He's comparing our lifestyle to people dressed as insects?
Maybe they dress as insects every day?
These two sound annoying, but what's with the dress code for enjoying a garden? It'll traumatise the other patrons?
Giant bumblebees confuse the plants.
Probably trying to stop people from doing elaborate photo/video things that get in the way of others. Or they're afraid somebody in a costume will be taken for an employee.
What I read in the other place is that they're sick of people using it for photoshoots and taking up all the space and not letting other patrons through.
To be clear, I didn't read anything. I just reasoned from first principles.
He didn't like that idea at all. "If you would just put on some of our old staff uniforms you could stay, but if you look like that--" He sneeringly gestured at us. "If you wear those costumes, then people will assume you work here." The staff had repeatedly denied our own identities, denied that our clothes were real clothes and kept insisting they were costumes; now John Tomlinson was demanding that we play-act being a staff menial all day? And his reason for demanding that we play-act being one of their staff was so that people wouldn't think we were on the staff? Seriously? There were so many different levels of irony and hypocrisy to this I didn't even know where to start.
While they have a reasonable point about confusion there, "a staff menial" gets a massive fuck off.
From a single asshole a logician could infer the possibility of a bunch of assholes getting in the way of others.
7.last: Probably authentically Victorian.
9: Yeah, and so's forced emigration to Australia for being a little shithead, but you don't see them self-deporting.
Maybe that's what they were trying to do in Canada?
At Disneyland, you can wear a costume up to age 14. Then, no more costumes, presumably because they don't want 100,000 slutty Jasmines and slutty Ariels around the kids. Disneyland is Victorian fuckers free!
What unbearably precious, awful-sounding people. This is what you get when you indulge "steampunk" without dropping a People's Elbow on the perpetrators, and World, let that be a lesson to you.
But that Burchart Gardens policy sounds stupid.
The staff had repeatedly denied our own identities
That quote makes me want to print up a bunch of "I Deny Your Identity Motherfucker!" t-shirts.
I guess that makes me a terrible person. But I'm OK with that.
Not to even like, engage in their discourse but also one could dress in era-appropriate clothing and look fussy but not obviously costumed. I am sure this misses the point somehow.
Yeah, mixed feelings all around. These people are assholes. I think it's kind of a dumb policy although I understand why they have it. It does raise concerns about treating other people's cultural identities, especially when said identity isn't causing you any real harm. Obviously that matters for genuinely oppressed people, while this is entirely the result of privilege. But it should matter regardless of oppression, no? So that leads me to thinking about how long a cultural behavior must exist before it's something we treat as a cultural identity and no longer just a personal quirk. Two generations? Ignore me, I'm babbling, but this is an annoying edge case that I can't square with my intuitions.
Alas, men in neck beards like those are all too often not costumed.
It does seem unfair that they don't let in people in costumes. I know a bunch of cosplayers and sometimes on a trip they'll walk away from the convention center and go to the aquarium or botanical garden or something. If it's become a constant pattern I guess they could need to crack down.
What if the Pseudo-Victorians had tried challenging the costume policy and promising not to do whatever it is they are afraid of costumed people doing? Instead of saying "What? Costumes? Dear heavens, good sir, we're not wearing costumes! And frankly we resent any such insulting implication" as they no doubt delight in doing 10 times a day.
I'm already deeper into dorsetlife.co.uk than I can really afford to be, I'm supposed to be wrapping up loose ends before a trip but this is a loose end I didn't even know existed until now.
I think the OP's "Why the fuck would the dude at the admissions counter know the slightest thing about you and Gabriel?" covers it best.
"Don't you know who I am?" is never a good thing to say when you are trying to deal with somebody in the service industry, but it is especially a bad thing to say when who you are is both deeply pointless and nearly universally unknown.
If the businesses/museums at the inner harbor in Baltimore had No Costumes policies they'd lose a fair bit of business. Every summer there are multiple conventions that leave the area swarmed with cosplayers. They've all seemed less obnoxious than the people in the article, though.
This week's heros, as of Thursday, August 18, 2016:
(1) Bryan from admissions
(2) Kevin Cole, Staff Writer, Omaha World-Herald
15/20: I vaguely recall they made clear that they want to be the Victorian upper class, not the Victorian lower class. Because they're not fucking menials, for shame. *swoons*
I'm reminded of something Cordelia says a few times in the Vorkosigan books, something about how liberals/progressives/believers in democracy are just fine with aristocracy if they get to be aristocrats.
