Misuse of the word "rant"

2017 10 12 - 15:43

Rant is losing its meaning, and it is doing so because of clickbait.

Due to clickbait and clickbait-like use of overly-emotional and grandiose terminology and other forms of exaggeration used solely to get someone's attention, the word "rant" is going to shift in meaning from "speak or shout at length in a wild, impassioned manner" to something that denotes or indications either only "speak at length", "speak in any manner that refutes or negates a listener or the topic at hand", or "speak openly about a potentially contentious subject". I've seen this term misused in this way more times than I care to count. I know that language shifts, but this seems a more noxious shift than others have become. It is not a shift of accident or necessity, but merely one based on advertising, ignorance, or desire to dupe the audience. It cheapens the language for no good reason.

If they aren't yelling, gesturing emphatically, or being somewhat uncontrolled, they aren't ranting. If they are merely speaking at length, speaking on a contentious subject, or simply refuting or negating a listener or subject, they aren't ranting. If they aren't acting crazily, actually being crazy, getting in your face, or pontificating from a soapbox, they aren't ranting.

Rant is a far more emotional reaction to a subject, than merely discussing that same subject; regardless of how contentious the subject is. You either rant or not rant about breakfast cereal, as much as you can rant or not rant about raising the minimum wage to something survivable, or the efficacy of religion.

It is not a word tied to a subject matter; but is tied to how one discusses that subject matter.

personal



Face

2017 09 28 - 09:45

Sometimes when I bump into someone I know in an environment where I'm not used to seeing them, I don't recognise them right away. It happened yesterday when I was taking the bus to the dojo and found one of my budo buddies taking the same bus I was. There was another time I was going to my (then) tattooist, and wanted to avoid someone who worked there, so I went on a day I knew they usually didn't work. I walked in, and he came towards me, and I didn't realise it was him right off, because I wasn't expecting him to be there.

I know that prosopagnosia (face blindness) exists - that's a cognitive condition which can have either congenital or acquired roots, but is not an of-the-moment condition. I wonder if this momentary inability to recognise people is some sort of mild form of that, or something else entirely. One of my friends refers to it as an "out of context error"; which is as good a way as any to describe it.

Whatever the root cause of it is, it's compounded by having poor vision. Or, perhaps in my case, it's entirely about that.

Addendum:

I have had people accuse me of all sorts of bad behaviour because I couldn't see them.

In fact, this has come up a couple of times in specific relation to the getting and noticing of male attention. It never occurred to me until one of my friends pointed out many years ago, about the eye contact game people play between each other when they're interested. I can't play it. I wouldn't know if anyone was trying to catch my eye, and who knows how many people thought I was trying to give them the eye, when really I had no idea I appeared to be staring at them. On that note specifically, my oldest bestie wanted to beat me up in high school because she thought I was staring at her all the time - this was before we met - but one of her friends pointed out that I couldn't actually see her.

If you aren't within an arm's swing distance of me, I won't see you. You really have to get in my face if we're passing on the street, for example.

personal



Simple Math

2017 09 17 - 12:46

Today I can only afford to buy one of the things you sell; but if they raise the minimum wage to something liveable, then I will be able to buy two or three of the things you sell, maybe more sometimes, and so will all of my friends and family members who can also only currently afford to buy one; some of them even none. But if you think that you must raise your prices because the minimum wage has gone up, then we're back to me being able to still only afford one, and some of my friends none. So you've made nothing, because you bought into the scare tactic that all prices must go up if the wage goes up.

So there you are, now selling 30 or 40 things a day - maybe more - and they're affordable now because you didn't raise the price, so all of my friends and family tell all of their friends how affordable the things are, and they start coming in to buy the things too. Maybe you have to hire another staff person, but you're selling enough things now that you can cover that wage easily, cover your own wage, cover the rest of your overhead, and still have a little extra on the side.

