It takes about 4 seconds to type a possible misspelt word into an online big dic to check its meaning and correct sequence of letters. They even suggest alternate, widely-understood arrangements of the letters in case your spelling of "fish" begins with a "p".
Have you ever, for any reason, handed anything you've written to ANYONE to check it over?
I don't need a spellchecker to tell me how to spell words I can see are mis-spelt. I need one to pick up the mis-spellings that I don't notice. You'd be surprised how hard it is to review 100,000 words to find spelling errors by hand... and you have to cut a corner off of your geek card if you can't appreciate how much more efficient the proofreading of those 100,000 words will be if the proofreader can work with a spell-checking program, in addition to their own skills.
You're thinking of Gecko, the rendering engine that's behind Mozilla, Firebird, et al.
Mozilla has always intended to be a browser suite--it's the OSS version of Netscape, after all. Mozilla.org has meant for the tech to be taken and used everywhere, but Mozilla-the-browser is still a logical first project, and, as this release shows, it's very much a valid and valuable one.
to recap:
Mozilla.org is the company.
Gecko is the HTML rendering engine.
Mozilla-the-suite is a Netscape Communicator replacement.
Firebird, Thunderbird, and Sunbird are de-bloated standalone apps, based on Gecko and other Mozilla.org projects.
if thats true, youre lucky. most girls will be like "Man, that sucks." if you tell them about the history of the diamond industry, but they will still want their diamond ring because they have been brainwashed to want it.
Is your home PC an Intel, Athlon, or Mac?
I mean, all us geeks have been "brainwashed" to want the newest Pentiums, because they're SO fast...
Trust me. Most girls will understand if you refuse to buy diamonds on a moral stance--as long as you're doing it for a moral stance, and not just because you want to be cheap. (An artifical diamond and the balance of the cost of a diamond for an "engagement bash" is probably a very good suggestion.)
'course, I got lucky. Three months salary of zip is still zip, so I had a very good excuse to have a crappy engagement gift.
Re:The names may change, but
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One thing a woman wants is to feel that her man values her more highly than all other things. And she needs a proof of this that is unambiguous and readily demonstrable to her friends/family.
My woman, and most of them women I know, are perfectly capable of defending their choice of mate to their friends and family. They tend to value loyalty, apparant friendlyiness, and their affect on the woman more than the man's material wealth.
And, with a median household income in the US of about $50,000, most women will probably be able to think of a better use for $12,500 than buying a diamond. Their own car, a down payment on a house--even their wedding or a spree of their own.
IMO, if the woman (and her family) can't grasp the "DeBeers is a cruel monopoly, I'm not buying a DeBeers diamond, what else would you like?" logic, then the marriage simply won't last.
So you are telling me that you can honestly recall every single detail of every car trip you've made in the last month?
No. But I recall every time I've broken the traffic laws and had an excuse for it.
This isn't rocket science. "Follow the speed limit" and "stay in your lane" are so bone-dead simple that they shouldn't even need enforcement. (Well, not the speed limit one, but the stay-in-lane and obey traffic signals ones for sure.)
If you know a place where that's not true, I'd be very anxious to hear about it.
The Northeast. Look around Rev-war encampments, biker bars, and SCA events. Hell, just look at the Renn Faire.
They are out there--you just need to follow the right crowd.
Re:The names may change, but
on
Diamonds & the RIAA
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Try telling the girlfriend or the wife that though. They don't give a shit about corrupt, murderous, exploitative companies they just want that fucking iceberg on their finger so they can one-up their girl friends in the coffee house. It's a sad sad situation.
Wait... you mean that you'd marry a girl like that?
Damn.
For the record, my wife doesn't even like diamonds.:) And if I told her all the @#$ that DeBeers does, she'd probably spread it like hot gossip.
Not only that, it prevents you from mounting a legal defense. If you get pulled over for "running a red light", you at least can gather information about the circumstances. You can note the officer's position of observation, how your vehicle was loaded that might have caused bigger problems, if the yellow was too short, etc. With the red light camera, you just get a picture of your car in the intersection and pay your fine. There's no way to remember what the circumstances were (or even if your car was legally in the intersection, but got snapped by an improperly calibrated camera.)
Sheesh.
Good evidence on the government's side doesn't prevent you from claiming mitigating circumstances. It just makes it harder for you to say "the police officer was wrong."
"I had to quickly acellerate to avoid an accident" or "my wheels slipped because the road was slippery" are still as valid as ever--and with a good monitoring system, they'd even be confirmable.
No prosecutor or judge involved; you're automatically guilty and must pay a fine.
Perhaps you've never gotten a traffic ticket? Or a parkting ticket?