23 - I was (for real) in line for a ride on a miniature train with my two year old, and the couple ahead of me was trying to het their dog on the train, which was against the rules. They pulled "do you know who this dog is? He's kind of a celebrity dog. Can we speak to your manager?"
Apparently they have a website that shows the dog in different settings. Elderly mini-train volunteer let them take pictures of the celebrity dog on the train but not ride on it when moving. I wanted more firm leadership from EMTV.
15 is right. It's not like they're dressed up like a randomly selected person from the 1890s. They're dressed up like people from a particular subculture, and that subculture happens to be predominantly known for rich, proudly imperialist, classist twits.
Godwin-violating analogy time: I don't have a problem with all Jews, just with ultro-orthodox Jews who feel entitled to delay flights and inconvenience people in other ways because their religion instructs them not to sit next to women. Likewise, I don't have a problem with all people from the 1890s, just with people from the 1890s who are rich proudly imperialist, classist twits.
the couple ahead of me was trying to het their dog on the train
"I'm sorry, but we have a queer-dogs-only policy. No exceptions."
You can't wear victorian costumes for fear of being mistaken for staff, but you can wear extra staff uniforms? What?
15: see also most of Shoreditch, where you could walk around in full Edwardian dress and not stand out from the crowd at all.
Or, indeed, people all over the western U.S., who dress pretty much in 19th century clothing every day (jeans, boots, stockman's leather jacket, hat).
The no costumes policy is silly. If you want a no photoshoots policy, then you should have one. But people in modern dress are also quite capable of getting in other people's way while taking photos of each other. And it is virtually impossible to draw a hard line between costume and non-costume. What would, say, full evening dress with white tie be? A kilt? A sarong? A kimono?
And the "you are denying my identity!" thing is equally annoying. "Don't you realise that I self-identify as a Victorian-American? Stop microaggressing!"
I knew a guy who dressed almost like the guy at This Victorian Life. I think his goal was to look like D.H. Lawrence. Same facial hair as D.H. Lawrence. Sometimes in a suit and tie but usually he was casual D.H. Lawrence in a cardigan and beret. This was when he was a young graduate student. Now that he is an actual classics professor he apparently dresses normally! Weird world.
The D. H. Lawrence look is a pretty good look. Old-fashioned and dressier at every level of formality than normal today, but it still looks good and not costumey. Especially works now that beards are more in fashion.
29: were I an investment banker, I would make it my only goal in life to broker a merger deal between Cisco and Transco.
Which is probably a large part of the reason you're not an investment banker.
I'm intrigued that U. Alberta has a building called the Tory Building. Does it also have New Democrat, Parti Quebecois and Liberal buildings?
I'd say the "no costumes" policy sounds arbitrary but not crazy. If we grant that a "no photoshoots" policy is reasonable (maybe necessary, maybe not, but definitely within the bounds of not being crazy), then how would you enforce it? Everyone who has a smartphone has a camera. So instead they enforce the part that their staff can see.
I would agree that offering them staff uniforms was illogical. Accuse the staff of being flustered, I guess, but who cares? I can't blame the Christmans for being a little annoyed at the fact that some of the things they paid for were non-refundable, but that's definitely a reasonable and common policy. The fact that they whined until they got a full refund, and asked to have their bus fare refunded, was clearly disproportionate. Comparisons between Victorian attire and Amish or Muslim attire are a common, stupid, and offensive kind of frivolity. (So I'll give them credit for staying in character, I guess.)
I note that that blog post has 147 comments, every single one supporting them. I was rethinking my assumptions about customer service and how big this subculture was until I skimmed to the end and saw that the comments are moderated. There's probably a relation between those two facts. I wonder if someone could phrase a critical reply politely enough for them to permit it, or just cleverly enough for them to not notice it. I feel sorry for Butchart Gardens.
I feel sorry for Breitbart Gardens.
but you can wear extra staff uniforms? What?
Dude was brainstorming a solution trying to help these people out. He shouldn't be getting shit for that.
They're from Port Townsend, not Portland. Not that they'd be out of place here; insufferable hipsters barely merit an eyeroll in my neighborhood.
Ajay has it right in 31.3. It would be interesting to test the policy with progressively outré attire. I'm guessing that a zoot suit would fall somewhere along the boundary.
No offense to 31 was intended in 37, just to the neo-Victorians.
it is virtually impossible to draw a hard line between costume and non-costume. What would, say, full evening dress with white tie be? A kilt? A sarong? A kimono?
