silverflight8: Different shades of blue flowing on a white background like waves (Fractal)
1. If you wish to make an argument and also would to preface with a disclaimer that you are not talking about x, or that you understand y,

2. then your subsequent argument should not make me doubt that you understand y. In fact, if you find that you disclaim z and then override this again and again in your argument, it's not very persuasive.

2a e.g.: I KNOW that x is OK, but x is wrong wrong wrong. What are readers reading into rapefic? It can be rape fantasy, not evidence that everyone believes rape=love is true.) Question of the day: why are there always so many rants started "I know about rape fantasy, YKINMK etc." but then quickly devolve into "Rape fantasy is icky and gross and harmful!"

At least make your argument make sense, please. I can't even argue with you because you've muddled it all up first. I have no idea what you're trying to say, and I haven't the patience to try to go through. Either disclaim m, or don't.

-

If it's okay with all the historians on the planet, I'd like to move the dates of the Seven Years' War up about fifteen years. I need some way to kill off an OC (convincingly) so that the dragon Praecursoris can meet Choiseul properly. Anyone else have suggestions...?
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
I saw this post come up this morning. I thought: "OK, it's not horribly bad; it looks like the OP, after some comments, could see why this is offensive and maybe it'll be okay!" This is the text of the OP's post, in case it gets taken down.

... )

I gave up trying to read the twisting comments of the OP after awhile. But seeing [livejournal.com profile] saciel start to pull out the tone argument--again and again and AGAIN AND AGAIN AND AGAIN--I...I...I don't know. I remember zie from the last time [livejournal.com profile] fanficrants went and got into a huge racefail, but seeing so many people--half-a-dozen, at least--try to explain, again and again, PATIENTLY AND CALMLY (Oh my God, the irony) why zie was wrong, it didn't sink in. And so all I can repeat is OW OW OW.

ETA: There's actually quite a nice little summation by [livejournal.com profile] lil_utterance about why this post's comments are so very faily. Here.
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
I dislike Twilight for many reasons, the stalking-is-love not one of the least reasons.

HOWEVER (and yes, this merits capslock), JUST BECAUSE MEYER'S VAMPIRES ARE NOT EXACTLY LIKE BRAM STOKER'S VAMPIRES, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THEY ARE INVALID. CAN WE DITCH THE IDEA THAT A VAMPIRE MUST BE EXACTLY TO SUCH SPECIFICATIONS? THEY'RE MYTHICAL.

Too many of the reviews focus on sparkling (heaven forbid anything sparkle, it must be too girly) rather than the actual problems in Twilight.


tl;dr. a change from an established trope doesn't mean a book's bad. zomg, people

silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)

As is evident by the title, this book is about evolution: specifically, this book deals with creationist/intelligent design "theory" proposed by some. This is non-fiction, with a sizable bibliography and index.

*Bias Warning* I am: Atheist, accepts evolution completely, [add description here]

The greatest strength of this book, I think, is that it lays out so much research. I am reminded of my own education in biology--high school IB level, so certainly not professional--crumpled into a book-size. He lays out evidence from all sorts of scientific fields--not just the commonly-cited anthropology and paleontology, but also geology and the field studies of species that exist today. Many of the major contemporary discoveries--tiktaalik roseae (2003), for instance, are included, as well as the famous Rosemary and Peter Grant project that actually saw evolution in action. (!) Most fo the examples are indexed, but I wish he'd also referenced them to the appropriate paper.

However, I read this book as someone who knows and understand what the mechanism of evolution is about. There's so many people without  clue as to what evolution is (except it must be evil, right?) that an explanation of evolution at page one hundred seventeen is a bit of a problem, in my opinion. Only in the glossary is a succint description: evolution is the change in genetics of populations--special emphasis on genetic and on population. Furthermore, I will admit that the title made me twitch a little. Using the word 'true' in science is iffy, because there's no way you could possibly test every single occurence and see if something's true. Same with some of the language used in the book: really, many, lots. There is little quantitative data--understandable, as Coyne's not writing for the scientific community, which would demand that--but still, it makes me a little cautious.

