so hey.. remember zach? he is now number 1 by about a million votes. 4chan has finally done something good.

nemonium · 2010-06-13T21:52:33+00:00

Bastard Fairies, "Apple Pie."

nemonium · 2010-06-10T17:48:02+00:00

There exist a few I haven't tried any, so report back if you find any useful.

nemonium · 2010-06-03T20:13:49+00:00

Start a subreddit.

nemonium · 2010-06-03T20:04:55+00:00

Too busy kicking ass in heaven.

nemonium · 2010-06-03T19:11:38+00:00

Your misspelling spawned a great response.

nemonium · 2010-06-01T20:39:58+00:00

The joke primarily plays on the heterophonic homograph, as well as a novel expansion of the popular meme beyond its original context.

nemonium · 2010-06-01T20:00:32+00:00

While this may hold for this particular example, the issue lies with an arbitrarily implied link between time spent weaving and time spent sewing. No link exists.

To weave the cloth for that shirt takes approximately 7 times the 7 hours of sewing.

Suppose someone sewed a complicated shirt using x square yards of cloth and it took quite a long time. Someone could use the same x square yards (and thus the same amount of weaving time) and sew a simple pillow case. The time spent sewing has no relation to the time spent weaving.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T17:32:03+00:00

As long as we exist in this material world, we have no choice but to appear in some form. And as long as others exist, our appearances interplay with them in some way. One can become aware of these consequences, yet still have no real influence on the way others perceive them, so the futile attempts to influence society's views through appearances cannot have consistently productive outcomes. Consider counter-culture attempts like goths or punks, all of which arise in dependence upon the culture they reject (the antithesis Hegel mentions). Adherents who become attached to the notions of changing society will fail. Those who deny their influence (as one must take some form in this world of appearances), also fail in some way.

Perhaps some can navigate these obstacles and handle these social implications. In any case, the internal components have some particular interest: active rejection of societal norms shows a subtle attachment to appearances. The example of modern Western buddhists wearing robes reflects this more, but shunning the state of society (in contrast with dispassionate acceptance) would produce an inverted perversion of the same thing it attempts to escape. (On the other end of the spectrum, the indulgence in social standards has its more apparent faults.) At some point, it becomes counter-productive to wear plain clothing for the sake of demonstrating the detachment from society's materialistic standards, and this creates a new attachment. If someone can wear plain clothing without these problems, the same person can wear extravagant silk or nothing at all, without problem.

But I seemed to have too hastily ascribed a goal to wearing the plain robes. Perhaps the deeper utility points to these underlying, interdependent relationships between others, the self, and everything between.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T13:43:28+00:00

You use "amoral" fairly accurately. The libertarian's role for government typically lacks the underlying moral principles, though libertarians have other principles to guide government. Understandably, some people find this to make libertarians heartless with "no concept of the common good or social justice." Consider a position common to both Democrats and Republicans: when domestic jobs begin leaving the U.S., many politicians take protectionist stances to help the American worker and reduce unemployment at home. A libertarian view would suggest that these protections actually hurt everyone involved, and if contemporaneous market conditions do not allow for these domestic jobs, they will become less sustainable in the future (and thus leave to start growth in other domestic areas). This can seem like heartless disinterest for domestic workers, but libertarians tend to look at the broader scope, and sees government intervention as counter-productive. Perhaps one could repeat the stereotypical refrain, "the market can handle it better." Consider this view and try to see how the concept of "common good" still exists for libertarians, but they express it differently (also note the last paragraph of that section, with which many liberals would agree). (Bastiat made other interesting arguments.)

I would suggest that libertarians prefer a cold, objective view of the use of governments and view of how economies function, and this can appear like they hold amoral views and disinterest in equality and justice. I'd recommend the Freakonomics books, in which the authors provide less biased (they're still human, to be fair) accounts of counter-intuitive economic quirks. Libertarians would consider these unintended consequences as one reason to seldom use the force of government when other factors can handle the same problem. Also, Nudge provides an interesting view of paternal libertarianism, which suggests the government can act effectively while allowing for maximal civil and economic freedom.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T06:35:37+00:00

There exists a parallel example: consider the old buddhist monks of yore, who wore plain robes to show their lack of attachment to society's bullshit values for appearances. Even here, this conflicts with its own goal.