That right there is the issue, you see. When the scare tactic gets trotted out that higher wages mean higher prices (or costs), what that really means is that profits for the business go down. They're not willing to take a little punch to the profit in order to make life better for everyone - a punch to the profit that will end up not simply ending the stranglehold on the status quo, but actually increase profit by sheer weight of volume; because you will be better off selling 20 things at $10 per, than continuing only to sell 10 things at $15 per, because you preserved your status quo. It is not a hit to baseline needs/costs that businesses are worried about, it's that precious profit margin.

So it's not the leaps of a lottery win into wealth and riches that you were hoping for from your business; but business is steady, your staff content, and goods go out as fast as they come in. What's that old saying: Slow and steady wins the race.

personal
, , , , ,



Oddio

2017 09 07 - 23:22

Two buildings away from me is a restaurant that, over the years, has seen a few iterations; at one time being quite the jazz and blues club. For a long time, though, there's been no live music there. As I was walking to the store tonight to acquire myself an unhealthy snack, I saw that someone was there in front of the mic singing away and playing guitar, so I stopped for a few minutes to listen. What he was singing, I couldn't now tell you, it didn't matter. All that went through my head was how much I admired, and envied a little, the fact that he had the balls to get up there and do it.

I do not have the balls.

I wish I did.

I know I can sing. I know I don't suck. I can carry a tune. I have a decent range for a non-professional. I have a good ear, a natural affinity for music. I have good relative pitch; which, amongst other things, means that I can listen to others while I sing and adjust myself to work with them. I have a good sense of where a piece of music is going, even if it's one I don't know well. I feel my mistakes and can correct myself. I can do it. But I can't do it.

I used to sing in a choir in high school, and had been on stage a couple of times. In groups, it's not so bad. All the pressure is not on you. And when I did have to sing solos with the choir, I was in a choir loft, where the only people who could see me were my choir mates. You aren't the only thing being scrutinised in a group situation; and that, right there, is the issue. Being under scrutiny. I don't like to be stared at like that. I don't like, in fact, to be the centre of attention in any kind of group.

I'm never sure if talking myself into it is ever going to work; or if I'm just going to have to rip off the band-aid and do it one day, without any kind of prep or preamble. One of my friends thinks I should try karaoke, because that's a situation where no one's going to give a crap how I sound at all, and anyone who might actually be listening is going to be too drunk to have a cogent opinion. I can see the sense behind that, behind it being the safest environment one could imagine outside of one's shower, but I hate karaoke. I have no need to do it in order to make myself sound better by comparison to the raft of drunk bar patrons up there - which I think was also a bit behind my friend's suggestion I try it. I don't want to prove I'm better than someone else, and don't need to. I need to do it to prove something to myself.

One of these days I do have to stop just talking about it, though.

personal
, ,



Diva of Dissatisfaction

2017 09 07 - 10:31

I used to spend an enormous amount of time as a young person, staying up late watching movies on TV. Anything, really. It's how I developed a love for old Hollywood. Then, when I'd stay over my high school bestie's place at weekends, we would - as kids are wont to do - stay up late watching movies on the telly. When we weren't doing this together, we'd often have ended up watching the same stuff separately, so it happened that one week we'd watched the 1981 French film Diva - the plot of which I won't detail overmuch. Suffice it to say, that it's a thriller surrounding the illicit recording of an opera singer, prostitutes, and corrupt police. I remember quite liking it.

Well, a couple of years afterwards, and gawd knows how these things ended up being made, that same friend gifted me with a pocket notebook that happened to have the movie's poster on the front of it (which features a knife - this is key to the story). Sometime after that, I ended up at a neighbour's for tea. She was a nice enough person as I recall, but a thoroughly nervous born again Christian. I had taken the notebook out to write something down, and accidentally left it there. When she returned it to my grandmother, she had some kind of hushed, 'concerned' conversation about how she thought I was worshipping the devil because of the content of the notebook cover - the knife, in specific. (Couple with the fact that at the time, I was going through my late visually punk heavily wearing black and a leather jacket phase).

I don't think my grandmother was really worried, but she did bring up the conversation with the neighbour when she gave the notebook back to me. I explained the plot of the film to her, and that was that.