The goal of the "no costumes" policy seems to be to prevent photoshoots, outside specifically planned and authorized events. Presumably they'd make case-by-case determinations about whether the people dressed in those ways were likely to spend 20 minutes getting in the way of staff and other guests posing in front of choice sites. A guy with a kilt and a Scottish accent, otherwise dressed practically and unobtrusively for a walk? Presumably he'd be welcome. A guy with a kilt, this t-shirt, an American accent, and a bunch of fraternity brothers? Presumably he wouldn't.
26 If I know anything about the Victorian upper class it's that they would TOTALLY dress up like the Victorian lower class for fun, so still.
42: this is a good point. Queen Victoria used to go for walks with her family in the Highlands, dressed incognito as lower-class Scots. (See "Flashman in the Great Game", I think.)
41: I still think a "don't get in other people's way with your damn photoshoots" rule would be far better. A garden with someone in costume in it is, ceteris paribus, slightly more interesting than one without.
I don't think being interesting is the point of Canada.
32 When I was at a certain Ivy in grad school there was a prof who came into the NELC department who dressed like a Victorian. The first time I saw him he was walking down the street dressed like Sherlock fucking Holmes. Deerstalker cap, cape, walking stick, the whole deal. He goes on digs dressed like, well, take a look.
He caused a major scandal which effectively destroyed one of the oldest NELC departments in the country when he had an affair with an undergrad who later went on to become his grad student, did an 800 page PhD in 3 years, and then started a tenure track job all in the same department. She's basically the spitting image of wife #1 who modeled her look on Louise Brooks.
15: oo, the snaths.
Port Townsend is probably one of the better inspirations for Stephenson's Neo-Vics, not for the architecture that they've turned into a tourist draw but for the artisans. For decades its had a few world-class craftspeople; string bow making, sail tailoring, several kinds of boat making. Good access to cheap shed space and the last superb wood, and fairly steady semiskilled wood labor to get going on. But the aristocrats were supposed to stay in Medina or at least Capitol Hill.
The best line:
On the ride back to town, I quietly recited Rudyard Kipling's poem, "If"
43 - more likely, they don't want people looking like semi-official representatives of the garden/authorized photo-opportunity attractions. It's a private mass-tourism attraction, not a public park, and they presumably don't want random costumed folks who they can't control to be a main attraction. Unless the garden is also run by horrible racists the same concerns wouldn't extend to wearing a dashiki or kimono or whatever.
But it should matter regardless of oppression, no?
Should it?
My strict "no such thing as 'identity' as popularly conceived (to the extent that there is a single popular conception)" policy, while perhaps overly proviso'd, is looking better and better to me.
Apparently nice restaurants deal with this stuff somewhat regularly. Seems to be a bunch of people with cameras calling themselves professional photographers who are obnoxious and try to use places for free for their photoshoots.
Also, I think 15 is not really missing the point. Clothes are costumes, and their decision to dress as a particular sort of Victorian is hardly irrelevant.
Clothes are costumes
I can't be the only one commenting here who refers to the articles he wears when preparing to turn into an asleep person as his "sleeping costume".
52: Possibly the only one who wasn't influenced on it and bathing costumes by Peppa Pig's malign influence.
I suppose that's rather a lot of influence to attribute to a cartoon. Sorry!
52 assumes facts not in evidence.
I was going to say that Nosflow's use of "sleeping costume" made hin slappable but I don't want to come out in favor of slapping Peppa Pig-influenced children.
Fuck Peppa, but Kipper the Dog is crazy soothing & like, a true balm for grief.
58: don't worry, my use is not derived from Peppa Pig.
I'm not sure if my children do say "sleeping costume," but I'll ask. All of this is inferior to Mara's two summers insisting on "babing suits" to swim.
I say "bathing suit" and it really confuses Ace, who inevitably thinks I said "baby suit" and either gets very insulted or starts trying to put her swimming costume on Rascal.
I have pored over more Victorian cabinet cards from costume balls than any sane person should, and assert that they dressed up not as their own lower classes but as exotic peasants from foreign parts, eg France or Scotland. Also, the comedy value of Grecian draperies over late Vic corsetry is high.
I wonder if photoshoot people, especially amateur photoshoot people, tend to rumpus over the plants.