You _can_ fight the darn thing, but you have to go to court for it--and for many folks, one evening of their time is worth a $200 fine. (Or, if you prefer, the $50 savings you'd get from plea bargaining.)
Except that there is no other word for "homosexual" that isn't some sort of epithet or slang. I mean, how else should they refer to themselves distinctly?
"Gay" or "Lesbian." Persons of each are a distinct mating pool than heterosexual men and women.
Both are acceptable. Xenophobia: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign.
Regardless, I'm glad they don't apply.:) I don't consider Americans of abberant / uncommon sexaulity to be "foreign." They just want to get someone / someones semi-unusal in the sack.
What offends me is when those of an abberant sexuality decide that they are a distinct social culture, and wear every element of their sexuality as a "badge of honor."... (This subculture-rebelliousness isn't limited to homosexuals, btw....)
See, that's the kind of talk that makes me doubt your tolerance. You sound like you want Them to stop acting different. Just be normal!
They can act different--but why? To identify their sexuality... OK. To rebel against the "oppresive straight monotony" or "the man" or "the jocks"? No. If you're different, be different--and don't try to be any more (or less!) different than you are.
That feels like a cop-out. I mean, "asshole" and "cunt" are just words, but like "aberrant", society as a whole has decided that these are offensive.
Actually, those words are offensive because they're defining someone by part of their anatomy. Not just because we use them as insults.
(btw--when's the last time that someone shouted "you darn person of abberant sexuality!" as an insult?)
Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. They ARE another gender, there are many genders in practise today
No. My male homosexual friends are still males. My female bisexual friends are still females. (there is an extreme minority of "transgender" humans, but we're not talking about folk who are born outwardly physically different.)
I believe that you're using "gender" to mean "sexuality." Which is wrong--there's a lot more to a gender than who you want to get into the sack. Or, to use your definitons, there's a lot more to your sex than your mere physical makeup. (There _are_ real mental differences between men and women; dress a man in a dress and have him date men, and he's still a man.)
We're talking about a kind of accuracy that is inclusive and not abusive.
If the language offends someone, that's a mark against the use of the language, not a veto of it. The offensiveness has to be such that it outweighs the inaccuracy of the least inaccurate term. (For example, "negro" is unused because the perfectly accurate "black" and "african" words exist. "Queer" is unused because "gay" and "homosexual" exist.)
So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
If you veto the church and the state as sources of answers, you leave only the PACs formed for the advancement of those of abberant sexuality, and the medical community. The first is overly biased, and the second is either very divided or very geeky--and thus not a good source of new language.
Obviously, I prefer to work out the answers for myself.
As far as generic relative terms, 'unusual' definitely applies to transsexual parents, and 'fairly common' applies to semi-monogamous childless lesbians. There's a whole range, and it's analog, not digital, right? 'Aberrant' relies on binary thinking, it suggests that said behaviour is undesireable and should be suppressed, and reinforces in-groups and out-groups with a destructive power imbalance.
Let's leave the politics out of it for now, and focus on language; we can agree that accuracy in language is important, and that, as I stated above, the mere offensiveness of any word to any subset of the populace should not remove the word from the language.
"Unusual" doesn't have sufficient connotation. Plus, it exaggerates the differences. "Fairly Common" is only good as a relative measure of various abberant sexualities--it's no good to describe them all. (The "fairly common" sexuality is supposedly-monogamous heterosexuality.)
Two other possible words that just occured to me to replace abberant in "abberant sexuality" are "uncommon" and "deviant". I don't want to use "deviant" because that has a negative connotation (whereas "abberant" is more neutral, if not neutral outright.) "Uncommon" might be a good accurate and unoffensive word--thoughts?
There is no need for a term to replace 'aberrant'. It's the 21st century, get used to ambiguity.
Is that a comment for or against the use of the word "abberant" in "abberant sexuality?
In any case, accuracy in language is a good thing. Ambiguity is a sign of immaturity, ignorance, and/or self-doubt. As humans of whatever sexuality, we should strive to understand ourselves and each other--which cannot help but lead to a decrease in ambiguity over time.
So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
Go on, defend my right to say that. Smile as you do it.
That's easy. There's no real threat, because you presumably don't know who Seth is or where he lives, and you very likely don't have a gang.
If you did have a gang, and you did know who Seth was, it would only be unprotected speach if there wasn't a context that caused the insinuated action to be a legal one. Talking about possible legal proceedings, for example...
You know, the term "aberrant" is more value-laden than you grant it.
I know. But I don't think it should be. (I also don't think that "two-spirited" people should be seen as better--or that most folk of an abberant sexuality are really "two-spirited.")
If you can think of a better term to replace "abberant", I'd love to hear it. "Different" isn't quite right--folk of such unusual sexualities are as "different" from the majority as if they were another gender altogether.