I find it is absolutely absurd that scientist like Coyne are still trying to convince people evolution is well-backed, is verified again and again by many other scientific fields, and (this part gets to me) is really very intuitive. I find it absurd that there are idiots still trying to push intelligent design as a science (it fails the very first test: a theory must be testable, or else it's not science. It can be valid, but not valid science. ) I don't have an issue with people believing the Genesis stories, the Bible's words exactly, but I do have issues with people asserting that the earth is only a few thousand years old. I can't prove or disprove the supernatural, so I'm willing to let you argue with me on that one. 
 
It was a good enough read and I blazed through it (I admit, this is because I was running around the city all week, and consequently spent so much time at bus stops). Definitely déjà vu as far as the examples and contents went, and one of these days I have to screw up my courage and read The Origin of Species.

*draws breath* Well, sorry 'bout dumping that on you. This was supposed to be a normal book review, but it appears to have shapeshifted into a rant within a review.

silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
About 'universal suffrage':

1. The association of 'suffrage' and 'suffering' has been made in my mind (and probably other peoples'), which is unfortunate for the promotion of democracy.

2. Stop telling me we have universal suffrage. (*note: is Canadian). If we had an all-ages-can-vote policy, we'd have universal suffrage. See? Universal. Not majority suffrage. Universal. Until everyone in this country (regardless of mental state, age, and all those other factors that come into play) is allowed to vote or in some way impact the way this government works, we don't have universal suffrage. Period. Find another word.
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
Another mind-boggling thing, this link: another absolutely insane senator from Arizona wants to mess with how citizenship is granted. You know--if you're born in America, despite your parents' citizenship, you're American. Link here.

Mind-boggling because of the blatant racism (oh, I WONDER which nationality will be discriminated against here, hm? I am so very glad to be neither Latino nor American, thank God.) and also because I know there will be people up there nodding along with that sick politician, agreeing with everything he says. And thinking that all the "immigrants take our jobs" and "make it hard for our kids to get into university" and all that !@#$%^.

Rage.
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
I absolutely refuse, my dear, to regard the world as black and white, and to have a firm opinion that sits on only one side for every issue. I will be relativist and consider each circumstance individually in real life--I'll just pick a side in your essays, that's all.

You know what? I am not going to make a snap judgment about everyone on this planet (the question was, "Are women more democratic than men?" [out of a video about democracy; this was right out of left field]) based on my experiences--a sample size so statistically insignificant it might as well not even exist. I'm sorry, but I think actions more often come down to the individual, and not as a mass grouping--mobs happen, but not commonly. People are influenced--sometimes so easily--but that doesn't mean their actions are all the same.

I understand that you don't want us to sit on the fence, because I suppose that's not the point of a persuasive essay or argumentative essay (I forget what the idiot things are called: to my mind, they're an exercise in regurgitating previous arguments and evidence). But I do not live in a world where things are delineated cleanly and sharply; I do not live in a world where a single yes or no, about a decision that encompasses all people, answers that question adequately.

I'm afraid I've quite made up my mind; I have no idea if you're playing the Devil's advocate or not, but, aargh, I need to get this off my chest.
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
Bill C-232 is now up for debate in the Senate. This bill, which can be searched for by Google would make it mandatory for Supreme Court justices to be bilingual.

In case you don't know, Quebec is one of the provinces, and they speak French (technically, Quebecois, since their version of French is not quite the same as Parisian French anymore). Quebec is also, interestingly, the only place in all of North America where French is spoken, owing to the French loss to the British way back during the Seven Years' War, in the eighteenth century. In consequence, I think the people of Quebec try to really guard their language and customs; they are, after all, in a sea of anglophones.

As far as federal policies go, all federal employees must be bilingual--even if they're Canada Parks rangers way out in the West, or people in the Parliament. All the websites of federal programs and so on can be accessed in French or English; the Prime Minister occasionally debates with other party leaders in French. Legislative work in Ottawa are published in both languages.

However, the farther you move away from Quebec (and New Brunswick, which is the only other province that mandates bilingualism in even the smaller courts), the fewer francophones you will meet. This is especially true for Western Canada (I'm defining this as Manitoba and west); there are few prominent francophone communities, and usually French is learned in schools. Western Canada is primarily anglophone.