"babing suits"
Ahimsub, once, years ago, sitting in a park on a fine afternoon in Hayes Valley, I turned to my café- and park-going companion intending to remark on all the people milling about on the grass and benches and whatnot wearing summer dresses, but instead of saying "look at all the people in their summer dresses", I said "look at all the pieces in their summer dresses", and she (my companion at the park and, earlier, at a café) has remembered this misspeech to this very day.
From a single asshole a logician could infer the possibility of a bunch of assholes getting in the way of others.
See, you begin in the reasoning-from-first-principles racket, and next thing you know, you're having to make ends meet working as a proktospex.
I take "Anyone who knows the slightest thing about Gabriel and me" to be directed at the reader, not the attendant. Because the alternative would be crazy, and principle of charity and all that.
I take "Anyone who knows the slightest thing about Gabriel and me" to be directed at the reader, not the attendant. Because the alternative would be crazy, and principle of charity and all that.
Comparisons between Victorian attire and Amish or Muslim attire are a common, stupid, and offensive kind of frivolity.
I was think there's more to say on that point, actually. The reason that comparisons to Amish or Muslim attire have force is that there are active and visibly unjust laws limiting those forms of dress -- "the law discriminates against Amish and Muslims and this informs our intuitions about how and why it is unfair to exclude people based on dress." But (to use an example which came up on CT recently) if you were to make a different analogy and say that "no costumes" is similar to "no shoes, no shirt, no service" it would suggest that there was much less moral weight to objecting to a "no costumes" rule. It's worth taking a moment to figure out which analogy is more relevant.
Their claim is that they resemble the examples of Muslim or Amish dress because their choice of attire is non-optional and core to their identity. That claim has been disputed in this thread (and isn't one I'm very sympathetic to). But I think it also matters how frequently they run into this sort of issue. If this is the only time (or one of a handful of times) that they've been denied service somewhere then I understand why they're upset with Butchart Gardens, but I wouldn't take seriously the claim that this is a civil rights issue (even a claim which is implied by their choice of analogy). If this does happen fairly frequently then, by contrast, I'm more sympathetic to their claim that their experience is demonstrative of the ways in which society discriminates among people who don't fit in but, at the same time, it would imply that Butchart Gardens wasn't behaving in ways which should be surprising to them -- disappointing and infuriating, but not surprising if this is a common occurrence.
Which is to say that one natural response to them is DSquared's comment that contrarians shouldn't be whiners -- if one is choosing to live in a deliberately idiosyncratic way, it shouldn't be surprising if some people react badly.
That's not an answer that lends itself to a hard-and-fast rule -- it's unclear where the distinction between, "some people behaving badly; no big deal" and "systematic discrimination against the way we want to live our lives" but the distinction nevertheless matters.
I see all kinds of people dressed Amishly. Or Muslimly. Or hard-core Jewishly.
That is to say, I have some sympathy for this paragraph:
"You know what the worst part is?" I asked, leaning against his support. "The absolute worst part is that every time something like this happens, I hear the voices --a whole chorus of voices-- of every single person who's told me they wish they could do something outside the mainstream, but they feel like they can't. This sort of thing is exactly why they feel that they can't. I hate it." My tears started flowing more heavily.
I do think people visibly doing things outside the mainstream have a lot of really awful interactions. But I also think that, people trying to do things outside the mainstream need at least a somewhat think skin -- precisely because there's a fair amount of awfulness it's worth having a sense of perspective and some conceptual vocabulary to distinguish between levels of obnoxiousness rather than labeling any inconvenience as awful.
I don't know enough about them to know where their experience falls. They may have thought about these things. But, just in general, there are lots of examples of middle-class white people reacting with, "how can they possibly treat me like this?" to the sorts of slights that visible minorities encounter all the time, and that's Not Helpful.
A little late to the party, but my understanding is that one reason the Butchart Gardens bans costumes is to make it easier to limit people sneaking in the ashes of loved ones to deposit them beneath favorite flowers, groves, etc.
I was willing to be mildly sympathetic to the general principle that harmless eccentricity should be tolerated, even if the people involved are obnoxious, but I lost it when it turned out that the garden eventually was willing to make an exception and let them tour but they refused and just demanded all of their money back. A refund for the garden and the tea was reasonable, but not transit to or from. As customers they had some responsibility to research basic guidelines beforehand. If someone has a must-visit destination that requires some effort or planning, one should look into what's required, e.g. covering shoulders or heads, close toed shoes, cash only, BYO water etc.