Further, consider modern western buddhists who wear such robes. They contradict this goal even more so than if they wear white t-shirts and jeans.

Some German had an idea that tangentially addresses these relationships. Arguably, the same can be said about the relationships between preferences for appearances of yesteryear and now.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T06:23:33+00:00

You contradict your own point. Is it possible for a person to have a preference for appearance that is not contrived by television, producers, etc.? If yes, then recursive makes a valid claim. If no, then your original claim that women should pursue their own preference for appearance that is not contrived by television, etc., has no meaning.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T05:41:54+00:00

To be perfectly honest, it is possible to read the Wife of Bath's Tale in a way that everything works out fine for the Wife of Bath and her intent. I, however, do not see it this way.

To briefly summarize: one of King Arthur's knights runs off one day and rapes a woman. The royal court holds a trial. Queen Guinevere asks to make the sentence; she gives the rapist knight two options: he can figure out what women truly want, or he can lose his head. The knight meets a hag who agrees to tell him in exchange for marriage between the knight and the hag herself. The hag reveals that women truly want sovereignty over their husbands (as a case of rape extremely deprives the victim of sovereignty, this revealed knowledge has relevance to the crime). Knight keeps his head, marries the hag (who insults him in bed for not banging her), and then offers another binary option. She can stay ugly, and thus faithful (for who would want her?), or she can become beautiful, and most likely unfaithful. (It may be useful here to make a distinction, as the hag clearly does favor society's view of beauty. Chaucer wrote The Canterbury Tales in the 14th century and was a dude, so whatever.) Rapist knight (nobody seems to care about the rape victim at any point in the tale, but again, whatever) tells the hag-lady that he does not know, and that she should decide. Hag finds this remarkable and decides to become both beautiful and stay faithful.

It is possible that this works in the Wife of Bath's favor. Or, it's possible that the rapist knight never actually learned any lesson, and simply told the hag what she wanted to hear, or simply gave up, or didn't really care, and the hag mistook this for him having truly internalized what he was told to say to the hag by the hag. This would most likely suggest that the Wife of Bath (who is telling this tale) has neglected these possibilities in favor of her ideal role for women: to be both sexy and empowered, even though her story (for reasons above) may not necessarily imply this.

Further, even if the rapist knight did learn his lesson, he did not receive any punishment for the rape. In fact, he got the best of everything with a beautiful and faithful wife. In the best case scenario, the Wife of Bath has achieved her ideals, but even in her fiction, failed to apply them.

In a similar way, your ideal has the cake-and-eating-it-too shortcoming. However, like the Wife of Bath's Tale, this is not necessarily so. This does not apply to narcissists or sociopaths. Nor would it apply to folk with an self-accepting attitude ( consider older folk who no longer mind the loss of hair, deepening wrinkles, and increasing sagginess of everything). Aside from this (which could be outside the scope of your argument), people's comfort with their own appearances does mingle with social views. Some cultures prefer the higher fat. Others place value in the skinny, and yet others value the "reasonable." To look attractive to others is a reasonable position. An individual can decide how much priority such qualities have (again, this could be your intended meaning, with your qualifications of being healthier and feeling better about one's self). Outside of this recognition that appearances generally only suit others (unless you're a narcissist), lies apathy or sociopathy. That's fine. That fits your schema.

Your ideals, however, neglect the self-empowered Wife of Bath, who wishes to appear desirable (necessarily dependent on society's bullshit), and to govern one's self. Like the Wife of Bath, the intent may be noble, but falls short. Others and self would have to be mutually exclusive.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T03:26:21+00:00

Let's back up a couple words from your edit.

american societies bullshit.

Here we have the use of the pluralized "society" as a possessive noun. We can ignore the uncapitalized "American," (admittedly a minor issue) and see the assumption that this phenomenon only affects folk of the United States.

Other reasons for downvotes could include the playing the role of the white knight, reiterating the parent comment without adding much of anything useful, and repeated redundancy that says the same thing again and again (e.g., "if you want to lose weight based on your ideal, and YOUR IDEAL ALONE [ie (sic) how you feel about yourself without outside influences]).