And so this bill. I'm on the fence as to whether it's justified or whether we should implement them (being an anglophone, I realize I have privilege in being able to hear court cases in English). I'm not sure that I could really make a judgement on that, and I'm glad that I'm not going to decide this. I do have to say this, though: the application pool is already quite small to select Supreme Court justices from. There aren't all that many people who have the qualifications and the inclination to be a judge; by passing Bill C-232, that will shrink the pool even further.

And the bill won't shrink the pool evenly. No, Western Canada will be hit hardest, because honest to goodness the French culture is simply not here. You walk out onto the street every day of your life, and you will never be required to know French. A lot of kids opt out of learning French.

There's already grumbling from the West that they aren't being represented properly (if you like, take a look at equalization payments, how much Alberta is paying Quebec, and how Quebec is whining about Alberta. /annoyed). Alberta especially pays a great deal towards the East. This is not going to help the East-West division, superficial though it may seem. Citizens who appeal to the Supreme Court (or just have their cases tried there) are allowed to plead in either English or French; translators are used. Furthermore, three of the nine judges must be from the Quebec court; I'm not going to get into how this isn't representation by population, but whatever.

Even bigger of a problem is the familiarity one must have with a language to be a competent Supreme Court justice. It takes  years to become competent in the legal language of one's first language; imagine the time it'd take to acquire it in both. Even supposing you were fully bilingual, from childhood, and understood the nuances of both English and French, you would still need to learn it in both.

In summation: both sides, argh. I'm not too hopeful for this one.


tl;dr Bill C-232--not gonna be pretty, whichever way it goes.
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
There is a reason why I ought to really stop reading [livejournal.com profile] fanficrants  and its affiliate [livejournal.com profile] ffrantsrants , and that's because I think the top of my head is about to explode because of anger. This time, it's this lovely statement.

...it turns the act of writing from "Entertaining others doing something I like" to "Doing something I want."

And I sat back and wondered if hopefully this was a troll, not a real person. Excuse me? Doing something you want--here, writing--is no longer a valid thing for fanfiction? Oh, thanks for the heads-up. Not to mention the complicated reasoning (at this point, I'm not sure if it's even logical) that it's somehow now 'intellectually dishonest' to post stories for yourself alone. Not to mention having a typo per sentence, which didn't sit well with your pseudo-intellectual arguments and vocabulary.

Now, if you'll excuse me, dear ranter, I have to go find something less woefully misguided to read. Aaargh!

Vitriol

Sep. 15th, 2009 09:06 pm
silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
I sometimes wonder what on earth makes normal people suddenly explode on the Internet (figuratively, of course) and start attacking other peoples. Maybe I just don't see it in "Real Life", but usually strangers do not get into name-calling, ALL CAPS  shouting arguments. They especially do not get into heated arguments about abstract ideas like patriotism.

Around The Maple Leaf Forever, a song (I think you can guess) about Canada, there appears to be a spat (for the lack of a better term) about how brave/patriotic/ [insert like synonyms here] [insert country of 19th century here]. They argue about the 1812 invasion into Canada, then the subsequent burning of the White House, all over the comments section. Occasionally someone inserts: "I love this song!" or something like that, and the conversation, undeterred, keeps going, with frequent breaks for jeering, name-calling, and variations of : "You're a slug under my foot and and idiot and I'm not gonna talk to you and..."

I read fanfiction, too, and a lot of authors writers introduce their stories with a "No flame plz!!". And while I kinda wonder why they'd post it if they think their work would be blasted by others (is it that bad?), you have to wonder how the Internet changes people. In our world, we have  a specific word, for heaven's sake, about lying to be polite--a white lie. People (not frequently, true, but do nevertheless) say thank you to complete strangers who open a door for them. It seems, then, that the Internet has a magical property--maybe it could be termed the "Courtesy Vaporizer". Something like that.

Maybe 'cuz on the Internet, you're anonymous. But careful--The baby Internet is growing up. Maybe sometime those mud-slinging people won't be quite as protected as they thought they'd be....

Profile

silverflight8: bee on rose  (Default)
silver

October 2017

S M T W T F S
1234567
89 1011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031    

Syndicate

RSS Atom

Most Popular Tags

Style Credit

Expand Cut Tags

No cut tags
Page generated Oct. 17th, 2017 09:31 am
Powered by Dreamwidth Studios