For the costume issue, the overwhelming obnoxiousness of these people clouds what I think is a more ambiguous issue of what it means to police "costumes." I think there is a valid complaint by these people--they weren't "in costume" in the sense that costume was meant in the ban. To set aside race or culture issues involved in a kilt or dashiki or kimono, what if they had been goths or punks? Would that change the sympathies of commenters?
Is this or is this not a useful comparison: When I was 18, a little old docent at the entry of the Acropolis museum barred me from entering because I was wearing a bandana as a shirt. (When she turned her head I darted in and she legit sent guards after me, so I just ran through the whole museum with them on my heels, it's not that big a museum.)
That doesn't sound like a very substantial shirt.
78 you don't want heavy shirts weighing you down while you run from guards.
I was an eccentric dresser in 6th-7th grade, not for any larger point except I liked how I dressed and was relatively cut off from contemporary youth culture. On Halloween in 7th grade, the choir leader asked me to stand up and explain my costume. I had gotten up and dressed "normally" for me, so I was a bit taken aback and embarrassed. I stood up and explained that I wasn't in costume while everyone else in the class sort of snickered.* I had pretty resilient self esteem and I just sort of shrugged it off, but I remember being really surprised that someone would think my outfit was so weird it would constitute a Halloween costume.
For full disclosure, when I was a bit younger (11ish), I went around in a "historical" dress costume I made myself out of an old skirt and blouse of my mother's, and a white bonnet I'd sewed. I would wear it after school and maybe over to a friend's house or running errands. There's a photo of me at a friend's house in the outfit and I look really ridiculous, both because it was an objectively ridiculous costume and because I was the only person dressed up. I don't fully remember the thought process behind it except I do remember thinking the outfit looked good and felt comfortable.
*I was wearing something like maroon leggings, patterned home-sewn elastic waist cotton shorts, a green turtleneck, an oversized graphic t-shirt, converse, and braided hair with ribbons braided in.
As awful as these people sound, if I were the garden manager I would probably have gotten them an exception once the whole thing was explained. They're twits and snobs, yes, but it's true that they are not dressed up in what is conventionally meant by "costumes"; they're just dressed weird in a way that happens to look a bit costumey. (If I'd showed up at the gardens all retro'd out back when I wore vintage dresses every day, I too would not have been in costume - I would have been wearing the same clothes that I wore to my desk job, to school and on the four mile round trip walk between home and those things. But I would still have been wearing a 1950s day dress.)
And while these people acted about as awfully as possible about their disappointment, it certainly was disappointing, what with a bus ride and food delays and so on. If I'd showed up in my day dress and been turned away because it was read as a costume, I would have been a bit upset myself.
Me, I think it's best to make exceptions and spare people the upset when you can do so - let them in with the understanding that they absolutely can't prance about doing elaborate photo shoots and with the understanding that there will be no second visit unless they're in ordinary clothes.
I will admit that all this talk of their budget is surprising - I would have sworn that I'd heard on the internet that they were independently wealthy.
Also while I appreciate the exercise of trying to extract broader principles from this incident, my mean-spirited position remains that these two particular people, and only these two particular people, should be relentlessly thwarted from doing anything they want to do.
Or to hit home to all the men reading here, what if you showed up and got turned away because the 21 year old ticket taker thought you were in 90s period dress? Your "but I wear these high-waisted pleated front dockers everwhere" would fall on deaf ears.
Men's fashion hasn't changed since the 90s, as far as I've noticed.
90s period dress
Is there such a thing? I thought that everyone except Heebie agreed that fashion hasn't really changed that much since the 90s.
Anyway, banning people from venues for wearing high-waisted pleated front dockers would be cool.
I'm actually wearing pants from the 90s right now. Not Dockers or khakis, but pleated.
I know a few people who dress in Edwardian kind of garb. In Oxford they barely get a second glance.
89
Dare I ask how you are wearing the bandana? Knotted at the neck? As a sweat band?
Also while I appreciate the exercise of trying to extract broader principles from this incident, my mean-spirited position remains that these two particular people, and only these two particular people, should be relentlessly thwarted from doing anything they want to do.
Right. I mean, for example, not throwing things at people is generally a good universal rule, but come on, it would be fun to throw a tomato at this guy when he's riding on his penny-wheel bicycle, if for no other reason than the whiny and indignant blog post you'd get out of it. I mean, I don't think they should be murdered or anything, it would be kind of narratively appropriate to give them cholera or dysentery but that's a bridge too far.