Not sure I follow your grammar here, though I'm intrigued. I was suggesting that two-spiritedness is and was a common norm with a complex set of gendered expectations well beyond the matrix you laid out--a suggestion only, since I'm getting the info from friends in that situation. In no sense was it aberrant before the arrival of Jesuits, quite the reverse.
(to be clear: by "two-spirit", you're referring to a person doing the soical jobs of their own gender, as well as the other gender, correct?)
Was it normal--that is, did the majority of women do it? If not, then it's abberant. Not taboo, just aberrant.
You are confusing polyandry... with polyamory
Yes. But polyandry and polygamy are both subsets of polyamory. And, if we make the divisions of "formal" (i.e., their society accepts it) and "non-exclusive" (i.e., more than one regular partner at a time / at regular intervals) then I suspect that, even within cultures that allow it, it's a minority.
Genetics and human nature simply don't give the numbers for a majority of polyandrists or polyamorists. Even in the ancient middle east, only the fairly wealthy had multiple wives. (btw, can you name a polyandrous society? I can't name any, which may be simply my ignorance.)
Man, you have never lived in a small village have you!! LOL!
Neither have you, unless you've spent years and years in a hunter-gatherer society. (I didn't say "small town," did I?). I've lived in rural areas for a good portion of my life--with the automobile and telephone systems. Given these easy access to external stimuli, the historic "small town" is a lot different from today's "small town."
So, I take it you'll also accept that the label of "abberant" is a badge of honor to be worn by people who are virgins on their honeymoon.
No. Being a virgin doesn't change your sexuality. You're no more a "sexual abberant" if you're a virgin on your wedding day than if you re-marry after your spouse is dead, never have sex at all, or just never quite settle down.
Really, to think that being called "abberant" isn't offensive is nonsense, and your use of the word was blatant xenophobia.
*sigh*
1: What makes you think that I don't realize that some with abberant sexuality take offense at being called abberant? Was it my apology to them? Or maybe my use of the word "should."
2: I said "should." Not "is." I'm fully aware that some folk take offense at the word. It is my opinion that they shouldn't be offended by it anymore the they are offended by a word that until recent decades was the name of a mental illness.
3: Even if I was the sort of shallow-minded prick that you think I am, it wouldn't be "xenophobia." Transexuals, homosexuals, polyamorists, polyandrists, polygamists, bisexuals, and even monogamous heterosexuals are all part of the same species. "Bigotry" would be the word you're looking for--and I'm not, just opinionated.
While I'm ranting...
I don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom, with how many adults of what ethnicity and in what positions. I am of the opinion that stable, monogamous relationships are the best sexual relationships, and the best way to raise children, but I am open to argument for a different general position and more than willing to allow for innumerable variations (especially given the commonality of nonstandard nuclear families.)
What offends me is when those of an abberant sexuality decide that they are a distinct social culture, and wear every element of their sexuality as a "badge of honor." If gay men had allowed HIV infected gay men to be quarantened, we wouldn't have the AIDS epidemic that we have now. (This subculture-rebelliousness isn't limited to homosexuals, btw. If urban blacks didn't value ignorance, they'd be better off and crime would be down. If suburban white geeks didn't think they were so superior, Columbine never would have happened.)
If I were reading this, I might think the author a bigot--so it's time to give some counter-examples. One of my good friends revealed to me that he was gay a few weeks back, and aside from a better understanding of him and a slight adjustment in humor, nothing changed. Another of my good friends is a polyamourus black man. A third is a jew who had a recent bad-breaking "polyamorous" relationship (I can attribute him with the quote "polyamory: a PC way to say 'sleeps around.'")
Anyway, in summary: Abberant is offensive, but it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a "badge of honor", either. It's just a word--and the only think offensive about it should be that it's a reminder that the minority isn't, and almost certainly never will be, the norm.
I presume you are talking about social norms, not biological.
Either/or. My stance is actually better if we talk about biology. But, in nearly every society that I have heard of, the "norm" has specific gender roles, which include women nurturing and the men "providing," even if that provision is limited to meat and war.
"broader norms", "two spirited", et al are allowances for variation, not an absence of a norm or a major devition from the "human norm."
Polyandry [aka adultery when taboo or 'serial monogamy' as an alternate strategy]
Polyandry is not serial monogamy or adultery. Polyandry is a continuous, expanding network of lovers, theoretically with no formal bounds against those within the network and a clear line of who is in and who is out. (It's also, sadly, slightly hip at the moment, meaning that studies will irrationally find it in places it never showed up, and a lot of people who want to duck responsibility will lay false claim to it.)