I've been seeing a lot more - old and new - stuff lately, about what it means if your child is listening to certain kinds of music. I didn't listen to punk because I was looking to rebel - I listened to it because I liked the sound of it, the feel, the rough edges and raw energy. I would have rebelled anyhow; punk just happened to come along for the ride. It did help lift me out of a mousey personality that I should never have had, and give me a vehicle to express something that yards of Bowie albums - much as I loved him - was never going to do.

I'm still rebelling a little I think, and still about the same thing - against a person I do not want to be. In a good way.

* * *

The movie poster in question:

Diva
personal
,



Post Cladis

2017 08 30 - 02:00

As a nerd child I loved hard sci-fi, but was never much into fantasy outside of the idea of it being costume drama (when it came to film or TV). Sword and sorcery was never my deal. I could never identify with any creature that was too non-human: no orcs, no trolls, no werewolves. I was far more Dune and Doctor Who than LoTR. To be honest with you, I found trying to read Tolkien a massive chore. He wasn't a great writer; but I don't think he was trying to be. It's always been my understanding that he wrote the books because he'd invented the Elvish language Quenya - linguist that he was, and the books became his vehicle for showcasing it.

I was talking to someone today about all this, and what it is I do love these days - which is dystopian or speculative fiction. I have a fascination for how societies will try to reconstruct after a disaster - what social orders do they choose, what of the past do they eschew, what ways do they attempt to control and codify people. As a side to this, I like post-apocalyptic stuff as well. I think the reason why I enjoy the speculative fiction genre so much, is because I find it all so very plausible - even the more far-fetched situations. I can see how we could end up creating some of the cultures I've seen in YA dystopia. I've read a lot of YA dystopia, because they're the only ones really getting it directed at them. Sometimes I wonder if it's all a message to the young to prepare for a less than savoury future. I haven't seen any adult-directed dystopian/speculative fiction in the societal construct vein - outside of The Handmaid's Tale, which I love, in all its forms - and as I've mentioned before, I don't count Snowpiercer; it's a piece of shit, and it's been too long since I've seen A Boy and His Dog for me to opine on it. "Snowpiercer's" (*) only saving grace was having John Hurt in the cast.

Also, I don't identify at all with non-human creatures - not animals, nor elves. People are my favourite animals. If I had a spirit animal, it would probably be a human. (Although, according to some bullshit Native astrological thing I once read, it's a bear.)

* And it occurs to me that I'm not sure how one would do a possessive with a title that's in quotation marks. Does the 's go inside the quotation marks, or outside? This would probably also be affected by whether you're writing like a Brit or an American. Addendum: I was told that if one can't just rewrite the sentence to avoid it altogether, the possessive should go outside the quotation marks.

personal
, , ,



The Handmaid's Tale

2017 07 26 - 19:23

There were three very interesting additions to the recent TV version of The Handmaid's Tale that were not part of the book. If you haven't seen the show, or read the book, or both, you might want to go do both and come back later.

I like purity when it comes to translating a story from one medium to another as much as the next person; but that's not always possible. Sometimes changes are interesting, sometimes good, sometimes not. We'll see in the end how they play any of these out; or even if they do at all.

The first thing I noticed was the use of clitorectomy as a punishment. Now, at first I thought it was clitorectomy, but realised later that it also could have been a version of another form of female genital mutilation know as Infibulation, whereby not only is the clitoris removed, but so are the labia. The skin is then stretched across from both sides and sewn shut such that only enough space is left for urine and menstrual blood to come out. Later, the space is opened enough such that the woman's husband could penetrate. This 'punishment' was used on a woman who had committed what they call "gender treachery". She was a lesbian.

The second thing was the implication that Gilead would use their handmaids as barter to other countries; but in trade for what, was never specified. Specifically, by the looks of things, to a country led by a woman. Which brings me to the third thing.

The third, and potentially more telling addition, is finding out that one of the architects of this 'brave new world' was a woman. So, yes, the sisters do it to themselves as much as for themselves.