I remember when bandanas as a top were a thing. Late 90s?
Meanwhile, you can't wear a burkini in enlightened topless Cannes. What a world.
89 like this. I really thought I had found a genius solution to save space in my suitcases, I don't know who besides my teenage self would be like " what a useful innovation!"
Who is that in that photo? Not Piper Perabo I don't think?
"They're dressed up like people from a particular subculture, and that subculture happens to be predominantly known for rich, proudly imperialist, classist twits."
Cool, because I just saw some people dressed as Saudis and I was wondering whether to shout abuse at them.
96: It's genius as far as I'm concerned.
Anyway, however I was wearing it, I was more covered than most of the sculptures in the Acropolis Museum.
83: My clothing doesn't define me, except that it's masculine, American (and not a style that's specifically African-American or another minority), upper-middle class, and from the past 35 years. If I had a spare outfit available and the time and place to change, I'm pretty sure I'd shrug and do so. If not, but they offered me something, I'd probably accept that.
I realize that is a very, very privileged thing to say, so maybe I should check my privilege just saying that. I'm aware that Amish, Muslims, Sikhs, and many other minorities can't say it. I realize my privilege affects how I think and act, both in ways I'm aware of and in ways I'm not. I admit that the modern upper-middle-class white American man is among the most privileged groups in world history. Really, there are probably only two or three groups that are more privileged than us: upper-class American men, upper-class Saudi men, and upper-class Victorians.
I'll try to be fair-minded about how they dress, and even about what kind of bike they prefer to ride. The way they acted in that garden is ample reason to set them on fire. (Not immolate them, to be humorless, I'm not a monster. Just, you know, give them a good scare and maybe some second-degree burns and ruin the clothes.)
100 crossed with 97, FWIW. Seriously, if you see Saudis referring to the staff as "menials", taking grave offense at something that almost definitely genuinely wasn't meant as an insult at all (for reference, the request to remove their hat, in the case of the neo-Victorian), and refusing any attempts at a middle ground, go ahead and yell at them.
82: "I'm not prejudiced, I just don't like you."
Judging by the photos, BTW, those guys are definitely not dressed as upper class Victorians. Skilled tradesman and his wife at best, I would have said.
And upper class Victorian woman would have had a larger bandana across her chest.
I have a brand new co-worker who (rightly) keeps popping in to ask me things, and every time he has come in today my totally visible computer screen has google image searches for "victorian farmers" or "bandanas as shirts," I wonder if he feels better or worse about taking this job now.
it would be fun to throw a tomato at this guy when he's riding on his penny-wheel bicycle, if for no other reason than the whiny and indignant blog post you'd get out of it. I mean, I don't think they should be murdered or anything
Throwing something at a person on a penny-farthing is a good way to murder them. Those things are super dangerous.
Way to ruin plausible deniability.
On the grounds of Breitbart Gardens let no acorn fall.
The reason the couple is the obnoxious one in this exchange is because it's obvious to even the most casual observer that they looooove getting reactions like this. Indeed, a large part of what motivates them to act as they do is the desire to elicit reactions like this. It's trolling, pure and simple.
Absolutely right, but it's full time lifestyle trolling, on the internet and off. Even Bob hasn't achieved that, as far as we know. That level of commitment to trolling takes real grit.
They're Crooked Timber commenters, aren't they?
No, what's incredible about them is the disavowal - their obvious conscious conviction that they are just innocently expressing their special identities as Victorian-Americans goes along with an amazing ability to deny and force into the unconscious the pleasure that they obviously take at being "insulted" about their hats and so on. I think they're almost certainly completely sincere at the conscious level. It's just that they have no real interest in any kind of self-awareness.
It's like they're trolling themselves, in other words.
105: My Google search history contains repeated instances of variants of "dead armadillo leprosy sex." I'm just waiting for the inevitable hack that reveals everyone's favorite search terms. Now that it occurs to me I'm going to try it again... Ok, it wasn't what I was looking for, but it's in the right ballpark: Florida Man strikes again!. The source seems unimpeachable.
"Victorian-Americans" is so... English. How could I refer to exemplary nineteenth-c-ish-ness on this continent? "That's so Taft?"
113: I like the sidebar headlines.
I love that bandana-as-shirt look, but feel like I don't have the right body type to pull it off. Also, there's probably an age cap of about 25 or so (maybe 30 max) before it starts looking, as my mother would say, "like mutton dressed as lamb"
For the acropolis, they should have had a blanket to offer you. When I went to the blue mosque in Istanbul they gave all the inappropriately dressed women a blue blanket to drape over ourselves.