I do, of course, wonder how prevalent adultery--that is, sexual liasons outside of the formal mating bond--have been in historical societies. It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that we can ever get good data for--it's much more likely to be either marked by punnishments or ignored where it appears, and naturally ignored where it doesn't appear. (I have the suspicion that, at least historically speaking, adultery requires a mass social gathering and very much doesn't happen in hunter-gatherer societies; if a small group has members that for some reason wish to have multiple partners, they probably have a formal status for it.)
Anyway.
Fascinating how threatening this issue is to so many, it points to the tenuousness of the taboos surrounding it. All the more reason for science fiction to explore it responsibly.
If you only saw one naked woman in your entire life, and you only had sex with that one women for your entire life, the best sex of your entire life would be with that woman, and you very possibly wouldn't care to go looking elsewhere.
Despite our modern media saturation, I suspect that, historically, certain customs and deviations essentially didn't happen simply because they didn't occur to people very often. But once the idea of a deviation from the norm is learned, a person will contemplate said deviation.
(And this is at least partially bad, btw, because, as the Bhuddists say, the root of suffering is desire for things that you cannot have.)
I agree that fiction should mention the topic a bit more--but there isn't a real market for it, so it won't happen very often on a serious level. (See last season's "Cogenitor" episode of Enterprise for what happens when mass media tries it, and note the dim sales of Elfquest for what happens when an indipendant (sic) tries it.)
My answer to "is life predetermined" isn't "you're a total pussy" it's "since you can never possibly know or do anything about it
Stop. Neo can know and do something about it. That's actually the point of the whole second movie. He's the only guy in the entire Matrix who has a real choice.
Well, him and everyone else, but he's the one in a position to actually know that they're following a dance that they've danced before. Well, him and the rogue AIs.
7) Gender idiocy. Again, things have changed radically in just the last 10 years, what makes you scriptflakes think we're going to maintain a Cleaver family morality in perpetuity? Damn that Heinlein. See Varley, Delaney, Stephenson. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears, and we're figuring that out already.
Father-male-provider mother-female-nurterer (sic) has been the norm throughout humanity for thousands of years. There have been a few abberations here and there, but by and large that's how it's been.
10 years, 25 years--call be when you've had three consistent generations of a non-"cleaver" family.
'course, I think that recognizing that gender differences are more than just sexual, and adjusting civilization to better accept abberant* members is a very good thing. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. (Just like I don't think that atheism's domination is a foregone conclusion.)
___________________
*: Apologies to the transexuals, homosexuals, and polyandrists that are offended, but when you're going against the norm that drastically, you're "abberant." It should be no more a dirty word than "homosexual."
What is even more frustrating about that lapse of logic is that several explanations exist that would better serve the needs of the plot - like needing enslaved human minds to augment the Matrix AI.
Take this as a judgement on the film.
If the third movie confirms the "battery" idea, it's a fantasy story with a few really, really bad science bits.
If the third movie confirms the "battery" idea as a lie, or offers other explinations, then it's a nice message about the lie that is their war.
*sigh* 'course, judging from what I've seen so far, the first option will be what happens. Still, it is a fun fantasy movie...
I understood the matrix reloaded. It made me think for about 30 seconds.
30 seconds isn't enough time to understand a nursery rhyme. You judged it, resulting in probably a dismissal of the nuiances of it.
The movie was art--like a painting. There are at least three layers of meaning buried in the darn movie, with several counterbalances and bits of foreshadowing. I'm going to have to watch the whole darn thing at least twice more before I can say that I "fully understand" it.
Now, it's fine if you don't like it--there are all sorts of complex works of art that I don't like and won't spend the time to fully understand. But don't say that you "understand" it.
Especially if your answer to "is life predetermined" is "[you're] a total pussy."
I mean, if those kids can cast a spell to keep their faces dry in the rain, why can't they cast it on their whole bodies?
Obviously, because it's a face-drying spell, which only changes a small part of the body's state, and not a rain-avoidance spell, which would change the body's entire state.
From a literary standpoint, one of the fun parts about magic is that is can be very speicific. A spell that lights a candle doesn't have to work on a fireplace or a human's flesh.
Slashdot Mirror
It takes about 4 seconds to type a possible misspelt word into an online big dic to check its meaning and correct sequence of letters. They even suggest alternate, widely-understood arrangements of the letters in case your spelling of "fish" begins with a "p".
Have you ever, for any reason, handed anything you've written to ANYONE to check it over?
I don't need a spellchecker to tell me how to spell words I can see are mis-spelt. I need one to pick up the mis-spellings that I don't notice. You'd be surprised how hard it is to review 100,000 words to find spelling errors by hand... and you have to cut a corner off of your geek card if you can't appreciate how much more efficient the proofreading of those 100,000 words will be if the proofreader can work with a spell-checking program, in addition to their own skills.