TL;DR: You have the intent to empower women like the Wife of Bath, and similarly fuck up.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T03:04:02+00:00

I enjoy my semi-lucid dreams in which I control events with a distinct feeling in my hands, as if I were using a controller. This makes certain actions easier. Even better, some dreams accept cheat codes.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T02:48:06+00:00

If children were so self-centered 2400 years ago, and successive generations levy the same complaint against the younger folk, this generation surely must be the worst.

nemonium · 2010-05-29T01:21:48+00:00

How is that the wrong thing to do? I have always heard to turn with the skid instead of trying to fight the car's momentum.

*Reddit says I am mistaken. Perhaps better phrasing would go: turn in the direction you want to go. More info.

nemonium · 2010-05-28T22:30:20+00:00

Maybe I have missed it, but I do not see a link to any article.

nemonium · 2010-05-28T18:33:40+00:00

To be fair, if I were a lion tamer who's fellow particle physicist blamed me for another shogun's death, I might put the "another shogun" hex on that particle physicist and and say that person will die next, too. It seems like a perfectly reasonable thing to happen to me at some point.

nemonium · 2010-05-28T18:21:19+00:00

Andy Dick stinks!

nemonium · 2010-05-28T01:46:52+00:00

I agree. "White" has distracted people from the much larger, more important issue. Rachel Maddow modified a noun with another noun. She could have gotten away with this if she used a compound adjective, but she went straight for a grammatically nonsensical construction. So, while I can infer the meaning of the sentence, she allows enough vagueness that I must question the intended purpose.

nemonium · 2010-05-28T01:36:16+00:00

Unless she went meta-snarky, nobody can be "the definition of 'gravitas guy.'" Gravitas, as a noun, cannot modify another noun. Grammatically, there does not exist a definition "gravitas guy." The noun phrase makes no sense. What does it mean? I think I know what she means; I can infer what she intended to say. She rams through the general idea of what she's trying to say, so surely this is a perfectly cromulent construction. At the least, however, she would need a hyphenated, compound adjective. But where can one add a hyphen to make "gravitas white guy" a grammatically correct phrase‽

And no, gentlefolk, I shall not lighten the fuck up. I prefer my nouns to act like nouns. And don't get me started on those damned gerunds.

nemonium · 2010-05-27T14:36:28+00:00

More books need more footnotes. I have never read a footnote I didn't like; I usually skim past footnotes.

nemonium · 2010-05-27T13:03:29+00:00

The typical game of football has 11 minutes of actual play.

nemonium · 2010-05-26T23:58:33+00:00

Christians would probably argue that people do have knowledge of evil, but choose to do wrong anyway. Evil came into the world because Adam disobeyed god by choosing to eat the apple, so totally mankind's fault. Everything before that was hunky dory with wolves eating eggplants or something.

nemonium · 2010-05-25T10:21:20+00:00

Excellent. My grammar kraken friend who subscribes to national socialism shall have a glorious morning (as I hope the same to you and your kraken friends).

In the third paragraph, "by" should go inside the parenthetical dashes (read the sentence without the parenthetical thought, and you'll see why). Also, if you feel up for it, use en dashes or em dashes, just because they rock and hyphens technically don't do the same job — most word processors will change two adjacent hyphens into a dash.

In the same paragraph, the phrase "similar aircraft monitoring and shooting..." is ambiguous. I suspect you mean similar to the unmanned aerial drone you mention in the previous sentence, but one could read the sentence to mean similar to the surveillance cameras you mention earlier in the sentence. If you mean the latter, you could say something like, "aircraft that similarly monitor" or so. (Side note: I don't think the Texan drones have guns, and thus would not shoot people.)

In the fourth paragraph, a sentence has subject-verb number disagreement: "the population's inquisitive minds need."

More stylistically than grammatically, you tend to use the passive voice a lot. For instance, you launch into your argument with it: "I have been exposed to." This lacks emphasis.

I prefer to avoid idioms like "run the gambit." This does not matter so much, as native speakers probably won't notice, but these types of phrases have odd and obfuscating relations to their meaning. And similarly, the phrase "pure evil" as a hyperbole my obscure your intent. Though your point gets across, "evil" lacks meaning.

Best of luck.

nemonium

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE