few have. Most don't.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>I am greatly bothered by the degree to which modern humans emulate robots,...<<

Well, at least she was polite about being thrown off-script.

That was the role where half the work I did was either teaching people scripts or working around scripts that didnt fit.

>>So problems don't get solved, and folks generally learn that asking for help is often pointless.<<

In my case "I gave up on trying to fix this six months back, you try thinking of solutions. And then I'll refuse any I've already tried, / don't think will work."

>>Of course, with racism and sexism, those are easily proven with facts.<<

Then you get people who think such a system is already in place, so, say racial prison disparities or the gender wage gap are because of individuals making bad choices (their argument not mine), not a slightly biased system with cumulative effects.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> In my case "I gave up on trying to fix this six months back, you try thinking of solutions. And then I'll refuse any I've already tried, / don't think will work." <<

That is a logical way to avoid wasting energy.

It also makes people claim that you "don't want help," despite the fact that help is not actually available.

>>Then you get people who think such a system is already in place, so, say racial prison disparities or the gender wage gap are because of individuals making bad choices (their argument not mine), not a slightly biased system with cumulative effects.<<

That probably looks a lot like the disparity in perception vs. reality of economic inequality.

I will say, if you're trying to adjust someone else's deep-seated beliefs, those are load-bearing walls more often than not. A person with flexible beliefs will be able to cite examples and evidence in support of theirs, and to argue rationally about your examples and evidence; this suggests that sufficient evidence could change their mind, so it's not attached such that changes would routinely be destructive. A person with inflexible beliefs is prone to collapse if those beliefs are disrupted. Therefore, in dealing with less-flexible people, you need to consider whether it is justified to smash their reality tunnel. If someone is attacking me or mine, I will not hesitate to do damage that modern medicine is not well equipped to repair. But for a trivial offense, that would be excessive force.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

We're in each others lives for the time being and we genuinely like/respect each other (mutual confusion over belief standards nonwithstanding); but I definitely don't want to break them (for a couple different reasons).

It's interesting figuring out how other people's concept of the world works, and learning about different people's views can be useful.

That said I may end up looking up some religious quotes just in case I ever need them (like that "shake the dust from your feet" one from a rather famous holy book); and there are a few occasions where I would really dig in and fight for keeps. (Mostly if I were protecting someone.) I might give a very clear warning first.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> We're in each others lives for the time being and we genuinely like/respect each other (mutual confusion over belief standards nonwithstanding); but I definitely don't want to break them (for a couple different reasons). <<

In that case, be very careful about introducing ideas that could be destructive, because this stuff can easily break people. It sucks to find out that you've been acting like an asshole or that your parents taught you something wrong and harmful.

However, if your friend is decent and open-minded, you can likely alert him to sexism so he can help dismantle it.

* Introduce the concept of lived experience and talk about how, in general, two people can have quite different experiences at the same event.

* Drop examples of sexism one at a time. Like, "I'm annoyed that our City Council has no women on it at all" or "I read an article about women getting paid less for the same job" or "John slapped Mary's butt at work and it was Mary who got fired."

* Observe, or ask about, ways in which sexism makes men's lives harder. Frex, they are discouraged from talking about or displaying emotions, not taught how to handle other people's feelings either, and are often viewed with distrust.

Ignorance and disbelief are a lot easier to fix than someone thinking that sexism is a good idea.

>>It's interesting figuring out how other people's concept of the world works, and learning about different people's views can be useful.<<

I agree.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

Its a couple of different people with similar viewpoints. The bigger topics of debate lately are usually racism (especially recent protest movements) and healthcare, but abortion and LGBTQIA+ rights have come up occasionally too. I try to find things in them we'd agree on even if they're very basic and obvious things.

Sexism... I can speak from experience. Trying to be an ally for some of the others... I try to present these issues well, and accurately. (I hope I succeed.)

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Its a couple of different people with similar viewpoints. The bigger topics of debate lately are usually racism (especially recent protest movements) and healthcare, but abortion and LGBTQIA+ rights have come up occasionally too.<<

Facts are occasionally useful, at least in terms of disproving "X does not exist." But to get people to do anything you have to move them emotionally, which is harder.

>> I try to find things in them we'd agree on even if they're very basic and obvious things.<<

Good idea.

A very relevant one for racism: "If rational methods do not solve a problem, people will move on to less rational methods. So if you want them to use rational ones, you must make sure those work." But white people will ignore and abuse black people until there's a riot, and then whine about the riot.

>> Sexism... I can speak from experience. Trying to be an ally for some of the others... I try to present these issues well, and accurately. (I hope I succeed.) <<

As far as I can tell, you're doing a lot more to fix those problems than most people are.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>A very relevant one for racism: "If rational methods do not solve a problem, people will move on to less rational methods. So if you want them to use rational ones, you must make sure those work." <<

I think I mentioned that - if people's needs are unmet, and they don't feel listened to they will escalate, and I'm tired of race riots.

Variants I have used:

Firstly, if whitefolk can ignore anti-racist protests because some folk are violent, then I can ignore anti-abortion protests because some are violent. (I am on the opposite side of that argument, so folks have an interest in not agreeing to "dismiss argument because some people are too agressive.")

Secondly: I do not want any more dead children, this is my minimum standard. We should be able to agree that dead children, and/or a world where children being on the street at night = death sentence is bad.

So. Someone fix it. We can fix it by talking and reform. We can fix it by redefining the duties of the police. And while defunding/eliminating police completely (and replacing with something else) is not my first choice, if dead children are the alternative and more moderate solutions have failed, I will escalate to that.

And these people know I am a calm, rational person. So hopefully if I am willing to take extreme measures as a "this isn't working, f this" last choice*...

*For the record, I'm not violent, I tend towards the pacifist side of the scale, and I'd rather not rip up the society I'm standing in. But I am allowed to be angry at injustices, and I am tired of the "Its okay, now shut up and let me hurt you - why are you fighting me" nonsense from people in power.

Re: Well ...

[(Anonymous)]

>>As far as I can tell, you're doing a lot more to fix those problems than most people are.<<

Thanks.

I think...we need to maintain civil discourse (in both senses of the term) between different people.

Realistically, I should just...give up. But I've got just enough hope that I keep trying. (Plus, if people will listen to me, maybe I have a duty to do something. Nor do I want my friends to get mangled by the system.)

And my goals are hopefully humble enough that maybe they'll work. I don't need to make a rose plant into soft moss - I just need enough change that the roseplant doesn't accidentaly slice somebody up.

Re: Well ...

[kengr]

It's *amazing* the difference personal experience makes.

Two examples.

1. In an online chat I changed my handle to someone that could be *perceived* as female (if you *really* weren't paying attention). And I got immediately bombarded with private messages ranging from annoying to ...

2. Due to poor planning I had to walk half a mile on dark streets from a local TV/TG group meeting to a bus stop. While en femme. When I encountered a group of guys, I suddenly understood *exactly* how women walking alone at night feel.

Intellectual knowledge is one thing, but stuff like that goes clear to your *bones*.

Though the incidents have also proved useful in explaining things to other folks. Telling someone that women are afraid of assault is one thing. Telling them how *you* were afraid of rape or *worse* and why tends to get thru a *bit* better.

Alas, you still get a lot of the unspoken "I belong to [class] so I don't have to worry about that" attitude. Though it does help if you can get them to realize that they *have* that attitude even if they weren't consciously aware of it.

Re: Well ...

[ysabetwordsmith]

>> Alas, you still get a lot of the unspoken "I belong to [class] so I don't have to worry about that" attitude. Though it does help if you can get them to realize that they *have* that attitude even if they weren't consciously aware of it. <<

You might point out that all privilege exists only because other people give it. If they decide to withhold it, then it vanishes. Frex, skin privilege is not indelible like people say it is. All you have to do is support people of color and it switches from "white" to "n*gg*r-lover." Similarly, it doesn't matter how cishet you are if some bigot thinks that you look like a gay, trans, or other target of choice. Facts will not protect you from a nutjob.

Re: Well ...

[kengr]

Well, the specific aspect I was thinking of is that men (in general) cannot *conceive* of getting raped. getting them to *seriously* consider the possibility that a very big hammer.

And the barrier is almost as bad with respect to whites and cops. They can't believe that cops would treat *them* that way. So it's a big shock when they wind up on the wrong side of cops. And of course, for most, that isn't going to happen.

Heck, that's likely one of the reasons for the *huge* reaction in "the North" when those white civil rights workers were killed in Mississippi back in the 60s. Folks "expected" bad things to happen to "blacks" down there. Having them happen to *white* was a major shock.

Of course in the South, they weren't "whites" they were (as you said) "n*gg*r-lovers".