I recall reading that when she wrote the book, Margaret Atwood tried not to use anything that was not actually present in our world. She did not use anything that had not already been done. Given her involvement with the show, and from what I know of human history, I know they've kept to that.

personal
, , ,



Splinters

2017 07 23 - 19:20

People often bring up huge, life-altering situations when discussing why they'd prefer to have universal health care such as we enjoy here in Canada - cancer, sick child, what have you - these are certainly situations where not having an extra worry can really take a load off you. But there's another side to why it's good - and it's a very small thing, tiny even, so tiny that someone with poor vision such as myself can't easily see it.

Splinters.

We've most of us had a splinter at one time or another; and generally you can either get it out yourself or there's someone there to do it for you. This was not so much the case for yours truly, who had broken a lightbulb some years back, and thought she'd gotten all the shards up. Turns out, not so much. My feet found shards at least four times - and an actual wooden splinter another time.

I live alone, I have very poor vision, my doctor lives on the other side of town in an almost hour-to-get-there kind of way, and every single one of these incidents happened at times when I couldn't have someone I knew take it out for me, nor was I working; but I lived within a stone's throw of two walk-in-clinics and one major hospital. So guess where I end up? I think Dr. Ibrahim was sick of seeing me - but he is still the doctor with the best bedside manner I've ever experienced; though Dr. Donnery runs a close second.

Anyhow, the point of this little - no pun intended - story, is that had I lived in a place where I didn't have coverage during a time when I was not working, given the other circumstances listed herein, I'd have been screwed.

Universal health care is great for the scary traumas of life, sure; but it's also handy for the little things that you might not have any other way to deal with. So, take my taxes; build some roads, educate people, and make sure they're healthy. I'm good with that. As for your fright-wig wait-time attacks, detractors, wait times exist below-the-fold as well.

personal



Ice, Ice Baby

2017 07 18 - 01:34

I never used to care for water at all. I'd avoid drinking plain water at all costs, unless it had something in it like sliced up lemons. In fact, for a long while, I couldn't even drink certain kinds of water - tap really - because I'd get acid stomach/heartburn afterwards. (I also never liked the taste of tap water.) I thought I was off my nut,  until I found out my one uncle had the same issue. I think it had a lot to do with the chemicals in the tap water, and the shitty pipes in my building. Brita works, though I don't recall it having done so in the past.

A couple of years ago I started drinking water, I don't remember why; and now I don't really crave anything else. Spring water only though; or Brita-filtered tap. I can't drink the bottled filtered tap waters like Dasani or Aquafina. They do some weird 'sticky' thing to my throat.

A few months ago I was talking to a friend about this, and we got on the subject of whether I preferred refrigerated or room temperature; and at the time I said room temp. It was winter, so room temp in January is actually quite cool; especially in this apartment, which they far from overheat. In warmer months though, refrigerated is just fine. I put a bottle in the freezer every night, take it out in the morning, and it's nice and chilly until my workday ends - 'cause, y'know, ice.

personal



Bringing God into it? Don't.

2017 07 17 - 17:18

Why is it that whenever a traumatic event happens in a TV show, people run to the chapel for comfort? It's particularly prevalent in anything involving a hospital. Even non-religious people run to the chapel. It's one way in which the yoke of religion still holds sway, and it's a trope that's got to go. You even see it happening on Babylon 5.

People need comfort, that's for certain; but there are a variety of ways in which people seek that relief from stress. Some work, some play a sport, some nap - some of us even like super-loud music or walks outside when it's frigid, in order to soothe the savage. None of these things are really possible for a character that needs to be close at hand for the next dramatic plot twist; but there are ways you can avoid having to fall back on the deity crutch like a person with no imagination.

So, show-makers, a challenge for you: avoid the religion trap when- and wherever possible. Use your noodles to find ways around having to fall back on something that tired. Increasing atheism isn't the only reason to do that - not even religious people spend all their time at church. You need to allow people to grieve in some other way, and to cope with that grief in ways that are actually more normative.

Addendum:

I think the chapel thing is a lot more 'American' than I thought it was. As a friend pointed out - in one British soap opera, their habit is to go down the pub, or engage in strong drink in some other fashion.

personal
, ,