You're thinking of Gecko, the rendering engine that's behind Mozilla, Firebird, et al.
Mozilla has always intended to be a browser suite--it's the OSS version of Netscape, after all. Mozilla.org has meant for the tech to be taken and used everywhere, but Mozilla-the-browser is still a logical first project, and, as this release shows, it's very much a valid and valuable one.
to recap:
Mozilla.org is the company.
Gecko is the HTML rendering engine.
Mozilla-the-suite is a Netscape Communicator replacement.
Firebird, Thunderbird, and Sunbird are de-bloated standalone apps, based on Gecko and other Mozilla.org projects.
It's one of my least-favorite features of MS Office 2000 and newer, and of XP: The hiding of menus and toolbar buttons you don't normally use.
*CLUESTICK WHACK*
You can turn that off, if you want. In fact, you can turn most of Office's most annoying features off. The help file can even tell you how to do it.
Even better, you can customize the whole kit and kaboodle to exactly the format you like.
Wine is a x86 program--it translates Windows x86 instructions to Linux x86 instructions.
Running Wine on a Gx would require a x86 => Gx instruction interpreter. You'd have to, to be geeky, "emulate an x86."
Remember:
Wine
Is
Not an
Emulator.
if thats true, youre lucky. most girls will be like "Man, that sucks." if you tell them about the history of the diamond industry, but they will still want their diamond ring because they have been brainwashed to want it.
Is your home PC an Intel, Athlon, or Mac?
I mean, all us geeks have been "brainwashed" to want the newest Pentiums, because they're SO fast...
Trust me. Most girls will understand if you refuse to buy diamonds on a moral stance--as long as you're doing it for a moral stance, and not just because you want to be cheap. (An artifical diamond and the balance of the cost of a diamond for an "engagement bash" is probably a very good suggestion.)
'course, I got lucky. Three months salary of zip is still zip, so I had a very good excuse to have a crappy engagement gift.
One thing a woman wants is to feel that her man values her more highly than all other things. And she needs a proof of this that is unambiguous and readily demonstrable to her friends/family.
My woman, and most of them women I know, are perfectly capable of defending their choice of mate to their friends and family. They tend to value loyalty, apparant friendlyiness, and their affect on the woman more than the man's material wealth.
And, with a median household income in the US of about $50,000, most women will probably be able to think of a better use for $12,500 than buying a diamond. Their own car, a down payment on a house--even their wedding or a spree of their own.
IMO, if the woman (and her family) can't grasp the "DeBeers is a cruel monopoly, I'm not buying a DeBeers diamond, what else would you like?" logic, then the marriage simply won't last.
*sigh*
You're (1) a shallow prig, and (2) prejudging a populace you haven't actually looked over.
And I bet you're butt-ugly yourself.
So you are telling me that you can honestly recall every single detail of every car trip you've made in the last month?
No. But I recall every time I've broken the traffic laws and had an excuse for it.
This isn't rocket science. "Follow the speed limit" and "stay in your lane" are so bone-dead simple that they shouldn't even need enforcement. (Well, not the speed limit one, but the stay-in-lane and obey traffic signals ones for sure.)
If you know a place where that's not true, I'd be very anxious to hear about it.
The Northeast. Look around Rev-war encampments, biker bars, and SCA events. Hell, just look at the Renn Faire.
They are out there--you just need to follow the right crowd.
Try telling the girlfriend or the wife that though. They don't give a shit about corrupt, murderous, exploitative companies they just want that fucking iceberg on their finger so they can one-up their girl friends in the coffee house. It's a sad sad situation.
:) And if I told her all the @#$ that DeBeers does, she'd probably spread it like hot gossip.
Wait... you mean that you'd marry a girl like that?
Damn.
For the record, my wife doesn't even like diamonds.
Not only that, it prevents you from mounting a legal defense. If you get pulled over for "running a red light", you at least can gather information about the circumstances. You can note the officer's position of observation, how your vehicle was loaded that might have caused bigger problems, if the yellow was too short, etc. With the red light camera, you just get a picture of your car in the intersection and pay your fine. There's no way to remember what the circumstances were (or even if your car was legally in the intersection, but got snapped by an improperly calibrated camera.)
Sheesh.
Good evidence on the government's side doesn't prevent you from claiming mitigating circumstances. It just makes it harder for you to say "the police officer was wrong."
"I had to quickly acellerate to avoid an accident" or "my wheels slipped because the road was slippery" are still as valid as ever--and with a good monitoring system, they'd even be confirmable.
No prosecutor or judge involved; you're automatically guilty and must pay a fine.
