But I don’t want posters unaware of our private discussions to see this and assume I’m horribly traumatized and thus won’t want to see links, other reaction, etc. That seems likely to stifle discussion of an important event, which is completely the opposite of why I posted. Hence, the public post.

Is our friendship relevant to this discussion? Yes, in this case, because mentioning it clarifies (I think) how little this bothered me, and maybe, just maybe, if something like this comes up again people will remember that when it comes to me, Asad’s likely an expert in judging my reactions. I guess what I should probably say is that his comment didn’t bother me at all, but having people demand unnecessary apologies on my behalf from someone I consider a good friend does bother me quite a lot.

Edit: I think Mary’s post above is a perfect way to handle such a situation: she says explicitly that she can’t speak for me, but why she found his response insensitive.

That’s kind of what I thought. I read it in “Terri-audio,” and figured that when you said you were uncomfortable about the film, that’s what you were uncomfortable about, and the rest was just matter-of-fact.

I realize in much-belated hindsight that it is, indeed, possible to interpret my intervention in another way. Still, it requires bending my mind around a new thought: that on the internet, there are actually situations in which posting a link isn’t considered an appropriate reaction to pretty much anything, which is honestly pretty bogglesome to me but whatever, now I know.

I took the link from a commemorative thread on a private forum which started with a reminiscence about the massacre, and which proceeded without incident as a group posting of links *as* a form of remembrance/commiseration, and I honestly did not anticipate the reaction I got here. A bit of cross-Internet culture shock. Apologies for causing a quite unanticipated derailment.

je me souviens.

I guess that in a shared/mixed space where not everyone knows your interpersonal history, it’s hard to convey or to interpret a degree of shared trust, and stuff that is well understood between the two of you can (obviously, I guess, in retrospect) read very differently to other people. Just as I’d be uncomfortable seeing someone call a GF poster “bitch” in comments, even if they had a shared understanding that that was OK between them, I’m kind of uncomfortable seeing comments that seem insensitive, derailing, or painfully unfunny to most of us. When that happens, even if the comment is broadly speaking within the guidelines we’ve set, I do tend to get in touch with the commenter.

I’ve always found some strength in looking at the Dec 6 memorial at Carleton, in the Engineering building, actually: It’s simple. It’s even cheap, because it was paid for, I believe, by the engineering students of that year. I’m not sure I can find words to say, at this remove, what it felt like to see that. Not enough changed for women in non-traditional careers, that year. But something did.

Linkspam (in no case do I recommend reading the comments):

The CBC archives has a good round up BUT: 1) Some of it is potentially triggering. 2) ALL of it is potentially triggering to those who remember the massacre, as it is mostly archival clips of live coverage. 3) One of the videos – the original story form the National IIRC – starts automatically.

http://archives.cbc.ca/society/crime_justice/topics/398/

They also have a piece, not IMO triggering, written this year, which focusses on the victims, with photos and bios:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/12/04/montreal-massacre-victims.html

The Globe and Mail has a good piece by Stevie Cameron:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/have-we-forgotten-the-dead/article1387826/

Anyhow, unsurprisingly given the lack of editing on this post, I guess I wasn’t clear: I was quite upset about my experience watching the film, and found talking about *that* really hard, to the point where I couldn’t bring myself to edit the post to the level of polish I expect from myself. I debated long and hard about taking that part out and then writing a less personal but more polished post, which would have been easy, but decided to leave it in because there are plenty of folk telling the story of the massacre — only I can begin to tell the story of how the re-enactment hit me so hard, even if I wasn’t able to tell the story well. As long as I don’t have to talk about how I feel about watching the film, which was a lot more of an emotional kidney punch than I’d bargained for, I’m actually quite comfortable talking about everything else.

I definitely don’t mind having a linkspam talking about the massacre. I actually think it’s a great idea, especially as it is the 20th anniversary and I expect there is a fair bit of press.

(Seriously: my first thought was “what a great idea!” when I saw Asad’s post. It wasn’t even until I got further through my mail and saw several messages suggesting he apologize that I even noticed that one might think that his suggestion was rude.)

In any event, when a poster leads with a note that they themselves are deeply distressed by the writing of the post, it makes sense to acknowledge that distress rather than respond as if this was generic distanced commentary. Your comment certainly bugged me in that respect, I can’t speak for Terri.

For Terri: thanks for the post. I originally read about the massacre at the time of Mikee’s first activity in LinuxChix and it was very upsetting without, of course, the additional factor of being a female Canadian university student in a technology field.