time and relative dimension in space

Here is one of my pet peeves: "This show [or book, or whatever] isn't sci-fi [or whatever genre] because [reason that essentially boils down to "I like it and I don't like sci-fi [or whatever genre]"]"

...clearly brackets are not one of my pet peeves.

This is an attitude, unfortunately, that I have encountered quite a lot. Sometimes it is dressed up in other reasons. "Firefly isn't sci-fi! There's no aliens!" ...aliens are not the defining quality of sci-fi. "Well, it's not sci-fi!" Why do you say that? "Because I like it! And I don't like sci-fi shows!"

That is not a reason.

It's still sci-fi.

I have heard this argument in other contexts than sci-fi, obviously. "It's not a kids' show, because I like it, and I'm not a kid." "It's not romance, I hate romance." "I hate musicals! ...that doesn't count, that's not really a musical."

How much would you laugh if someone told you, "Ugh, I hate baseball. The Red Sox don't play baseball! Because I hate baseball but I love the Sox so obviously they are not playing baseball." It's the same dumb justification. It's still baseball.

It's still science fiction, even if there's no aliens. It's still fantasy even if there aren't wizards swinging swords at dragons. It's still children's fiction even if there's not a tidy moral at the end. It's still Genre A even if it overlaps with Genre B, even if it doesn't have all of the trappings general-you associates with Genre A, even if you don't generally like Genre A but like this one particular example.

And in response to the most recent argument I have encountered: YES. IT IS STILL SCI-FI EVEN IF IT'S MORE FOCUSED ON THE CHARACTERS THAN THE TECH. THAT DOESN'T EVEN MAKE IT PARTICULARLY UNUSUAL SCI-FI.

I really don't know if this springs from genre snobbery (Genre A is inferior to this high-brow stuff that I like so this one thing I like that might be considered Genre A clearly isn't) or absolutism (I don't like Genre A! Ever! None of it! Therefore this one thing I like that might be considered Genre A clearly isn't) or just a misunderstanding of how genres work (This one thing doesn't have every last trope that I associate with Genre A so clearly it isn't!)

There was probably a more coherent ending to this rant, but I forgot what it is and I'm done ranting now, so...[/end]

Bah. This post popped up on my flist via metaquotes. The metaquotes post was cool. But now I'm driving myself crazy by reading the sf_drama post and all its comments.

That said, alexandraerin is endearing themselves to me muchly. ♥

Serious question for you: cui bono? Who benefits from this bit of exclusivity? As a BT who has varyingly identified as both a G and an L in my life, I'd say we get a boost from including asexuals. They are closer to mainstream, but further below the radar. Increasing awareness of them increases awareness of the spectrum of human sexuality, it inculcates in people the knowledge that variety in human sexuality is natural and normal. I can't see a downside to including them.

You say they have no business in the tent; I say, their goals and our goals are taking us in the same direction and I don't see any downside to hitching their horse to our cart. They've got less baggage? Great. We'll get further, faster together.

To the extent that gender is a binary, you could express it in binary. We have 10, 01, 00, and 11. 10 have proclaimed themselves to be King Shit of the World. 01, 00, and 11 can all play in 10's court, to the extent that they're able to pretend they're like 10. So, 01 and 11 have teamed up to say, "Enough of this, we're as good as you."

Why leave 00 out in the cold? 00 has as much a claim. 00 fits into the same grid. 00 is an ally.

Or, on a lighter note, beoweasel's attempt at an asexual rallying cry:

WE'RE HERE! WE'RE...NOT REALLY BOTHERING ANYONE, SO, JUST MOVE ALONG.