Perhaps you've never gotten a traffic ticket? Or a parkting ticket?
You _can_ fight the darn thing, but you have to go to court for it--and for many folks, one evening of their time is worth a $200 fine. (Or, if you prefer, the $50 savings you'd get from plea bargaining.)
Except that there is no other word for "homosexual" that isn't some sort of epithet or slang. I mean, how else should they refer to themselves distinctly?
:) I don't consider Americans of abberant / uncommon sexaulity to be "foreign." They just want to get someone / someones semi-unusal in the sack.
... (This subculture-rebelliousness isn't limited to homosexuals, btw. ...)
"Gay" or "Lesbian." Persons of each are a distinct mating pool than heterosexual men and women.
Both are acceptable. Xenophobia: A person unduly fearful or contemptuous of that which is foreign.
Regardless, I'm glad they don't apply.
What offends me is when those of an abberant sexuality decide that they are a distinct social culture, and wear every element of their sexuality as a "badge of honor."
See, that's the kind of talk that makes me doubt your tolerance. You sound like you want Them to stop acting different. Just be normal!
They can act different--but why? To identify their sexuality... OK. To rebel against the "oppresive straight monotony" or "the man" or "the jocks"? No. If you're different, be different--and don't try to be any more (or less!) different than you are.
That feels like a cop-out. I mean, "asshole" and "cunt" are just words, but like "aberrant", society as a whole has decided that these are offensive.
Actually, those words are offensive because they're defining someone by part of their anatomy. Not just because we use them as insults.
(btw--when's the last time that someone shouted "you darn person of abberant sexuality!" as an insult?)
Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears. They ARE another gender, there are many genders in practise today
No. My male homosexual friends are still males. My female bisexual friends are still females. (there is an extreme minority of "transgender" humans, but we're not talking about folk who are born outwardly physically different.)
I believe that you're using "gender" to mean "sexuality." Which is wrong--there's a lot more to a gender than who you want to get into the sack. Or, to use your definitons, there's a lot more to your sex than your mere physical makeup. (There _are_ real mental differences between men and women; dress a man in a dress and have him date men, and he's still a man.)
We're talking about a kind of accuracy that is inclusive and not abusive.
If the language offends someone, that's a mark against the use of the language, not a veto of it. The offensiveness has to be such that it outweighs the inaccuracy of the least inaccurate term. (For example, "negro" is unused because the perfectly accurate "black" and "african" words exist. "Queer" is unused because "gay" and "homosexual" exist.)
So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
If you veto the church and the state as sources of answers, you leave only the PACs formed for the advancement of those of abberant sexuality, and the medical community. The first is overly biased, and the second is either very divided or very geeky--and thus not a good source of new language.
Obviously, I prefer to work out the answers for myself.
As far as generic relative terms, 'unusual' definitely applies to transsexual parents, and 'fairly common' applies to semi-monogamous childless lesbians. There's a whole range, and it's analog, not digital, right? 'Aberrant' relies on binary thinking, it suggests that said behaviour is undesireable and should be suppressed, and reinforces in-groups and out-groups with a destructive power imbalance.
Let's leave the politics out of it for now, and focus on language; we can agree that accuracy in language is important, and that, as I stated above, the mere offensiveness of any word to any subset of the populace should not remove the word from the language.
"Unusual" doesn't have sufficient connotation. Plus, it exaggerates the differences. "Fairly Common" is only good as a relative measure of various abberant sexualities--it's no good to describe them all. (The "fairly common" sexuality is supposedly-monogamous heterosexuality.)
Two other possible words that just occured to me to replace abberant in "abberant sexuality" are "uncommon" and "deviant". I don't want to use "deviant" because that has a negative connotation (whereas "abberant" is more neutral, if not neutral outright.) "Uncommon" might be a good accurate and unoffensive word--thoughts?
There is no need for a term to replace 'aberrant'. It's the 21st century, get used to ambiguity.
Is that a comment for or against the use of the word "abberant" in "abberant sexuality?
In any case, accuracy in language is a good thing. Ambiguity is a sign of immaturity, ignorance, and/or self-doubt. As humans of whatever sexuality, we should strive to understand ourselves and each other--which cannot help but lead to a decrease in ambiguity over time.
So do some homework since you're obviously willing to put out some energy, it's a complex topic, and don't go looking to the church or state for answers.
Go on, defend my right to say that. Smile as you do it.
That's easy. There's no real threat, because you presumably don't know who Seth is or where he lives, and you very likely don't have a gang.
If you did have a gang, and you did know who Seth was, it would only be unprotected speach if there wasn't a context that caused the insinuated action to be a legal one. Talking about possible legal proceedings, for example...
You know, the term "aberrant" is more value-laden than you grant it.