One blanket, shared and shuffling?
80 sounded very familiar. My, I had some peculiar clothes.
Trolling is way more effective when you start to believe in it.
116 you will not find a fiercer advocate of bandanas-as-shirts than me but yeah the cutoff is well below 30.
A blanket would have been nice, I was probably cold. And look, I don't have any real objection to being told to cover up if it's appropriate, it was just baffling and unforseeable that the Acropolis Museum of all places would have a strong stance against bared midriffs.
Basically, rewrite the linked post word-for-word but substitute "bandana shirt" for any reference to Victorian clothing and "Acropolis Museum" for "Butchart Gardens."
Can we get back to the slutty Jasmines and slutty Ariels?
the cutoff is well below 30.
Honey, the cutoff isn't below hardly anything.
On the question of kimono-as-costume, I have attended several kimono exhibitions* and am willing to state for the record that the only people in the tri-state area willing to put on the full, multi-layered pre-Meiji Restoration dog are elderly, adorable Japanese ladies who are so tiny they would fit into my shirt pocket with room left over.
* Nobody give me any trouble.
I completely missed 75 until just now but am intrigued as to the connection between ash-smuggling and costumes.
I want my ashes scattered on or by a slutty Ariel.
Ok new coworker has now interrupted me googling volume of human ashes, he's definitely having second thoughts about this job.
It's about 1 cubic inch per pound of living weight; a coffee can is approx 140 cubic inches.
||
I can't tell if the people holding signs outside a "day spa" protesting prostitution are drawing attention to a real problem or providing free advertising.
|>
I think you guys are looking for this:
http://ruinmysearchhistory.com/
I made it to "penis remove dog how to" before bailing.
OTOH, missed bus in TOS dress and the bus pulled over to wait for me. Better, people on the bus all smiled. Best, am going to a waltz.
It took me five minutes to figure that out.
Sexy Thing: The Ovulating Sauropod dress?
I had a "rum flight" tonight. What I learned is that local rum tastes not bad but not nearly as good as bourbon.
I also had a Straub. Because I got to be me and there was no Yuengling.
Pittsburgh seems like an unlikely place to have a local rum scene.
There are at least three makers if it, assuming you can trust the placemats.
142: all it takes is sugar, though, right?
Of course, but it's not like it grows there or anything.
Star Trek: the Operating System
-- Computer, install updates
-- Please say your product key
-- 129G-33NG-234G-2G02-T4HT-08RH-ERN9-H8G-HGWE
[series canceled]
I want my ashes scattered on or by a slutty Ariel.
something something hence "getting your ashes hauled" something something
From a friend who lives in Vancouver, eh?, BG had a real problem with crowds of people performing elaborate photo shoots for weddings, anniversaries, divorces, HS graduations etc. These were not only amateurs, but regular photo studios and professionals who wanted the particular BG "look" and found that it was cheaper than renting/getting a photo permit. So eventually the "no Photoshoot" policy wasn't working, non-PS tourists were getting pushed out of prime spaces while said PSs were being setup, shot etc. and tons of trash left behind. To be clear, we are talking about multiple times each day having to clear out a bunch of costumed people to make room for others to enjoy the gardens, which are really quite wonderful. And this took up a lot of staff time, so $ became an issue. So the "No PS" policy devolved into "No Costumes", which cut out a lot of the problem. That said, I agree with 1-147 about everything.
performing elaborate photo shoots for weddings, anniversaries, divorces, HS graduations etc.
People do photo shoots for divorces?
150: I didn't think to, but I'll bet you could make it awesome. I'm not really one for photoshoots, but we got a family photo taken as part of the kindergarten readiness program I participated in last year and it was surprisingly moving to get a photo of just me with the girls.
I'm finally reading this post and the stuff about I tried to think of Islamic regions where French would be a likely second language for the older generation makes me want to destroy them completely. I'm sure some real Victorians would have been that ignorant and clueless but at least they couldn't have blogged it!
That's not an unusual level of ignorance, is it? I'm willing to give them a pass just for the curiosity. Also, for being so spectacularly awful that they transcend good and evil.
OMG, I just read their actual post and they're so much worse than I anticipated. What a pair of assholes.
and they're so much worse than I anticipated.
As Tigre notes above, they are lifestyle trolls of the highest order.