I know. But I don't think it should be. (I also don't think that "two-spirited" people should be seen as better--or that most folk of an abberant sexuality are really "two-spirited.")
If you can think of a better term to replace "abberant", I'd love to hear it. "Different" isn't quite right--folk of such unusual sexualities are as "different" from the majority as if they were another gender altogether.
Not sure I follow your grammar here, though I'm intrigued. I was suggesting that two-spiritedness is and was a common norm with a complex set of gendered expectations well beyond the matrix you laid out--a suggestion only, since I'm getting the info from friends in that situation. In no sense was it aberrant before the arrival of Jesuits, quite the reverse.
... with polyamory
(to be clear: by "two-spirit", you're referring to a person doing the soical jobs of their own gender, as well as the other gender, correct?)
Was it normal--that is, did the majority of women do it? If not, then it's abberant. Not taboo, just aberrant.
You are confusing polyandry
Yes. But polyandry and polygamy are both subsets of polyamory. And, if we make the divisions of "formal" (i.e., their society accepts it) and "non-exclusive" (i.e., more than one regular partner at a time / at regular intervals) then I suspect that, even within cultures that allow it, it's a minority.
Genetics and human nature simply don't give the numbers for a majority of polyandrists or polyamorists. Even in the ancient middle east, only the fairly wealthy had multiple wives. (btw, can you name a polyandrous society? I can't name any, which may be simply my ignorance.)
Man, you have never lived in a small village have you!! LOL!
Neither have you, unless you've spent years and years in a hunter-gatherer society. (I didn't say "small town," did I?). I've lived in rural areas for a good portion of my life--with the automobile and telephone systems. Given these easy access to external stimuli, the historic "small town" is a lot different from today's "small town."
So, I take it you'll also accept that the label of "abberant" is a badge of honor to be worn by people who are virgins on their honeymoon.
No. Being a virgin doesn't change your sexuality. You're no more a "sexual abberant" if you're a virgin on your wedding day than if you re-marry after your spouse is dead, never have sex at all, or just never quite settle down.
Really, to think that being called "abberant" isn't offensive is nonsense, and your use of the word was blatant xenophobia.
*sigh*
1: What makes you think that I don't realize that some with abberant sexuality take offense at being called abberant? Was it my apology to them? Or maybe my use of the word "should."
2: I said "should." Not "is." I'm fully aware that some folk take offense at the word. It is my opinion that they shouldn't be offended by it anymore the they are offended by a word that until recent decades was the name of a mental illness.
3: Even if I was the sort of shallow-minded prick that you think I am, it wouldn't be "xenophobia." Transexuals, homosexuals, polyamorists, polyandrists, polygamists, bisexuals, and even monogamous heterosexuals are all part of the same species. "Bigotry" would be the word you're looking for--and I'm not, just opinionated.
While I'm ranting...
I don't give a rat's ass what you do in your bedroom, with how many adults of what ethnicity and in what positions. I am of the opinion that stable, monogamous relationships are the best sexual relationships, and the best way to raise children, but I am open to argument for a different general position and more than willing to allow for innumerable variations (especially given the commonality of nonstandard nuclear families.)
What offends me is when those of an abberant sexuality decide that they are a distinct social culture, and wear every element of their sexuality as a "badge of honor." If gay men had allowed HIV infected gay men to be quarantened, we wouldn't have the AIDS epidemic that we have now. (This subculture-rebelliousness isn't limited to homosexuals, btw. If urban blacks didn't value ignorance, they'd be better off and crime would be down. If suburban white geeks didn't think they were so superior, Columbine never would have happened.)
If I were reading this, I might think the author a bigot--so it's time to give some counter-examples. One of my good friends revealed to me that he was gay a few weeks back, and aside from a better understanding of him and a slight adjustment in humor, nothing changed. Another of my good friends is a polyamourus black man. A third is a jew who had a recent bad-breaking "polyamorous" relationship (I can attribute him with the quote "polyamory: a PC way to say 'sleeps around.'")
Anyway, in summary: Abberant is offensive, but it shouldn't be. It shouldn't be a "badge of honor", either. It's just a word--and the only think offensive about it should be that it's a reminder that the minority isn't, and almost certainly never will be, the norm.
I presume you are talking about social norms, not biological.
Either/or. My stance is actually better if we talk about biology. But, in nearly every society that I have heard of, the "norm" has specific gender roles, which include women nurturing and the men "providing," even if that provision is limited to meat and war.
"broader norms", "two spirited", et al are allowances for variation, not an absence of a norm or a major devition from the "human norm."
Polyandry [aka adultery when taboo or 'serial monogamy' as an alternate strategy]
Polyandry is not serial monogamy or adultery. Polyandry is a continuous, expanding network of lovers, theoretically with no formal bounds against those within the network and a clear line of who is in and who is out. (It's also, sadly, slightly hip at the moment, meaning that studies will irrationally find it in places it never showed up, and a lot of people who want to duck responsibility will lay false claim to it.)
I do, of course, wonder how prevalent adultery--that is, sexual liasons outside of the formal mating bond--have been in historical societies. It doesn't strike me as the sort of thing that we can ever get good data for--it's much more likely to be either marked by punnishments or ignored where it appears, and naturally ignored where it doesn't appear. (I have the suspicion that, at least historically speaking, adultery requires a mass social gathering and very much doesn't happen in hunter-gatherer societies; if a small group has members that for some reason wish to have multiple partners, they probably have a formal status for it.)
Anyway.
Fascinating how threatening this issue is to so many, it points to the tenuousness of the taboos surrounding it. All the more reason for science fiction to explore it responsibly.
If you only saw one naked woman in your entire life, and you only had sex with that one women for your entire life, the best sex of your entire life would be with that woman, and you very possibly wouldn't care to go looking elsewhere.
Despite our modern media saturation, I suspect that, historically, certain customs and deviations essentially didn't happen simply because they didn't occur to people very often. But once the idea of a deviation from the norm is learned, a person will contemplate said deviation.
(And this is at least partially bad, btw, because, as the Bhuddists say, the root of suffering is desire for things that you cannot have.)
I agree that fiction should mention the topic a bit more--but there isn't a real market for it, so it won't happen very often on a serious level. (See last season's "Cogenitor" episode of Enterprise for what happens when mass media tries it, and note the dim sales of Elfquest for what happens when an indipendant (sic) tries it.)
My answer to "is life predetermined" isn't "you're a total pussy" it's "since you can never possibly know or do anything about it
Stop. Neo can know and do something about it. That's actually the point of the whole second movie. He's the only guy in the entire Matrix who has a real choice.
Well, him and everyone else, but he's the one in a position to actually know that they're following a dance that they've danced before. Well, him and the rogue AIs.
I
Huh.
Well, that explains a bit. And makes me feel better about the whole darn movie.
"The battery bit's a concession of art to get the studio execumorons to pay for it."
Yeah, I can buy that.
7) Gender idiocy. Again, things have changed radically in just the last 10 years, what makes you scriptflakes think we're going to maintain a Cleaver family morality in perpetuity? Damn that Heinlein. See Varley, Delaney, Stephenson. Sex is between the legs, gender is between the ears, and we're figuring that out already.
Father-male-provider mother-female-nurterer (sic) has been the norm throughout humanity for thousands of years. There have been a few abberations here and there, but by and large that's how it's been.
10 years, 25 years--call be when you've had three consistent generations of a non-"cleaver" family.
'course, I think that recognizing that gender differences are more than just sexual, and adjusting civilization to better accept abberant* members is a very good thing. But I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. (Just like I don't think that atheism's domination is a foregone conclusion.)
___________________
*: Apologies to the transexuals, homosexuals, and polyandrists that are offended, but when you're going against the norm that drastically, you're "abberant." It should be no more a dirty word than "homosexual."
What is even more frustrating about that lapse of logic is that several explanations exist that would better serve the needs of the plot - like needing enslaved human minds to augment the Matrix AI.
Take this as a judgement on the film.
If the third movie confirms the "battery" idea, it's a fantasy story with a few really, really bad science bits.
If the third movie confirms the "battery" idea as a lie, or offers other explinations, then it's a nice message about the lie that is their war.
*sigh* 'course, judging from what I've seen so far, the first option will be what happens. Still, it is a fun fantasy movie...
I understood the matrix reloaded. It made me think for about 30 seconds.
30 seconds isn't enough time to understand a nursery rhyme. You judged it, resulting in probably a dismissal of the nuiances of it.
The movie was art--like a painting. There are at least three layers of meaning buried in the darn movie, with several counterbalances and bits of foreshadowing. I'm going to have to watch the whole darn thing at least twice more before I can say that I "fully understand" it.
Now, it's fine if you don't like it--there are all sorts of complex works of art that I don't like and won't spend the time to fully understand. But don't say that you "understand" it.
Especially if your answer to "is life predetermined" is "[you're] a total pussy."
I mean, if those kids can cast a spell to keep their faces dry in the rain, why can't they cast it on their whole bodies?
Obviously, because it's a face-drying spell, which only changes a small part of the body's state, and not a rain-avoidance spell, which would change the body's entire state.
From a literary standpoint, one of the fun parts about magic is that is can be very speicific. A spell that lights a candle doesn't have to work on a fireplace or a human's flesh.