As a Crustacean-American, I guess I should have more sympathy, but you don't see me demanding that gardens make accommodations for walking sideways.
152: I think it's total bullshit. If they're living this Victorian life, they should know about the state of the world in Victorian times. Also I'm going to say stuff I'll regret so maybe I won't say it, but any semi-educated person should know more about geography than the average American does I guess. But that's not really an excuse. And "OMG Muslim but also speaks French" covers such a huge swath of the actual Muslim world then and now that I am getting livid again. But sure, "Do you think it might have been Persian?"
Isn't it also the reporting of it, like she couldn't just look it up easily? (I mean, she IS on a computer as she writes her blog post.)
I mean, I have a larger than normal fear of sounding stupid, but really. It's not that hard.
It's not that hard.,/a>
(To sound stupid or to look things up. Either one, really.)
156: I was going to mention that when I was in DC for the Unfoggedycon I was well chuffed to see some SE Asian folx speaking French at one of the museums. It made me feel very cosmopolitan. But now I guess I won't.
Sorry, Nat. That seems like an appropriate response! I'm just being a grouchy snob.
I maybe come by it naturally though. My great-grandfather served with Senegalese troops in WWI. After the war he was back home and waiting in line when a bank clerk had no idea what language the teller in front of him was speaking, so stepped in and translated the perfect French he believed they would have recognized from a white European and got South Buffalo street cred as someone who can speak tribal languages rather than just someone who'd had the same high school education as everyone else but realized francophone Africans existed.
Child's school claims by 2050 those speaking French as first language will outnumber those speaking English as first language bc of demographic trends in Africa. And I'm confident they've copious supporting evidence at their fingertips if one were to ask for it! But, life short, etc. Do suspect asterisks should be liberally distributed throughout that statement...
161: 160.last was a joke. But the rest is sincere. Background is that one of my friends who is a big wheel in the local Hmong arts scene had recently posted on FB about visiting France and being somewhat chagrined -- but also impressed -- by all her Franco-Hmong relatives who were all cultured and tri-lingual and stuff.
(Chagrined in that she felt like a rube from the sticks 'cause we don't talk too much French in MPLS. [And what we do say, we mispronounce.])
163: It's obligatory for French teachers in US schools to exaggerate how widely spoken French is. I remember it back in the Cretaceous when I was taking French in high school.
On the OP, can we fucking get over steampunk already? BORING BORING BORING.
Was steampunk ever not boring? The Difference Engine is smart, but doesn't really work, and that presumably was the high point of the genre.
I'm pretty sure the high point of the genre involved somebody wearing a corset in a way no Victorian woman would have.
That would make at least two points, no?
Steampunk was not boring for about a year, as you say. Now, well.
That's not to say that some don't still enjoy it. My housemate is a fan of Terry Gilliam films. I gotta say, though, I recently suffered through this Ron Perlman thing -- not a Terry Gilliam production -- and it was really difficult to keep the snide comments at bay. At some point early on, I erupted with, "Hey, this is a steampunk film. I ... didn't realize that. Uh. Okay." (One must be polite.)
I do hate me some Terry Gilliam.
167. These folks don't really seem to be very steampunk affiliated, at least in the way they dress. No superfluous gears sewn to their clothing, for example.
And yet one must be polite. I remember when Brazil was all the rage among everyone who was anyone, and I naively watched it, and just didn't really get what was so great. I remained more or less silent about it, and just confessed that I guessed I just didn't get it. Hedge, hedge, hedge.
Brazil is great. I don't even...
If they're so great, how come I can't successfully lie about them robbing me?
I loved (well, was disturbed by) Brazil.
Ahem, certainly, no doubt I should give Brazil another try.
Teachers at child's school likely sworn to promotion of francophonie in some secret teachers union initiation ceremony, or at a minimum before allowed to take postiings outside the hexagon.
His first Latin teacher has some family background in southeast Asia, although seems likely partial as she's tall, willowy and gorgeous with impeccably chic clothes. Not your typical Latin prof! (sensibly he loooooves Latin)
Way to insult a giant peninsula and several archipelagoes at one go.
dairy queen, your abbreviated writing style is entertaining. Sort of like bulletins.
Current landlord not keen on maintaining existing relationship, may be function of financial situation. Seeking alternative arrangements therefore.
I enjoyed the Gilliam Don Quixote thing.
Shouldn't the op story headline be Actual Victorians Rebuke Pretend Victorians?
Or, maybe someone clever could work Saanich into that.
